Ahead of the June primary 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. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.

Name: Brandon Riker

Current job title: Small Business Owner

Age: 39

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: N/A

City where you reside: Palm Springs

Campaign website or social media: rikerforcongress.com

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.)

Californians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, a threat to our fundamental rights from the Trump administration, and an economy that isn’t working for everyone, and I’m running to change that. If elected, I will work to make life more affordable for working families by raising wages, eliminating the 6.2% Social Security FICA tax on the first $50,000 of income and offsetting it by removing the FICA cap at $184,500, putting over $3,000 back in the pockets of working Californians and delivering an effective tax cut for everyone earning under $234,500.

None of this is possible without first fixing our economy, which is why I’m calling for a Second New Deal that invests in apprenticeships, trade schools, and career pathways, pairs student debt relief with access to good-paying jobs, and restore predictability for families and small businesses through consistent economic policy and responsible management of the national debt to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

California has always led the way on equality, voting rights, and reproductive freedom, but those gains are now under threat from Washington. That is why I will pass the Equality Act to enshrine full legal protections for our LGBTQ+ community, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act to safeguard every Californian’s access to the ballot, and fight to protect reproductive freedom for every woman in this state and country. California’s values must be defended in Washington, and I will never stop doing exactly that.

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.)

The Constitution is clear that states have the primary authority to administer their own elections, and the federal government should not be in the business of erecting barriers that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote. I strongly oppose the SAVE Act, which is nothing more than a Republican-backed effort to suppress the vote under the guise of election integrity. Requiring proof of citizenship at the polls would disenfranchise millions of eligible American voters, including seniors, women, veterans, and young voters who may lack easy access to the required documents.

We already have laws in place to prevent non-citizens from voting, and there is no evidence of widespread fraud that justifies this kind of legislation. This is a solution in search of a problem, and the real goal is clear: make it harder for certain communities to participate in our democracy. That is exactly why I will fight to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, to push back against federal overreach that targets voters rather than protects them, and to ensure that every eligible Californian’s voice is heard at the ballot box.

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.)

Our immigration system has been broken for decades, and the federal government must prioritize real, comprehensive reform grounded in law, fairness, and human dignity. We must create realistic pathways to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are already woven into the fabric of our communities, paying taxes, raising families, and contributing to our economy.

At the same time, we have to rein in immigration enforcement so that agents are held accountable, de‑escalation is prioritized, and civil liberties are respected. The current administration’s approach is not border security, it is an assault on human dignity that betrays everything this nation has always stood for. Californians know better than most how vital our immigrant communities are to our state’s success, and I will fight in Washington to ensure our immigration policy reflects our values, our laws, and our humanity.

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.)

Southern Californians are still hurting, and the federal government’s failure to act is inexcusable. Families lost everything, and they deserve more than letters and empty promises. I am not going to Washington just to have “Congressman” next to my name, I am going there to be the voice that California’s 48th Congressional District deserves and that Trump and his allies will not be able to ignore.

I can’t fight for funding on my own. I will build coalitions across the aisle because wildfire, flood, and hurricane relief is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. Every member of Congress has constituents who depend on federal disaster aid, and I will use that common ground to push for bipartisan emergency funding that gets resources directly to the families and communities that need it.

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, without hesitation. Serving in Congress is a public trust, not a wealth-building opportunity. Banning stock trades by lawmakers and their families is common sense, and I will push for it alongside real transparency measures and an independent oversight body that can enforce the rules. The current system relies on Congress to police itself, and that is not accountability; that is a loophole. We need faster and more rigorous disclosure requirements, meaningful penalties for violations, and oversight that operates independently of the very people it is supposed to hold accountable.

The American people deserve to know that when their representative casts a vote on healthcare, defense, energy, or technology, that vote is driven by what is best for their constituents, not what is best for their personal portfolio. At the end of the day, if the public cannot trust that their representative’s votes are driven by their best interests and not personal financial gain, then we have a fundamental problem with how our democracy functions, and it is one I take seriously. But I also think integrity has to be demonstrated, not just legislated. That is why I refuse corporate PAC money. I will not be bought, I will not be influenced, and I will not walk into that chamber owing favors to anyone with a checkbook. I am going to fight for the families of California’s 48th, and they will always be my only client.

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.)

Yes, I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, because climate change is not a future threat; it is a present reality that residents across the new 48th Congressional District live with every single day. From the wildfire smoke and water pollution in North County San Diego communities like Escondido, Vista, and San Marcos, to the extreme desert heat that bears down on Palm Springs, Hemet, and the Coachella Valley, to the air quality emergencies that threaten the health of families throughout Temecula and Riverside County, our district feels the consequences of climate change every day. Tourism, agriculture, outdoor recreation, and real estate, all central to our district’s economic identity, are directly at risk if we fail to act. Any regulatory framework must be designed with working families and small businesses in mind. That means phasing in new standards in a way that gives small businesses time and resources to adapt, investing in clean energy tax incentives that lower costs rather than raise them, and ensuring that lower-income families are not bearing a disproportionate share of the burden through higher energy prices.

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.)

No, I would not automatically approve additional military spending just because the president asks for it. I believe in the processes and oversight mechanisms that Congress has put in place to evaluate defense spending, and those processes exist to ensure that we are spending responsibly. We already spend more on defense than the next several countries combined, and the Pentagon has failed its audit for eight consecutive years. We cannot account for how hundreds of billions of dollars are already being spent, and that has to be addressed before we talk about spending more. I will always support our troops and make sure they have what they need to keep this country safe. However, any additional funding request must be evaluated on the basis of national security needs, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

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

The decision to send American men and women into harm’s way is the most serious vote any member of Congress will ever cast, and it should never be taken lightly. I believe the United States should only engage in military conflict after all diplomatic, economic, and political options have been exhausted. Specifically, I support military action when there is a direct and credible threat to the security of the American people, when we are honoring a clear treaty obligation to defend an ally, or when there is an urgent humanitarian crisis that demands intervention and no other viable option exists. In all cases, any decision to go to war must go through Congress and not be left up to the President only. The War Powers Act exists for a reason, and no president, regardless of party, should have unchecked authority to commit this country to armed conflict without Congressional approval. I will always choose diplomacy first, I will always demand a clear objective and an exit plan before supporting any use of force, and I will never vote to send our troops into harm’s way without a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

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.)

Yes, absolutely. The Constitution is clear that Congress holds the power to declare war, and that authority exists for the fundamental reason of ensuring that no single person should have the unchecked power to send Americans into harm’s way. Right now, that principle is under serious threat with how Donald Trump has shown a willingness to act unilaterally, to bypass established norms, and to treat the powers of the presidency as unlimited, and that should alarm every American regardless of party. The decision to engage in military action overseas is one of the most consequential choices a government can make, and it demands the deliberation and accountability that only Congressional approval can provide. The War Powers Act was meant to serve as a check on exactly this kind of executive overreach, but it has too often been treated as a suggestion rather than a requirement, and under this administration that risk is greater than ever. I will fight to restore and strengthen Congressional authority over matters of war and peace.

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.)

There have been moments of genuine bipartisan cooperation and meaningful oversight during both administrations. Congress passed significant legislation on infrastructure, veterans care, and manufacturing that demonstrated what is possible when members work across the aisle and exercise their legislative responsibilities seriously. And there have been individual members in both parties who have shown real courage in standing up to the president(s) when it mattered.

But overall, Congress has fallen short of the standard the Constitution demands, and that failure spans both parties. Under the Biden administration, Democrats too often deferred to the White House rather than exercising independent oversight on spending and foreign policy. And under the Trump administration, Republicans in Congress have largely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities in favor of political loyalty to one man, failing to provide the kind of check our founders envisioned. Congress was designed to be a coequal branch of government, not a mirror of whoever occupies the Oval Office. I intend to be the kind of member who exercises that independence regardless of who is in the White House, works across the aisle, and never confuses party loyalty with constitutional duty.

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.)

Yes, I believe Congress should act to protect young people from the documented harms of social media, but I do not support an outright ban. We have seen studies linking excessive social media use among children and teenagers to rising rates of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and, in the most tragic cases, suicide. These platforms were not designed with our children’s well-being in mind; they were designed to maximize engagement and keep users scrolling, and young people are bearing the consequences.

Enforcement is complicated, and the internet is also a vital tool for education, creativity, and connection for young people. What we need is smart, targeted regulation that holds these companies accountable without cutting young people off entirely.

Specifically, I support strengthening and modernizing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to limit how platforms collect and monetize data from minors, requiring algorithmic transparency so parents and regulators can better understand how these platforms target young people, mandating default privacy protections for all users under 18, and giving parents better tools to monitor and manage their children’s online activity.

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.)

The data tells us that violent crime rates in California are declining, and that is good news, but statistics do not always capture how people feel walking to their car at night, dropping their kids off at school, or running a small business in their neighborhood. Both things can be true at once: crime can be going down and people can still feel unsafe.

I support our law enforcement and believe that well-funded, well-trained police departments are essential to public safety. Our officers deserve the resources, the training, and the community trust they need to do their jobs effectively, and I will fight for that investment.

At the same time, I believe that true public safety requires addressing the root causes that drive people toward crime in the first place. We need to invest more in mental health resources, substance abuse treatment, and rehabilitation programs that give people a real path forward rather than just cycling them in and out of the justice system. I believe in both accountability and second chances.

Keeping our communities safe is not a partisan issue; it is a fundamental responsibility, and the most effective approach combines strong support for law enforcement with smart investments in prevention, rehabilitation, and the economic opportunities that give people a reason to choose a different path.

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’m open to term limits for members of the House, but they would need to be carefully negotiated to avoid unintended consequences. Term limits can bring fresh perspectives and reduce entrenched power, but they can also weaken institutional knowledge and increase the influence of lobbyists and unelected staff who remain in Washington longer than elected officials.

My priority for improving representation, however, would be structural reforms that more directly address fairness and competitiveness. I strongly support expanding the size of the House of Representatives so districts are smaller and more representative of their communities. In addition, passing robust anti-gerrymandering legislation is critical to ensure voters choose their representatives, not the other way around. These changes would create more competitive districts and a Congress that better reflects the country.

If term limits were adopted, I would support a balanced approach, long enough for members to be effective, but not so long that seats become entrenched.

Ultimately, while term limits may have value, expanding the House and ending partisan gerrymandering would have a more meaningful impact on strengthening representation and accountability.

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

One of my lesser-known talents is that I was a competitive rower in college. It’s not something that comes up often, but it had a lasting impact on who I am today. Rowing is one of the most physically and mentally demanding sports; it requires endurance, discipline, and the ability to push through discomfort while staying completely in sync with your team.

That experience taught me resilience in a very real way. Early mornings, long practices, and the constant pursuit of improvement instilled a strong work ethic that I carry into everything I do. It also reinforced the importance of teamwork and trust, success depends on everyone pulling together toward a shared goal.

Those lessons have shaped both my professional life and my approach to campaigning. Whether it’s tackling complex challenges at work or staying focused and energized during a long campaign, I draw on that same endurance and determination. Rowing taught me how to stay steady under pressure, adapt when things get tough, and keep moving forward even when the finish line feels far away.

It may be a hidden talent, but it’s one that continues to influence how I lead, collaborate, and serve my community.