Telepeer

Laura Bassett, Senate District 38 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Laura Bassett

Age: 59

Current job title: Small Business Owner

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: San Diego County Civil Service Commissioner; San Diego Republican Central Committee

City where you reside: Oceanside

Campaign website or social media: bassettforca.com

Fuel costs for Californians are higher than anywhere else in the country. What specific policy would you support to ease the burden drivers feel at the pump? And how would you measure whether that policy was actually successful? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

California drivers pay the highest fuel prices in the country, and a large share of that comes from state taxes, fees, and regulatory mandates that other states do not impose. I would stop any further increases to the gas tax and push to reassess the regulations and hidden costs built into every gallon, including the low carbon fuel standard adjustments that quietly raise prices at the pump. Families should not be squeezed further just to get to work and take their kids to school.

I would measure success in plain terms. First, the gap between California’s average gas price and the national average. If our policies are working, that gap should shrink rather than grow. Second, whether prices hold steady instead of spiking after refinery and supply decisions. Third, whether real household transportation costs come down for working families in our district.

Relief at the pump is not complicated. It takes the honesty to admit that Sacramento’s own choices are a major driver of what Californians pay, and the discipline to stop adding to that burden.

How can state lawmakers ease barriers for those wishing to become homeowners and unburden renters with high rental costs, or is this an issue beyond the scope of Sacramento? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

For years, the state has made the problem worse. The core issue is supply. We do not have enough homes for the people who already live here, and that shortage drives up prices for buyers and rents for everyone else.

The fastest way to ease the burden is to make it easier and cheaper to build. That means streamlining permitting, cutting the fees layered onto every new unit, and reducing the regulatory delays that stretch projects out for years and add tens of thousands of dollars to the final cost. Those costs get passed straight to homebuyers and renters.

I trust local governments over top-down state mandates. Cities and counties understand their own infrastructure, traffic, and growth capacity far better than Sacramento does. The state’s role is to remove obstacles and reward communities that build, not to dictate one-size-fits-all rules from the Capitol.

When supply rises to meet demand, prices stabilize. That is how we make homeownership reachable again and give renters relief instead of another program that never reaches them.

Elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place as part of combating homelessness, but California has more people living on the street than any other state. How would you work with colleagues in Sacramento to get people off the streets and into stable housing situations? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Prevention matters, and the surest prevention is more housing, but people already living on the street need a different response. I would work with colleagues to pair accountability with real pathways into treatment and stable housing.

Proposition 36 is central to this. Voters approved it overwhelmingly, and it gives people struggling with addiction a path toward treatment instead of a revolving door on the sidewalk. Sacramento has failed to fund the behavioral health and substance abuse treatment that make the measure work. I would fight to fund it properly and tie that money to clear results, not just spending.

Housing has to come with services for those who need them, including mental health and addiction care. A shelter bed alone does not solve chronic homelessness. I would also insist on accountability for the billions California has already spent with little to show for it, so dollars actually reach people on the street rather than programs that never deliver.

Getting people into stable situations takes both compassion and honesty. We help people recover and rebuild, and we stop accepting street encampments as normal.

California has the highest grocery prices of any mainland state in the U.S. What’s one specific policy Sacramento could support to bring down food prices for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Food gets more expensive at every step when the state piles costs onto the people who grow, move, and sell it. The one policy I would push is to bring down the energy and fuel costs that run through the entire food supply chain, starting with stopping further gas tax increases and reassessing the fuel regulations that make diesel and electricity more expensive here than anywhere else.

Every truck that hauls produce, every refrigerated warehouse, and every farm runs on fuel and power. When California drives those costs up, the price shows up on the grocery shelf. Lowering them is direct relief that reaches families through the checkout line.

I would also protect farmers and food producers from new fees and regulatory burdens that get passed straight to consumers, and I would reform the water policies that raise costs for California agriculture. We grow an enormous share of the nation’s food. There is no reason Californians should pay the highest grocery prices on the mainland for food grown in our own state. Lower the input costs, and prices at the store follow.

California’s budget approved by officials this summer included $300 million to offset healthcare costs expected with the expiration of federal subsidies. Do you support this effort by state lawmakers? Also, what would you do to protect Californians’ access to healthcare in light of federal changes that have restricted benefits to various groups? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I have serious concerns about committing new money like this while California faces a large and growing budget shortfall. Before the state backfills expiring federal subsidies, we need an honest look at whether existing healthcare dollars are being spent efficiently and whether this commitment is sustainable next year and the year after. Too often Sacramento starts a program without a plan to pay for it, then asks taxpayers to cover the gap.

Protecting access does not have to mean endless new spending. I would push for real pricing transparency so patients know what they are being charged before they receive care, protect patients’ ability to keep their own doctor rather than being forced into narrow networks, and support the community clinics so many families rely on.

Where federal changes leave people without coverage, the answer is to make care more affordable and more competitive, not simply to grow state programs the budget cannot sustain. A patient-centered system built on transparency and choice does more to protect access over the long run than a one-time appropriation that may not be there when the next shortfall hits.

California’s high-speed rail project has been beset by delays, ballooning costs and federal funding cuts. Should the state continue with this project? Why or why not? If you support moving forward with the project, how do you propose the state pay for it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

No. California should stop pouring money into high-speed rail. The project has become the clearest example of everything wrong with how Sacramento spends. It is years behind schedule, tens of billions over its original budget, and still nowhere near delivering the statewide system voters were promised in 2008. Now federal funding has been pulled, leaving state taxpayers to shoulder even more.

Continuing to fund a project this far off course is not a commitment to progress. It is a refusal to admit failure. The honest step is to stop the bleeding and redirect those dollars to infrastructure Californians actually need and would use, including water storage, road and highway repair, and local transportation projects that deliver results in years rather than decades.

I came into this race saying the state has to reform or end projects that are over budget, delayed, and failing to deliver. High-speed rail fails on all three. Every dollar we keep sending to it is a dollar not spent on the water, roads, and public safety our communities need now.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that California remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

California should stay a leader in technology. But the communities who live next to these data centers deserve a real say, and right now they often feel steamrolled. I do not believe Sacramento should hand the tech industry a blank check or override local communities to force these projects through.

Land use decisions like these belong primarily to cities and counties, who know their own water supply, power capacity, and neighborhoods. The state’s role is to set clear standards, not to dictate outcomes. Where a data center wants to locate, it should have to account honestly for its water and energy use, address noise for nearby homes, and avoid taking productive agricultural land off the map. The right balance requires developers to bring real solutions on water, energy, and noise, and it requires the state to respect the communities that have to live with what gets built.

Do you support Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire’s tax that would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of more than $1 billion? Revenues from the tax would primarily go to fund healthcare-related programs, including Medi-Cal, though a small portion would also be used to fund food assistance and education-related programs. Explain why you do or do not support this measure. If you don’t, what alternative solution do you propose so that the state has money to pay for the types of services this tax is intended to fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I do not support Proposition 40. California does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem, and a new tax aimed at a small group today has a way of expanding to everyone tomorrow. Wealthy residents and the businesses they run are already leaving the state, taking jobs and future revenue with them. Chasing more of them out to fund ongoing programs is not a plan; it is a temporary patch on a structural problem.

The services this tax is meant to fund, including Medi-Cal, food assistance, and education, matter. That is exactly why they deserve a stable funding source, not revenue from a one-time levy that could vanish the moment a billionaire changes their address.

The alternative is the harder work Sacramento keeps avoiding. Audit and reform the programs that are over budget or failing to deliver, end projects like high-speed rail that waste billions, and grow the economy so revenue rises naturally as more people work and more businesses succeed. A larger, healthier economy funds Medi-Cal and schools far more reliably than punishing the people we are counting on to invest here.

The state has ambitious goals to transition away from heavy reliance on fossil fuel. Meanwhile, oil refineries in California that shut down in the past year said they did so in part because of the state’s costly regulatory requirements and decreasing consumer demand for traditional gasoline. But the closure of these refineries have drivers concerned about the price of gas going up – especially at a time when affordability remains the No. 1 concern for many Californians. How would you balance the state’s clean energy goals with desires to prevent Californians from further pain at the pump? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

The refinery closures should be a wake-up call. When facilities that supply a large share of California’s fuel decide it is no longer worth operating here, that is a direct warning that our own regulations and uncertainty are driving supply down and prices up. Blaming the producers, as Sacramento tends to do, will not put a single gallon back on the market.

I support a cleaner energy future, but it cannot be built on the backs of working families who still have to fill their tanks today. The transition has to be honest about timing. As long as Californians depend on gasoline, we need enough in-state refining capacity to keep supply stable and prices from spiking.

That means reassessing the mandates and costs pushing refiners out, giving energy producers enough stability to keep operating, and being truthful about how state policy affects the price at the pump. We can pursue environmental goals and protect affordability at the same time, but only if we stop pretending the two are unrelated. Reliable supply is what protects consumers. Losing it is what leaves them stranded.

Similarly, the Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Explain why you do or do not support this move. If not, do you believe California state leaders have the legal authority to stop or restrict it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I support producing more energy here in California, and not just oil. Technology has advanced to the point where we have more options than ever, from oil to solar and wind, and we should be pursuing all of them. The goal is an abundant, reliable, and affordable supply, and right now California is falling short. Costs are up, families are stretched, and much of that comes from a state that restricts production instead of encouraging it.

We should produce energy where it makes sense and hold it to the highest standards. California is one of the safest places in the world to produce energy, both environmentally and technologically. When we push production out of our state, it does not disappear. It moves somewhere with weaker protections, and Californians end up paying more while the environment gains nothing.

I would rather we lead. That means using our workforce, our standards, and new technology to produce more of our own energy, bring costs down for working families, and keep the strong environmental protections that come with doing it right here at home.

A law signed in 2024 establishes statewide standards for new, large warehouses in California, including distance buffers separating warehouses from schools, homes and other so-called “sensitive receptors.” Do you support Sacramento having a role in local land-use decisions when it comes to logistics? Why or why not? Is there anything else state government should do when it comes to regulating warehouses? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I am cautious about Sacramento inserting itself into local land use decisions, and logistics is no exception. Cities and counties understand their own roads, neighborhoods, and where warehouses do and do not belong far better than the Capitol does. My instinct is to keep those decisions local and accountable to the people who actually live with the results.

That said, protecting children at school and families at home from concentrated truck traffic and pollution is a legitimate concern, and I understand why the 2024 buffer standards were written. The problem with statewide rules is that they rarely fit every community. A buffer that makes sense in a dense urban corridor may make no sense in a rural area, and one-size-fits-all mandates can block responsible projects a community actually wants.

I would rather the state set broad guardrails on genuine health and safety, then trust local governments to apply them in ways that fit their communities. Where the state does act on warehouses, the focus should be on real impacts like air quality and truck routing near homes and schools, not micromanaging local zoning from Sacramento.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Not necessarily one particular issue, but an overall shift in what good governance looks like. I used to be pretty dogmatic on most issues, but have learned to stop and listen to both sides and appreciate common-sense input before making a decision.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

“How To Listen So People Will Talk” by Becky Harling. This book is compelling because it causes one to take an honest look at their relationships through the lens of listening. It emphasizes the need for us to listen more and try to understand the needs of others versus feeling the need to always explain our motivations despite what serves others.

Orange County Register

Endorsement: Giovanni Chavez for Santa Ana’s Ward 6

October 5, 2026

In Santa Ana’s Ward 6 open seat, two left–of-center candidates with local government involvement have emerged. Of the races for council, this was our hardest call to make.

Giovanni Chavez, a lawyer who serves on the city’s Rental Housing Board, rightly scorches city hall for repeating a pattern of failing to resolve structural budget deficits while continuously extending temporary tax measures. On Measure N, which would permanently lock in the city’s 1.5% sales tax increase, Chavez notes he “will respect the voters’ decision … but I will personally be voting no out of principle.”

On economic policy, Chavez understands that sustainable growth—not endless taxation—is the key to funding public services. He points out that neighborhood small businesses are struggling under red tape. He favors streamlined permitting and targeted support over expanded bureaucracy, explicitly rejecting the return of redevelopment agencies as corruption-prone tools of the past.

His opponent, Planning Commissioner Isuri S. Ramos, cited housing affordability, environmental justice and community investment as her top priorities. On Measure N, she takes a cautious line, stating that residents “deserve a clear, honest accounting before being asked to make a temporary tax permanent.” Yet her broader platform leans heavily on traditional tax-and-spend mechanisms, including support for reviving redevelopment agencies (with guardrails) to fulfill housing mandates and find “new streams of revenue.”

On housing, there are indeed many similarities in their approaches, with their differences on redevelopment agencies being their biggest point of distinction.

Ramos advocates for strict inclusionary housing mandates, rent controls, and an emphasis specifically on “affordable housing,” which is just government-ese for subsidized housing. To get out of the housing crisis, the answer must be “all-of-the-above,” with market-rate housing key to getting more housing built and a more stable housing market.

To be sure, Chavez, who sits on the city’s Rental Housing Board, recognizes the limits of these mandates, and isn’t totally opposed to government intervention in housing. He, too, calls for more “affordable housing,” backs ”renter protections,” and thinks the city should “provide rental assistance for our residents.”

Public safety highlights another split in perspective. Chavez focuses on police resources, noting that Santa Ana’s department needs modern technology to combat evolving crimes, while arguing that “blaming the police union for failures at city hall is how council members escape their own responsibility.” Ramos approaches public safety through an oversight lens, demanding transparent reporting on response times and raising valid warnings about privacy violations surrounding the city’s FLOCK license-plate surveillance system. Here, we favor the inclinations of Ramos.

Their thoughts on how the city can attract and retain employment opportunities illuminate some more of their thinking.

“Santa Ana has made inroads in building new businesses and economic activity, particularly on Bristol St. and Downtown Santa Ana,” explained Chavez. However, when I speak to small businesses, many of them are hurting. We need to help businesses with public relations support, streamline permitting, more help in grants, and providing safer streets. We need to help our residents obtain jobs by hosting more job fairs and building economic development with good-paying jobs.”

“Streamlining permitting and inspection timelines allows business owners to have predictability when they’re trying to open, expand, or improve a space,” explained Ramos. “Economic development has to work for all of us. That means prioritizing local hiring, so the jobs created in Santa Ana go to Santa Ana residents, and it means requiring new development to include the affordable housing that allows workers to live near where they work.”

Both candidates have interventionist inclinations mixed in with some good pro-business instincts.

We also consider their backers to get a sense of the political coalitions they’re drawing from. Ramos’ strong endorsement from the OC Democratic Socialists of America signals that she is the further left candidate in the race. Chavez’s backing from moderate Democrats like Rep. Lou Correa and Councilmembers David Penaloza and Phil Bacerra, along with Buena Park Mayor and Supervisor candidate Connor Traut assuage our concerns about his endorsement from UNITE HERE Local 11.

We endorse Giovanni Chavez for Ward 6. His direct opposition to Measure N, strong opposition to redevelopment agencies and broader political appeal give him the edge.

Orange County Register

Republican Sen. Tillis calls his vote for Hegseth the ‘biggest regret of my career’ in a new book

October 5, 2026

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Thom Tillis says in a new book that his deciding vote to confirm Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in January 2025 is the “biggest regret of my career” and that he also “should’ve stopped” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from becoming Health and Human Services secretary in the early days of President Donald Trump’s second term.

In “How to Lose Friends and Antagonize Presidents,” to be published Tuesday, the North Carolina senator defends his decision at the time to not be “the lone voice in the wilderness” preventing Trump’s nominees from confirmation. But he makes clear he was always skeptical about allegations about Hegseth’s turbulent management style, treatment of women and excessive drinking — all of which Hegseth denied.

“I know for a fact that there are others like me,” Tillis writes, “Republicans who agreed to go along with the early demands of the Trump team no matter how ridiculous they were, believing that failing to do so would mean the end of their political career, and who now see that things have gone way too far.”

He writes that he can count at least 30 of his GOP colleagues who have “expressed reservations (to put it mildly) about many of the president’s actions in private. Then, when the reporters showed up with their cameras and microphones, they’d have nothing but nice things to say.”

Tillis, who announced last year that he would not run for reelection in a “breaking point” with the president on his sweeping tax and spending cuts package, is publishing the book in his final months in office. He joins a long list of Republicans who have ratcheted up their public denunciations of Trump once they had less to lose politically.

Still, Tillis mostly deflects full blame from Trump, saying, “my beef is not with him, but the idiots he’s got working for him.” He calls the president “an amazing political talent.”

At the same time, he warns of a slippery slope toward authoritarianism and urges his colleagues to “wake up” and push back on Trump more often, for their own political good. Executive overreach, he says, doesn’t work and sooner or later, “comes back to bite the majority party in the ass.”

Tillis also predicts a “bloodbath” for Republicans in November’s midterm elections.

“All along, we’ve had multiple chances to get off the path and avoid the giant bronze monster chasing us down,” he writes.

Regrets his votes for Hegseth and Kennedy

The book is filled with cuss words and condemnations. He criticizes Trump’s tariffs, the aggressive immigration raids that Tillis says were an effort to “intentionally sow disorder” and the Iran war, which he initially supported. He said the war can only end with a coalition of willing nations and if Trump gets “Pete Hegseth the hell out of the way.”

Tillis pushed Hegseth’s confirmation vote late into the evening on Jan. 24, 2025, as he weighed his decision, talking to the White House, people who had worked with Hegseth and Hegseth himself. In the end, he said he couldn’t corroborate the worst allegations and would support Hegseth’s confirmation. His vote brought the total to 50-50, and Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.

On his vote for Kennedy, Tillis writes that “I guess it’s easy to say now, but I’m the one who has to live with that vote and all the havoc Kennedy’s tenure has caused the country as a result.”

On both votes, he says he didn’t want to be the deciding factor.

“I had no intention of letting my colleagues outsource their courage to me while they pretended to go along with the questionable nomination President Trump had put forward,” he writes.

If you oppose Trump on everything, “you lose all influence,” Tillis says. “If you oppose him and lose, you are in even worse shape.”

He strongly criticizes several of Trump’s other initial picks for the Cabinet in the book, including former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Tillis describes his ‘breaking point’ over the tax bill

Tillis’s surprise announcement in June 2025 that he wouldn’t be running for reelection came as he escalated criticism against Trump and his “ Big Beautiful Bill ” of tax and spending cuts. Trump attacked Tillis on social media after the senator said he couldn’t support the bill’s cuts to Medicaid. Tillis says he thought to himself, “I’m done.”

“Everyone reaches a breaking point,” he writes.

He texted the president asking him to look for his replacement in the Senate, to which Trump replied “I am! DJT.”

In May 2026, Trump again attacked Tillis, calling him a “QUITTER!” on social media, among other insults.

Tillis ends the book with a profanity-laced text he sent to the president in response.

“I care if you fail and right now we are failing,” Tillis wrote to Trump.

Orange County Register

Mitch Clemmons, CA-41 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Mitch Clemmons

Age: 54

Current job title: Plumbing contractor

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Ex-officio, state senate district 30

City where you reside: Santa Monica

Campaign website or social media: electmitchclemmons.com

What is the single most important issue this district faces, and what can Congress, realistically, do to address it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

The single most important issue in this district is that working families cannot keep up with the cost of living. Housing, groceries, insurance, energy, and health care keep rising faster than paychecks in Whittier, Downey, La Habra, Los Alamitos, and the rest of the district. People who work hard should be able to stay here, raise kids here, and build a small business here. Too many cannot.

Congress cannot run California’s housing or school systems. It can stop making the problem worse. First, stop spending money we do not have. Reckless federal deficits fuel inflation that hits rent, food, and fuel first. Second, audit and cut waste and fraud in federal programs so dollars go to results, not bureaucracies. Third, get federal agencies out of the way of energy production and housing construction. Permitting delays and rules that block supply raise prices for everyone. Fourth, defend parents’ rights and school choice so families are not trapped paying twice—once in taxes and again for a school that does not serve their child.

I fix leaks for a living. Washington should fix the leak in the budget and get out of the way of people who work.

Housing is increasingly unaffordable and remains top of mind for many Californians. What is one federal policy you’d push to make housing more affordable? How would you measure whether that policy was actually successful? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

One federal policy I would push is real permitting reform for housing and the infrastructure that makes housing livable—roads, water, power, and sewer. Federal environmental review and overlapping agency rules add years and millions of dollars before a single unit is built. That cost is passed to renters and first-time buyers in Whittier, Downey, La Habra, and Los Alamitos.

Congress should set hard deadlines for NEPA and related reviews on housing and related infrastructure, require one lead agency instead of a pile of vetoes, and tie HUD and transportation dollars to cities that actually approve housing instead of blocking it. I would also demand audits of federal housing and homelessness programs so money builds units, not paperwork and fraud.

Success is measurable. Track median time from application to permit on federally touched projects. Count net new units completed, not press releases. Watch rent and home-price growth against local wages. Watch vacancy rates and how many working families can stay in the district instead of leaving. If review times drop, units rise, and a plumber’s family can still afford a roof, the policy is working. If not, change it. I measure work by whether the leak is fixed, not by how many meetings we held.

Concerns about the use of surveillance technology have intensified recently, often relating to license plate readers made by Flock Safety. How can Congress balance the use of these technologies in public safety cases while limiting infringement on an individual’s right to privacy? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Police should have tools that catch killers, car thieves, and child predators. They should not have a permanent file on every family driving to church or work. License-plate readers can help solve serious crimes when they are used with limits. Congress’s job is to set those limits, not to ban the technology or to let it become a tracking grid.

I would require a warrant or a specific, time-limited investigative purpose before historical plate data can be searched. Cap how long data can be kept unless it is tied to an active case. Ban selling or sharing the data with private vendors, advertisers, or agencies that have no criminal-justice role. Require public reporting: who accessed the system, why, and what cases it actually closed. Protect churches, clinics, and political gatherings from being mapped as a matter of course.

Local departments should decide whether to use the cameras. Washington should not mandate them and should not fund systems that ignore these rules. Success is simple: more violent and property crimes solved, fewer innocent people treated like suspects. I believe in law and order and in the Fourth Amendment. Both can be true if we treat surveillance like a tool, not a habit

What should immigration policy in the U.S. look like five years from now? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Five years from now, immigration should be lawful, orderly, and compassionate where compassion is earned. Secure the border. End catch-and-release. Process asylum quickly, away from the border. Remove criminals and recent illegal crossers. Require E-Verify so employers cannot undercut wages. Track visa overstays. Legal immigration should serve American workers and families, not cartels and chaos.

That is not the same as punishing people who were brought here as children and have only known life in the United States. Deporting them to a country they do not remember is not justice, and it is not common sense. I have said that many times, and I mean it. Adults who broke the law are responsible for their choices. Kids who grew up here, stayed out of serious trouble, work, and want to stay should have a narrow, earned path that does not become a magnet for new illegal entries.

Compassion without a border is chaos. A border without mercy for children raised here is cruel. Measure success by crossings down, cases decided on time, criminal removals up, and childhood arrivals who play by the rules able to stay and work in the only country they know.

A plumber’s standard: fix the leak, do not punish the kid who did not cause it.

Would you like to see any changes to Medicare, Medicaid or prescription drug policies? What specifically would you change, cut or fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Seniors earned Medicare. I would not cut the promise they paid into. I would cut waste, fraud, and middlemen that drain the program and raise drug prices for everyone.

Medicare and Medicaid should pay for care, not for billing schemes and contractors that cannot survive an audit. Congress should require real-time fraud detection, claw back improper payments, and publish what hospitals, insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers actually charge. Pharmacy benefit managers should not be allowed to hide rebates and steer patients to higher-cost drugs. Price transparency should be the rule, not a press release.

I would protect Medicare for seniors and disabled Americans, and I would tighten Medicaid so it serves the poor, the disabled, and families in real need instead of becoming an open-ended slush fund. Able-bodied adults who can work should be expected to work or train as a condition of long-term benefits. That is fairness to taxpayers and to patients who cannot wait.

Fund what works: primary care, chronic-disease management, and rural and community clinics that keep people out of the emergency room. Cut what does not: duplicate programs, sloppy eligibility, and drug-pricing games. Measure success by lower out-of-pocket drug costs, fewer improper payments, and seniors who can see a doctor without going broke.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

America should lead in computing and AI. That does not mean a data center gets to drain a town’s water, spike electric rates, roar all night, and pave over farmland because a company wants cheap land.

Siting is a local decision. Congress should not force these plants onto neighborhoods that do not want them. Federal policy should do two things at once: expand reliable power so innovation does not steal electricity from homes, and require honesty about costs. Data centers should pay for the new generation, transmission, and water they use instead of shifting the bill onto families in Whittier, Downey, La Habra, or Los Alamitos. Noise, lighting, and setbacks belong in local permits, with real enforcement.

I support nuclear, natural gas, and grid upgrades so we make more energy instead of rationing it. I also support protecting working farmland. Cloud computing is valuable. So is a quiet street and a well that still works.

Measure success by new generating capacity online, stable household rates, water use disclosed and paid for, and projects built where communities accept them—not by counting press releases about “AI leadership” while residents lose sleep. Lead in technology. Do not make working families subsidize it.

There is growing debate about whether political candidates or committees should be allowed to run ads created with the use of artificial intelligence. Recently, we’ve seen videos or images depicting a candidate’s political opponent in disparaging ways – and which some critics say falsely misrepresent their political rival. In your opinion, should there be a strict ban on AI-generated political content? If AI-generated content is permitted, should there be restrictions on its use? What should the terms be, if any? Explain your position. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

No. There should not be a strict ban on all AI-generated political content. Candidates already use tools to write, edit photos, and design ads. Banning the tool is a speech ban dressed up as consumer protection. The First Amendment does not expire because the software got better.

There should be clear limits on deception. It should be unlawful to publish a video or audio clip that makes a real person appear to say or do something they did not say or do, when the point is to fool voters. That is fraud, not commentary. Parody and obvious satire are different from a fake “gotcha” clip designed to look real.

If AI is used in an ad, say so. A simple, readable disclosure is enough. Do not create a speech police at the FEC that decides which jokes are allowed. Apply the same rule to parties, PACs, unions, and independent groups. Enforce it after the fact with real penalties, not a pre-clearance board that sits on ads until Election Day.

I care about election integrity. Fake video of an opponent is a lie. A cartoon, a chart, or an AI voice that is labeled is not the same thing. Ban the impersonation. Do not ban the tool. Voters can handle a disclaimer. They cannot handle a forged reality.

How should the U.S. balance support for foreign allies with concerns about the country’s spending and the risk of entering “forever wars”? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

America should be strong, not endlessly at war and not endlessly writing blank checks. Allies matter. So does the family in this district that cannot afford rent because Washington spends without limits.

Support for friends should be earned and focused. Help partners who fight for themselves, share intelligence, and buy American equipment. Do not send troops into open-ended nation-building. If a conflict has no defined goal, we should not be in it.

Europe, Asia, and the Middle East can carry more of their own defense. That is not isolation. It is adulthood. A strong Navy, nuclear deterrent, and industrial base keep the peace better than another decade of vague commitments we cannot pay for.

Measure success by fewer open-ended deployments, allies meeting their own defense pledges, a military ready for real threats, and a budget that stops treating foreign aid and endless operations as untouchable while we audit waste at home. I will stand with friends. I will not mortgage working families for wars without a finish line. Peace through strength. Not peace through bankruptcy.

The Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Do you support this move? Why or why not? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Yes. I support more American energy production, including responsible offshore development off California, because families here are paying too much for fuel, electricity, and everything those costs touch.California uses oil and gas every day. Pretending otherwise just means we import it from countries that drill with weaker rules and ship it past our coast anyway. That is not environmental protection. That is outsourcing.

Congress should require modern safety standards, real spill response, and honest environmental review with deadlines—not a veto that lasts a decade. Use existing platforms and infrastructure where we can instead of scattering new scars. Local communities and the state should have a voice on siting. They should not have a permanent ban that keeps prices high while we buy from OPEC.

Measure success by lower household energy bills, more domestic supply, fewer imports, and a safety record that is public and enforced. I am a plumber. I believe in doing the job right, not in shutting off the valve and hoping the bill disappears. Affordable energy is a working-family issue. We should produce it here, under our laws, instead of lecturing people who still have to drive to work.

The polarization of politics in this country has only grown. If you’re the incumbent of this office, what’s an example of you bucking that trend and cooperating with colleagues you may have political or ideological differences with? And if you’re running to step into this office for the first time, what’s an issue you will work on with those across the aisle to tackle? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I am running for this seat, not holding it. I will work with anyone—Republican or Democrat—who will cut waste and make life cheaper for working families.

The first place I would look for common ground is fraud and improper payments in federal programs. That is not left or right. That is stolen money. Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, housing, and disaster funds all leak. A plumber does not care which party holds the wrench if the pipe is dripping. Publish the audits. Claw the money back. Use the savings to lower pressure on seniors and taxpayers.

I would also work across the aisle on fentanyl and child trafficking at the border, and on permitting reform so housing and energy can actually get built. Parents who want to know what is in their child’s classroom should not need a party label.

I have spent 25 years fixing problems for customers who vote every which way. They do not ask my politics when the water heater is out. Congress should do the same. Measure cooperation by bills that pass, dollars recovered, and prices that stop climbing—not by how many statements we issue about “unity.” If it helps this district stay affordable and safe, I will work with the person across the aisle.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I used to think the only honest answer on illegal immigration was simple: if you are here unlawfully, you leave. The law is the law. I still believe the border has to be enforced and that adults who cross now should not get a reward.

What changed is meeting people who were carried here as children. They did not choose the trip. They grew up in our schools, work here, speak English, and know no other home. Sending them to a country they cannot remember is not the same as stopping a cartel crossing. Customers and neighbors in this trade taught me the difference. Some of the best workers I have known fit that story.

So I tightened the principle instead of throwing it out. Secure the border. Remove criminals. No new magnet for illegal entry. And give a narrow, earned path to people brought here as kids who stayed out of serious trouble and built a life. The law should be firm. It should also be just. When a rule punishes the wrong person, you fix the rule.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

The best book I have read this year is Gad Saad’s work on suicidal empathy. It is compelling because it names a habit I see in politics every day: treating every feeling as a moral command, even when the policy that follows hurts the people you claim to help. Saad’s point is not “have no heart.” It is that compassion without judgment becomes a weapon. Open-ended empathy at the border, in spending, and in crime policy can destroy the very communities that are trying to be decent. That matched what I already believed as a small-business owner: You can care about a person in front of you and still say a rule has to hold, or the whole shop fails. It also sharpened how I talk about kids brought here as children. Real compassion looks at the actual person and the actual consequence. Performative compassion looks at a slogan. I want the first kind. The book is useful because it is blunt, readable, and hard to wriggle out of. In a year of political noise, that is rare.

Orange County Register

Ken Calvert, CA-40 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Ken Calvert

Age: 73

Current job title: Congressman

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: Yes

Other political positions held: N/A

City where you reside: Corona

Campaign website or social media: calvertforcongress.com

What is the single most important issue this district faces, and what can Congress, realistically, do to address it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

The biggest challenge people are facing right now is affordability. People are working hard, but their paycheck is being stretched thinner by the rising cost of housing, groceries, gas and electricity.

That’s why I supported and was proud to pass into law the largest tax cut in American history, which made the working families tax cuts permanent and delivered new relief for families, seniors and small businesses across our district. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates the law saved the average California taxpayer $4,296 this year, which is a huge savings for families. It’s also why I’ve fought policies from radicals, like Gavin Newsom, that have increased costs by reducing domestic energy production and increasing regulations that stifle small businesses and economic growth.

In short, the most important issue I am working on is supporting policies to make California more affordable so families can keep more of what they earn, businesses can grow and employees can earn more, and our kids can afford to build a future here instead of being driven out of state.

I grew up in Riverside County, and it’s crazy to see how expensive housing has become, especially for young families who simply want the same opportunity to own a home that generations before them had.

One of the biggest drivers of California’s housing crisis is that we don’t build enough housing. In 2024, California added just 125,000 housing units across the entire state. That’s simply not enough in a state of nearly 40 million people. California state policies also have a prohibitive effect on increasing the supply of housing due to overregulation.

Washington should help increase supply by cutting unnecessary regulations, speeding up permitting and creating tax incentives that encourage more housing construction. But we also have to be honest about the impact on the demand side too. For years, the federal government failed to secure our southern border while California was already struggling with a severe housing shortage. Unchecked illegal immigration adds even more demand to an already strained housing market. I’ve worked on that issue for decades, including writing the law that created E-Verify and passing the biggest investment in border security in American history earlier this year.

I would measure success when we turn around the net migration numbers from California and see that our state has once again become a desirable place to live and work.

Technology can be an important tool for law enforcement, particularly when it helps officers identify dangerous criminals or locate stolen vehicles. But Americans should not have to surrender their constitutional rights in the process.

Congress should establish clear rules governing how sensitive data collected by surveillance technologies can be accessed, retained and shared. That means setting reasonable limits on how long data can be stored and requiring law enforcement to get a warrant. Law enforcement should be able to use these tools for legitimate public safety purposes but not infringe upon the constitutional rights our citizens are entitled to. I believe we can strike the right balance between public safety and the American people’s expectation of privacy.

What should immigration policy in the U.S. look like five years from now? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

For years, Washington failed to enforce our immigration laws, and Americans have paid the price. We’ve seen millions of illegal crossings, deadly fentanyl pouring across the southern border, criminals released into our communities and enormous pressure placed on schools, hospitals, local law enforcement and housing.

I wrote the law that created E-Verify to end the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration, and I’ve fought to make its use mandatory nationwide. I worked in 2006 to pass the Secure Fence Act, and as an appropriator, I have ensured funding for the border wall. I’ve also helped pass the largest investment in border security in American history which we passed just earlier this year.

My hope is that five years from now, we can look back and say we finally turned the tide: the border is secure, illegal crossings are dramatically reduced if not eliminated entirely, criminal illegal immigrants are deported, and our immigration laws are being enforced again. Only when we have re-established the rule of law and secured operational control of our border can we consider a legal DACA fix, a workable guest labor program, and reform our broken asylum system. I do not support a blanket amnesty that rewards people who knowingly broke our laws by coming here illegally with U.S. citizenship.

America should remain a nation that welcomes legal immigrants who follow the rules. But we also must be a nation that enforces its laws and puts the safety and economic interests of American citizens first.

Would you like to see any changes to Medicare, Medicaid or prescription drug policies? What specifically would you change, cut or fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

People pay into Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives with the expectation that those benefits will be there when they retire. We have a responsibility to keep that promise and protect the benefits seniors have earned.

Where Washington needs to do more is lowering prescription drug costs. Too many seniors are getting squeezed at the pharmacy counter while drug companies, insurance companies and powerful middlemen keep making money off a system nobody can understand.

I’ve supported bipartisan efforts to increase competition from lower-cost generic drugs, and I’m cosponsoring legislation to rein in pharmacy benefit managers, bring more transparency to the system and stop middlemen from driving up costs. I’ve also cosponsored the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, a bipartisan bill that reforms and modernizes the prior authorization process within Medicare Advantage plans, so that seniors can get the care they need without unnecessary bureaucratic delays.

We should also root out fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, so those programs remain strong for the people who truly need them.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

America cannot afford to fall behind China or other competitors in artificial intelligence and advanced technology. At the same time, communities have legitimate concerns about the impact large data centers can have on water, electricity, noise and surrounding neighborhoods. Those concerns shouldn’t be dismissed.

I don’t think Washington should impose a one-size-fits-all answer. Local communities should have a meaningful voice in the location of these facilities and how their impacts are addressed and mitigated. At the federal level, we should focus on ensuring America has the reliable energy and infrastructure necessary to support our evolving economy.

We should be able to lead the world in innovation without ignoring the communities where that investment takes place.

No. I don’t support banning AI-generated political content. Political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and art and technology have always evolved. We shouldn’t ban a new tool simply because it’s new.

There is an obvious difference between using AI as a creative tool and using it to intentionally fabricate footage of a candidate saying something they didn’t or doing something that never happened. But existing laws against fraud, defamation and deception already provide remedies when people cross that line. As we already see on some platforms, disclaimers and labels about AI-generated content can help provide transparency on what Americans are viewing.

How should the U.S. balance support for foreign allies with concerns about the country’s spending and the risk of entering “forever wars”? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I believe the best way to keep America out of wars is to make sure our adversaries never doubt our strength.

As chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I’ve worked to rebuild our military, invest in the technologies our service members need, strengthen our defense industrial base and make sure America maintains its military advantage.

But strength doesn’t mean writing blank checks or committing American troops to conflicts without a clear mission. Our allies need to contribute to their own defense. America has been left footing the bill for the world’s defense for too long. I strongly support our NATO alliance, but our partners must step up their defense investments which they have done since President Trump took office.

The best way to keep America out of “forever wars” is in peace through strength.

The Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Do you support this move? Why or why not? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Yes. I support expanding responsible domestic energy production, including offshore if it’s economically viable. Californians pay some of the highest gasoline prices in America, and I don’t think families should have to accept that as normal.

I’ve repeatedly fought policies in Sacramento that restrict domestic energy production, reduce refining capacity and drive prices higher. Importing more oil from foreign countries does not make our environment safer or our country more secure.

We should produce energy here at home, strengthen our energy security and bring down costs for California families.

I’ve represented Riverside County for more than three decades, and I’ve learned that if you want to get things done for California, you have to be willing to work with people you disagree with.

The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking has ranked me among California’s most effective members of Congress because I know how to bring people together to get things done. I’ve worked across the aisle to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars for roads, water and flood protection in Riverside County, and worked with Democrats like U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and Gov. Gavin Newsom to cut through federal red tape and transfer seven C-130 air-tankers to CAL FIRE to help protect our communities from wildfires.

I’m a conservative, and I’ll stand my ground when we disagree. But I also know you can’t represent California effectively if you refuse to work with the other side.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Like a lot of Americans, my views on same-sex marriage changed over time. It wasn’t always my position. But it’s a different country than it was 30 years ago, and after listening and seeing how the issue affected people and families, my perspective changed.

One of the things people are fed up with in politics is leaders who can never admit they were wrong. I don’t think changing your mind is a weakness. Sometimes it’s the right thing to do.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

The best book I’ve read this year is “Mark Twain” by Ron Chernow. I was struck by Twain’s journey from humble beginnings to becoming one of the most influential voices in American literature and culture. His story a great reminder of what’s possible through the American Dream. I couldn’t put it down.

Orange County Register

Brian Burley, CA-42 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Brian Burley

Age: 33

Current job title: System Administrator at USC

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Trustee, Huntington Beach City School District

City where you reside: Huntington Beach

Campaign website or social media: brianburley.com

What is the single most important issue this district faces, and what can Congress, realistically, do to address it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

The most important issue facing our district is affordability. Families are struggling with rising housing, grocery, utility, insurance and tax costs.

Congress cannot control every price, but it can stop making the problem worse. I will support responsible spending, tax relief for families and small businesses, expanded domestic energy production and fewer costly federal regulations.

As a school board trustee, I have helped balance budgets, build reserves, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. I will bring that same approach to Congress.

I would push to revitalize and expand Mortgage Credit Certificates for qualified first-time homebuyers. MCCs convert part of a homeowner’s mortgage interest into a federal tax credit, helping working families manage monthly housing costs. Congress should provide dedicated capacity for these certificates, modernize eligibility limits for high-cost areas such as Southern California and make the benefit easier to access when purchasing a home.

I would measure success by the number of first-time buyers helped, their average monthly savings, changes in local first-time homeownership rates and whether recipients remain sustainably housed without increased mortgage delinquencies. The goal should be helping responsible buyers afford homes—not simply driving prices higher.

Flock and other surveillance technologies have gone too far. Americans should not be subjected to constant surveillance simply because they are in public. These tools should be limited to targeted public-safety investigations, with warrants generally required, strict data-retention limits and safeguards against misuse. Congress must ensure that technology supports law enforcement without sacrificing Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

What should immigration policy in the U.S. look like five years from now? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Five years from now, America should have permanently secured borders and zero tolerance for illegal immigration. The current administration has secured our border and greatly reduced illegal crossings. Congress must make these policies permanent so a future administration cannot simply reverse them.

I will support continued border enforcement, completion of the border wall, nationwide employment verification and stronger action against sanctuary jurisdictions. America must never return to open-border policies.

Would you like to see any changes to Medicare, Medicaid or prescription drug policies? What specifically would you change, cut or fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I would not cut Medicare benefits or Medicaid coverage for vulnerable Americans. I would focus on driving prescription-drug prices down through greater price transparency, stronger oversight of pharmacy benefit managers and faster approval of lower-cost generic and biosimilar medications. We should eliminate fraud and waste so taxpayer dollars support patients and care—not bureaucracy.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

America should remain a leader in technology and artificial intelligence, but data centers should not drive up energy costs for families or cities in my district. New facilities must pay their fair share for energy and infrastructure needs, meet reasonable water and noise standards and be located with meaningful community input. Innovation should strengthen local communities—not burden them.

AI should be used responsibly, but some political uses have gotten completely out of control. I would not support a blanket ban, but any AI-generated political advertisement should include a clear, prominent disclosure. Materially deceptive content that falsely depicts a real candidate saying or doing something should be prohibited, while clearly labeled parody and satire should remain protected.

How should the U.S. balance support for foreign allies with concerns about the country’s spending and the risk of entering “forever wars”? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

The United States should support its allies without issuing blank checks or entering endless wars with no clear objective. Any foreign assistance must advance a defined American interest, include accountability and require allies to contribute their fair share. Our first responsibility is to invest taxpayer dollars here at home—in public safety, infrastructure, veterans and American families.

The Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Do you support this move? Why or why not? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I oppose expanding offshore oil drilling along California’s coast. Our coastline is central to our environment, local economy and quality of life, and an offshore spill could cause lasting damage. We should meet our energy needs through safer domestic production and innovation without placing California’s coastal communities at unnecessary risk.

As a Huntington Beach City School District Trustee, I have worked respectfully and productively with colleagues who hold different political viewpoints. We have found common ground on balancing budgets, building reserves, supporting teachers and serving students because effective leadership requires putting results ahead of partisan disagreements. In Congress, I will work across the aisle on affordability, including practical solutions to reduce housing and prescription-drug costs for working families.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Before serving on the School Board, I believed one-year labor agreements were generally the safest approach because they preserved maximum budget flexibility. My experience as a Trustee changed my perspective. I learned that a carefully structured multiyear agreement—with appropriate financial safeguards—can provide employees with stability while allowing the public agency to plan responsibly. That experience reinforced the importance of listening, studying the details and being willing to change my position when the evidence supports a better approach.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

As a Trojan, the best book I have read this year is “American Trojan: Leadership, Resilience, and the Renewal of Higher Education” by former USC President C. L. Max Nikias. I found his lessons about resilience, principled leadership and strengthening higher education especially compelling as both a USC alumnus and an elected school board trustee.

Orange County Register

Linda Sánchez, CA-41 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Linda T. Sánchez

Age: 57

Current job title: Congresswoman

Political party affiliation: Democratic Party

Incumbent: Yes

Other political positions held: N/A

City where you reside: Whittier

Campaign website or social media: voteforlinda.com

What is the single most important issue this district faces, and what can Congress, realistically, do to address it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Affordability is the most important issue in our district. Costs are rising because of President Trump and the Republican majority’s policies that are hurting working families – from their unnecessary war in Iran that is spiking gas and energy prices to their illegal tariffs driving up groceries and housing. Working families are struggling to get by.

A Democratic majority in Congress would immediately end this unnecessary war and pass my legislation to repeal Trump’s tariffs. But we also need long-term solutions that help make life more affordable. For instance, I have introduced the bipartisan Child Care Supply Tax Credit Act to lower childcare costs by creating a tax credit that helps providers pay qualified teachers. It would create more options for childcare without raising costs for parents.

Housing prices are spiking because there simply aren’t enough homes to meet demand. I recently introduced the bipartisan Rental Housing Investment Act to spur more affordable housing construction. Southern California lacks affordable, rental housing, particularly multifamily apartment buildings. Unfortunately, there are high upfront construction costs associated with these buildings. My bill modernizes our tax code to allow builders to deduct construction costs for low-income rental units immediately, rather than spreading them out over nearly 30 years. This would incentivize building more affordable housing for working families.

I have a real concern with Flock cameras, which are now in more than 5,000 communities across the United States. Public safety is a top priority, but it can’t come at the expense of our personal liberties. And right now, there are simply not enough safeguards to prevent abuse.

I’m particularly alarmed by how the Trump administration is weaponizing Flock’s data to carry out its cruel immigration policies. ICE created an “Immigration Violator” hotlist and is handing it to willing local police forces to track down immigrants. Reports indicate some departments are sharing their own Flock camera access with federal immigration authorities, turning them into tools for conducting deportation raids. These reports prove that Flock is unable to prevent abuses of its data, and we need additional privacy safeguards now.

What should immigration policy in the U.S. look like five years from now? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

We need immigration policies that are humane and fair, not policies that are weaponized against all immigrant families. That’s why I previously introduced the U.S. Citizenship Act, the Democratic Party’s plan to fix our immigration system that has been broken for far too long. Our bill secures our border from traffickers while still putting family unity first, honors our legal and moral duty to those seeking asylum, and recognizes what immigrants give back to our communities and our economy every single day.

It would create an earned path to citizenship for the hardworking immigrants who are already contributing to our country, provide legal status for Dreamers and farmworkers, and finally clear the family-based visa backlog to reunite families that have been separated for too long. It also strengthens protections for people fleeing violence and persecution, so they’re met with dignity instead of cruelty, while tackling the root causes driving people to migrate in the first place.

Would you like to see any changes to Medicare, Medicaid or prescription drug policies? What specifically would you change, cut or fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Republicans made it harder for families to afford health care to pay for Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires. ACA subsidies that previously kept premium costs down for working families expired last year, and Republicans refused to extend them in their big tax giveaway to the rich. As a result, an estimated 15 million Americans lost coverage. And Californians who signed up for ACA plans this year are already seeing premiums rise nearly $100 a month.

A Democratic majority will restore those subsidies immediately. Billionaires don’t need another tax cut, but working families do need health care. We also have plans to bring down costs for everyone. For instance, I introduced the Health Insurance Premium Fairness Act to close a loophole that raises premiums for married couples when one spouse ages into Medicare and the other remains on an ACA plan. I also care deeply about affordable, quality long-term care for older adults, so they can age with dignity, which is why I’ve introduced bills expanding Medicare coverage for adult day care and reforming the hospice benefit to improve care and prevent fraud.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

We can support innovation while still protecting communities. Data centers should go through a transparent, fair approval process, with input from residents and neighboring communities. These projects can create jobs, particularly for union workers. But job creation must be balanced against the strain on our grid, fire risk, pollution, and rising energy and water costs for families.

That’s why I’ve cosponsored the Protecting Families from AI Data Center Energy Costs Act, which pushes federal regulators to find ways to stop AI data center costs from landing on consumers’ bills. I’ve also cosponsored the Energy Bills Relief Act, which modernizes our grid and makes sure data centers and large energy users pay their fair share, instead of passing rising costs onto families and small businesses.

Listening to community voices, not just the industry’s demands, is how we can responsibly grow this industry and maintain public trust, while not falling behind in innovation.

Unfortunately, one of my primary opponents ran negative AI-generated ads against me to distort the truth. It didn’t work because it was clearly fake, and voters saw right through the lies. But as AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, these fakes will only get harder and harder to spot. We need strong protections now: This means clear labeling whenever AI is used to create political content and an outright ban on deepfakes and other deceptive AI content in our elections. Voters deserve the truth, not fake content manufactured by a candidate’s wild imagination.

How should the U.S. balance support for foreign allies with concerns about the country’s spending and the risk of entering “forever wars”? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

There’s a key difference between the war in Ukraine and the war with Iran. Ukraine was attacked by Russia, and supporting that fight has kept one of our adversaries in check without putting a single American service member in harm’s way. With Iran, President Trump chose to attack without any evidence that Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon or posed a serious threat to the United States. That decision has cost us billions of dollars, driven up gas and grocery prices, and left 18 service members dead and hundreds more wounded, with no end in sight.

We should keep supporting our allies – including not threatening them or starting unnecessary trade wars – especially when doing so requires no troops at all. Chaotic, self-serving foreign policy and unnecessary war have put our service members in harm’s way. We cannot keep funding unnecessary wars that put our service members at risk and cost U.S. taxpayers billions.

The Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Do you support this move? Why or why not? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Absolutely not. Californians do not want more oil drilling off our coast, and we will fight any attempt by the Trump administration to expand it here. In Southern California, we know all too well the dangers offshore drilling poses to public health and our local economy. We don’t have to look back far. The 2021 Orange County spill is proof of the damage it can cause. We cannot drill our way to energy independence. What we need is real investment in clean, renewable energy, not more dangerous offshore drilling that has proven unsafe time and time again. Our coastline, economy and families’ health are not worth the risk.

As a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, I have spent my career reaching across the aisle on bipartisan legislation. This Congress, I’ve introduced bipartisan bills to lower the cost of childcare, ensure veterans’ disability payments aren’t used against them when applying for housing, and encourage more builders to build affordable housing. I’m also currently working with the administration and a bipartisan group of members to bring television and movie production back to the United States, creating more jobs right here in our backyard and boosting our economy. I’ve always said: wherever we can find agreement, I’m willing to work with any member, regardless of party.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I’ve traditionally opposed mid-decade redistricting. That changed under President Trump.

The Constitution requires a census every 10 years, with new congressional maps drawn at that time. Nothing stops states from redrawing districts in between, but I previously opposed it because elected officials need time to build relationships with their counterparts at every level of government. I’m a more effective leader in Washington when I have strong relationships with the state and local leaders in the communities I represent.

That changed when President Trump and Texas Republicans tried to rig the next election by redrawing their maps, and other red states followed. California had to fight back to protect our democracy. That’s why I supported Proposition 50. We can’t have one set of rules for blue states and another for red states.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

“The Sisters” by Jonas Hassen Khemiri. It covers four decades of a family’s history, including their immigrant roots, sibling rivalry, the thirst to understand one’s heritage while still fitting into another culture, and the random events that can forever change one’s trajectory. It’s a rich, sprawling family saga that spoke to me on many levels.

Orange County Register

Robert Garcia, CA-42 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

October 5, 2026

Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.

Name: Robert Garcia

Age: 48

Current job title: United States Representative

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: Yes

Other political positions held: Mayor of Long Beach

City where you reside: Long Beach

Campaign website or social media: robertgarcia.com

What is the single most important issue this district faces, and what can Congress, realistically, do to address it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

Affordability. Prices are too high for working families. We need to support programs that put more money in people’s pockets and lower costs. We need to cut red tape, make sure housing is affordable, support 21st century job training programs to get people into good paying jobs, build more clean energy to cut costs, cut tariffs that make goods more expensive, and fight back against anyone taking advantage of the American people.

California is facing a huge shortage of affordable homes. Common-sense policies like streamlining regulation and cutting red tape are an important part of the solution. Policies like ending the tariffs on building materials, which make it impossible to build cheaply. Irresponsible tax cuts for large corporations and spending on a disastrous war have made mortgage rates higher, pricing more families out of the ability to buy a home. But we also have to get tough with big corporations that drive up the price of homes or treat consumers unfairly.

These concerns are not unfounded. Last year, we received alarming reports that Flock’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system, marketed as a public safety tool, has been exploited to track people across state lines and to conduct unauthorized immigration enforcement. As the lead Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, I am leading investigations into how Flock handles Americans’ data, and how to better protect our privacy. Our work has already helped push Flock to improve their practices, but far more is needed. This issue will be a priority for Oversight Committee Democrats in the next two years.

What should immigration policy in the U.S. look like five years from now? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I profoundly believe in the promise of America: that anyone who comes here, works hard, and follows the rules should have the same opportunities I did. I am an immigrant to this country, and I strongly believe in a secure border and enforcing our immigration laws. I also strongly believe that our government should provide a clear pathway to citizenship to the people who have come to this country and have been good members of society. Immigrants are some of the most patriotic people in our country, and make our communities stronger, richer and safer.

What’s clear is that the Trump administration’s immigration policy is inhumane and must be changed. Over the next years and beyond, I will continue working to stop abuses and to fight for truth and justice.

Would you like to see any changes to Medicare, Medicaid or prescription drug policies? What specifically would you change, cut or fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I believe healthcare is a human right, and Congress should make Medicare accessible for all. It is unacceptable that medical bills continue to be the leading cause of personal bankruptcy for our residents, and that we must fight to expand benefits so that every American has access to dental and vision coverage and preventive care to protect people’s lives and health. Our taxes should go toward ensuring that all Americans have the highest quality of life possible, and by funding Medicare for All, we can make sure no one has to choose between affording lifesaving medical care and buying groceries, paying rent, or paying their bills. I will help fight to restore Obamacare subsidies, which were recklessly ended by President Trump, and make sure insurance is affordable for all, and expand Medicare’s ability to negotiate with Big Pharma to bring down the cost of the drugs it buys for seniors. The House Oversight Committee has the unique power to investigate big corporations that drive up drug prices, deny coverage, or increase costs for the American people, and to fight for a better, fairer, more affordable system for all.

Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I will always stand up for clean air and water. Powerful companies should never be allowed to rip off our people. AI development has the potential to fuel jobs, and it is necessary to make sure our economy remains strong and competitive. However, data centers have devastated communities and need strict regulations and local control.

Deepfakes are a serious concern for our democracy, as they can facilitate foreign election interference or other unethical behavior. Deepfakes can also be used to smear or harass private citizens. It’s important for AI companies to be responsible partners. At the same time, the right to free speech should be strongly protected. An outright ban on AI-generated political content is likely unconstitutional and an unacceptable restriction on free speech, but it is very important to strike a balance that keeps Americans and our democracy, safe.

How should the U.S. balance support for foreign allies with concerns about the country’s spending and the risk of entering “forever wars”? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I will always stand up for our national security, but we need a major change of direction. President Trump’s war with Iran has been a complete disaster. It has made us less safe, driven up costs for every American, and cost both American lives and billions of dollars. At the same time, he is attacking many of our closest allies and partners, like Canada or NATO, undermining the true sources of our power. We are spending billions of dollars on Israel while they pursue dangerous and destructive policies throughout the Middle East. That should end. We do not need endless spending going towards the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is the only department that has never passed an audit. I strongly believe that the United States should not be spending more money on foreign wars, and we should not be invading or bombing other countries — we should be focused on delivering for the American people.

The Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Do you support this move? Why or why not? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I’ve worked with my California colleagues to fight President Trump’s attempt to expand drilling since day one. We need to protect our coastline and the delicate, important ecosystems that thrive along our shores, and I do not support any new offshore drilling. Coastal communities across the country depend on federal environmental protections for health and safety, climate resilience, jobs, and recreation. All of those priorities are in jeopardy unless Congress takes action to address issues like offshore drilling, plastic pollution, environmental degradation, and the impacts of toxic chemicals. I have cosponsored legislation that would end offshore drilling off the West Coast and in the Arctic Ocean and hold polluters accountable. I have also pushed for transparency and accountability about the dumping of DDT, Navy explosives, and other toxic substances off the coast of Southern California. Elected leaders need to do more to safeguard our environments and get much-needed funding for wildlife monitoring and habitat conservation. Every person in the United States should have the right to a safe, clean, and sustainable environment. Coastal communities especially need Congress to defend our oceans, beaches, and wetlands to protect these rights for every American.

At the end of the day, governing should be about doing what is best for the American people. I have worked across the aisle on multiple issues that matter to everyone, regardless of political party. I lead the bipartisan Ports Caucus to fight for port infrastructure money for ports like Long Beach, and to improve infrastructure around the country. I worked with Lisa McClain, a member of Republican House Leadership, to advance legislation to end the penny and to save taxpayer dollars, a policy supported by President Trump. I have passed bipartisan legislation to cut red tape and end useless government reports, and to strengthen oversight of our bureaucracy. I founded a bipartisan caucus to work on housing affordability nationwide. I have built strong bipartisan partnerships to drive forward the Epstein investigation, to enact the Epstein Files Transparency Act, to issue congressional subpoenas for key documents and witnesses, and to unmask the truth. I believe strongly in working to establish relationships and partnerships across the aisle, even with some of the most unlikely members. And I am proud to say that work has paid off.

Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)

I have always supported our business community. But it has become apparent that some large, multinational corporations are taking advantage of the American people. We need to support the local businesses that help our communities thrive, and we also need to hold accountable the billionaire corporations that are harming those same communities.

I believe if you work hard and build a business, you should be able to thrive, and the government should not make it unnecessarily difficult to start or run a successful business. But we need to put the policies in place that make it so the richest corporations in the history of the world can’t take advantage of the American people.

Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.

“Heated Rivalry.”

Orange County Register

Santa Ana News

Laura Bassett, Senate District 38 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

Endorsement: Giovanni Chavez for Santa Ana’s Ward 6

Republican Sen. Tillis calls his vote for Hegseth the ‘biggest regret of my career’ in a new book

Regrets his votes for Hegseth and Kennedy

Tillis describes his ‘breaking point’ over the tax bill

Mitch Clemmons, CA-41 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

Ken Calvert, CA-40 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

Brian Burley, CA-42 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

Linda Sánchez, CA-41 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

Robert Garcia, CA-42 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS