Did the media alter any of my answers? This is where I paste, or link, to what I said or wrote, with no editing.

Orange Country Register 

Journalist Kaitlyn Schallhorn 

answers were copied and pasted from the google form that I had sent to my email after I filled out the form. 

answered on April 1, 2026

From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)

 *

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturing - As your congresswoman, I will support laws and deals that encourage states like California to maintain a tax structure that supports job providers and keeps them from fleeing the state. I will support any viable project or law that allows for manufacturing to return to California. Election Integrity - Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. I fail to understand why California law makers pretend that all people are honest. Laws exist because some people are not honest, but so many Democratic California lawmakers permit dishonest people to thrive. Fraud & Taxes - $20 billion of California fraud was prosecuted during the Biden Administration. I will support any effective law or initiative that fights the rest of the fraud in California and helps to prevent more. How much lower could our taxes be if it were not being wasted on fraud?

Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Married and divorced women change their names every day. Our teenagers get birth certificates in order to obtain their state IDs or driver’s licenses, every day. We all walk and drive around with our IDs every day. I cringe when a California Democratic lawmaker claims that my neighbors are incapable of doing these things. I would vote yes on the SAVE America Act. Democratic California lawmakers have failed to properly conduct California elections. When states fail, it is the duty of the federal government to step in and resolve the problem. Election Integrity - Registrar: “Because when you sign your affidavit, you’re swearing that you are telling us the truth..” Nick Shirley: “Yeah, if they don’t have their ID, then they could just sign on behalf of (a person), then they could technically vote, right?” Registrar: “Yeah, but they would be lying.” Nick Shirley: “What if they just don’t care?” Registrar: [shrugs], “well then they’re supposed to be prosecuted.” Does anyone in California think that enough prosecution would occur to deter voter fraud?

What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration has blessed my life with new family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and wonderful students form all of the world. Borders - The federal government must maintain the closed border, at least for the duration of Trump's term. Last week, while canvasing, I met several native Spanish speakers who are legal-entry residents, and who are very angry with how they’ve lost not just their place in line for citizenship, and jobs, but also for their medical benefits. I must agree with them that the open border policy was unfair and that it put a severe strain on California’s resources, businesses, and rent prices. Asylum seekers must be properly vetted. H1B visas only function if they are implemented correctly. H1B recipients must be vetted and their time here must be monitored for compliance by both the recipient and the employers. More robust recruitment into trade programs for Americans and for legal-entry residents are a must for ensuring America’s future.

It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accountability - The federal government has lost patience with the wastefulness of Democratic California lawmakers, and so have I. After the Oakland fire, significant rebuilding took place within the first 2 years. It is a requirement of insurance companies to rebuild homes, as they were, after a devastating loss. The ridiculous regulations, red tape, and “green” energy scams imposed by Democratic California lawmakers has crippled the rebuilding process. Any stalemate between green energy providers, traditional natural gas line installers,  and the California Public Utilities Commission must end. Governor Newsom’s dangerous pre-fire brush violations and enforcement failures may have contributed. (The “California Issues” of my website has my discussion of the Santa Ynez “Palisades” reservoir problem with cited sources.) What seems like a desire of California’s Democratic lawmakers to replace the individual homes of the Palisades and Altadena areas with high rise and high density housing must also end. When we have new California lawmakers after the 2026 elections, then perhaps we can clear the backlog of problems preventing the rebuilding, and then the federal government will have the confidence that no more waste will occur.

Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I support a ban on congressional lawmakers and their families buying and selling individual stocks. It's not fair to the American people and it erodes public trust in the reasons a candidate has for continuing to run for office. Just pass a law that makes it illegal, with fines.

Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without inexpensive energy, there is no middle class. We are in a state of emergency, and at this time I do not support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, however, we must keep rivers, aquifers, and other waterways clean. Corporate dumping can never be “a thing” ever again. However, green energy has unintended consequences for the environment. Solar panel installation can contaminate farmland. Wind mills kill millions of birds every year and keep 10s of thousands of Americans up at night. My research shows that areas that have offshore wind farms also have mass whale deaths. (I performed 2 separate searches and correlated the results) The recycling of solar panel parts is up to 45 times more expensive than landfill. The overproduction of wind and solar causes labor intensive control at the power plant and the underproduction causes the importation of natural gas and oil at great cost and negates the positives of green energy.

President Donald Trump has significantly increased spending for the U.S. Department of Defense. Would you, as a member of Congress, approve additional dollars for the military if the president were to ask for more funding? How would you ensure that any military spending does not end up putting the American people or national security in harm’s way? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have been in harm’s way for 47 years. Iran was never going to stop being a threat to the Middle East, to Europe, and to the US. We’re already lost people because of that terror regime. Iran was never going to stop abusing its citizens' daughters, dissenters, and gay people, either. Bush’s, Clinton’s, and Obama’s wars are the ones that were preventable and that we never should have been drawn into. We ensure that our tax dollars are well spent by promoting the best military leaders there are and by providing timely, quality equipment, with oversight. All first world countries with fantastic infrastructure, a free and well educated populace that innovates, and abundant natural resources will always be in “harm’s way”. We remain safe by maintaining a first class military force that no one can mess with and by tackling tyranny before it becomes a threat.

Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Revolutionary War, our ancestors’ homes were constantly invaded by British soldiers, The Boston Massacre saw our people killed, and taxation without representation took away our hard earned money. In 1812, we had to go back to it, because those pesky Brits kidnapped our naval sailors and impeded our trade thereby threatening life and resources, again. Then, we had to end the Brits’ stranglehold over our economy with the sale of cheap cotton to British mills. That cheap cotton came at the price of the lives of slaves, whom we had the mission to free, from the moment that we were a constitutional republic in 1784 until the end of the Civil War in 1865. So, now, once again, we have an obvious danger from Iran: dirty money, the mistreatment of citizens, the murders of Americans, the funding of terror, the ability to impede the free movement of resources, and missiles pointed at our allies, and very soon, at us. Those warheads were becoming more and more dangerous. All of the above are the reasons to go to war.

Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all engaged in military actions without explicit congressional approval, relying on their constitutional authority as commander in chief and, in some cases, existing authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs). While Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, presidents have historically interpreted their Article II powers to allow limited military actions without prior congressional consent, particularly in response to threats or in the national interest. Since there is historical precedent, and since they all do it, I do not have a problem with a president not seeking congressional approval. If I felt that the cause were unjust or unnecessary, then I would hold the president accountable. I know that the mission in Iran is just and necessary.

Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Both sides. Without question. Under Biden, Republican leaders in Congress pursued investigations and legislative efforts targeting Biden’s agenda, such as scrutinizing the southern border, opposing pandemic-related mandates, and criticizing executive appointments.  These actions align with the Republicans' broader narrative of resisting what it views as progressive overreach and defending conservative values. Now, the Democrats can't stop what they view as "holding the president accountable". The criticisms seem endless and their desire for impeachment is well known.

Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Should Congress adopt such restrictions? If so, what specific restrictions do you propose? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell phone child protection laws can do the opposite. Facial age recognition could allow predators to know for sure that they are communicating with a child and gain access through a digital black market. (anapolweiss.com) Some children are already skilled at using VPNs and back doors to get into restricted sites. The better strategies have been: built in platform controls, privacy and safety settings, limiting high risk features, and home network controls. That said, the most effective feature is parent involvement. Parents are the ones who should confirm age. As an educator, I know that students perform better in school and seem to be happier when they use books and paper more often than screens. State curriculum and resources should encourage a balanced approach. I think that Congress can have some limited influence.

Statistically, violent crime rates in California are on the decline, yet residents still don’t feel safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in Congress in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propositions 47 and 57 caused the rise in crime in the first place. Unfortunately, only more ballot initiatives will reverse them. These are examples of how propaganda campaigns work to cause us to vote against their own safety. After Governor Newsom took office, organized retail crime investigations surged by 3,000%, from 24 in 2019 to 734 in 2025. Any drop in the crime rate is a good thing, but if the actual rate is still higher than it used to be, no one will yet feel the positive effect. With a combination of ballot initiatives to reverse Props 47 & 57, plus community efforts, and allowing law enforcement to do the jobs that they are trained to do, we can continue to lower crime rates in California.

There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that congress representatives should do something else before running for congress. They should have some life experience, and jobs that are not special-funding projects, but real, and paid, and on the clock. I believe that their terms should be 3 years, but that they should only get 2 or 3 terms, maximum. If they know what it's like to work a 'real' job, then they may have more understanding of the people that they represent. If they know that they don't need to be constantly concerned about reelection, then they can concentrate on doing their jobs, instead of concentrating on raising money.

What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

 *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a fluent French speaker and a very good Spanish speaker.

YouTube Channel is: 

@LarisaV4CongressCalif42

Larisa has ONE "S" 

On YouTube it's "Calif" not "Cal"