Name: Steve Botsford

What office are you seeking: US Senate

What is your political party? Democratic

What is your current age? 36

Occupation and employer: Small Business Owner

What offices, if any, have you previously held? I have not held elected office, but previously ran for Chicago City Council and before that served as a legislative staffer for Congressman Tony Cardenas.

City: Chicago

Campaign website: https://www.botsfordforillinois.com/

Education: BA in Economics from the University of Notre Dame MA in Applied Economics from Georgetown University

MBA in Finance from Northwestern University

Community involvement: I was previously a member of Wrightwoods Neighbors Organization, still engage somewhat with the Chicago Chapter of the Neoliberal Project and YIMBY Action. I also am a supporter and sometimes volunteer of charity called Soldier to Sidelines.

Marital status/Immediate family: No

What are your top three legislative priorities for your first year in the U.S. Senate?

My first priority would be lowering housing costs by making it easier to build. That means tying federal housing and infrastructure dollars to zoning and permitting reform, especially near transit, and cutting construction costs by allowing more multifamily and modular housing.

Second, I would focus on bringing down healthcare costs by expanding medical school and residency slots, enforcing hospital price transparency to increase competition, and benchmarking drug prices to what peer countries pay.

Third, I would work to end Trump’s broad tariffs, which function as a hidden tax on families by raising prices on consumer goods and building materials and slowing economic growth.

Should the Senate eliminate the filibuster? Do you support term limits for senators, and if so, what limits?

Yes, the Senate should eliminate the filibuster. It no longer encourages compromise and instead allows a minority to block almost all legislation. Majorities should be able to govern and be judged by voters on the results.

I support term limits across Congress: two terms in the Senate (twelve years) and seven terms in the House (fourteen years). The House should be the most powerful branch of government because it is closest to the people. The Senate should act as a deliberative check, not a choke point. And with a strict two-term limit on the executive branch, power should clearly flow from the people upward, not accumulate at the top.

How do you plan to work with or oppose the Trump administration? What’s your approach to bipartisanship?

I’ll work with the Trump administration when it lowers costs for families or strengthens the country, and I’ll oppose it when it does the opposite.

I treat the Republican Party as my opposition, not my enemy. We all want a stronger, more prosperous America. We just have different (sometimes very different) ideas about how to get there.

I’m not interested in performative resistance or reflexive cooperation. If there’s a serious effort to cut housing costs, expand healthcare supply, or reduce prices by ending tariffs, I’ll work with anyone to get it done. If policies raise costs, undermine institutions, or reward narrow interests at the expense of the public, I’ll fight them.

Bipartisanship isn’t about optics. It’s about outcomes. I’ll partner where interests align and draw a hard line where they don’t.

How would you address inflation and rising costs for Illinois families?

By focusing on the root causes, not quick fixes.

Inflation and high prices come from supply shortages and policies that quietly raise costs. I would push to build more housing by reforming zoning and permitting, lower healthcare costs by expanding medical residency slots and increasing competition, and end tariffs that act as a hidden tax on families.

I’d also focus on competition; breaking up monopolies and enforcing antitrust in sectors like food, healthcare, and shipping where consolidation lets a few players raise prices without adding value.

The goal is straightforward: make it easier to produce what people need so prices come down and stay down.

What federal actions should Congress take to improve health care affordability?

Congress should focus on increasing supply and competition.

That means expanding medical school and residency slots so we have more doctors, enforcing hospital price transparency and stopping anti-competitive consolidation, and benchmarking drug prices to what peer countries pay. It also means speeding up generics and allowing reciprocal drug approval from trusted regulators.

The fastest way to lower healthcare costs is to build more care and force real competition where prices are opaque and markets are concentrated.

Do you support changes to Social Security or Medicare to ensure long-term solvency?

Yes, but any changes have to be responsible and honest.

For Medicare, the focus should be on cost growth, not benefit cuts. Expanding provider supply, increasing competition, and lowering drug prices does more for long-term solvency than shifting costs onto seniors.

For Social Security, benefits should be protected for current retirees and near-retirees. Longer term, the system needs new revenue as demographics change, whether through adjusting the payroll tax cap or other broad-based reforms, so we keep the promise without pushing people into poverty.

Solvency matters, but it should be achieved by lowering costs and shoring up revenue, not by breaking commitments.

The administration has described the $12 billion aid package to farmers as a “bridge payment” to offset losses from the trade war and tariffs. What changes, if any, would you make to U.S. trade policy to address the challenges facing farmers?

The real problem for farmers isn’t the bridge payment. It’s the trade war that made the bridge necessary.

I would end broad tariffs that raise input costs and invite retaliation against American agriculture. Farmers don’t want subsidies to paper over bad policy. They want stable access to global markets and predictable rules.

I would also push to reopen and expand trade agreements that lower barriers for U.S. farm exports, while pairing that with targeted transition support for farmers during policy shifts. Aid should be temporary and focused. Trade policy should be built for the long term.

The goal should be simple: stop taxing farmers through tariffs, restore market access, and let them compete and win on a global stage.

How should the U.S. balance border security with comprehensive immigration reform?

By doing both at the same time, in the right order.

First, stop the counterproductive interior tactics that target workers and families in day cares and Home Depot parking lots. Focus enforcement on violent criminals and repeat offenders.

Second, enforce the border with competence (ports of entry, technology, and manpower) so the country has control and the rules mean something.

Third, fix the asylum system so claims are processed fast, fraudulent claims are rejected quickly, and real refugees aren’t trapped in years-long backlogs.

Finally, modernize legal immigration around the American economy (more work visas, faster pathways for needed workers, and legal channels that reduce pressure at the border).

Border security and reform are not opposites. A functional system requires both.

Do you believe the President should have the constitutional authority to order military strikes and detain a foreign head of state without prior Congressional authorization? Why or why not, and where should Congress draw the line between executive action and its own constitutional war powers?

No. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and that line matters.

The President should have limited authority to act quickly to defend the country from an imminent threat, protect U.S. forces, or respond to a direct attack. That authority should be narrow, time limited, and subject to immediate Congressional review. Ordering military strikes or detaining a foreign head of state without Congressional authorization goes far beyond that and risks dragging the country into conflict without democratic consent.

Congress should clearly reassert its war powers by requiring explicit authorization for any sustained military action, regime targeting, or detention of foreign leaders, with strict timelines and automatic votes. The executive should be able to act in emergencies. Decisions that could start a war should belong to the people’s representatives.

What is your position on U.S. intervention, specifically Ukraine, Israel and Venezuela?

My view is that U.S. intervention should be disciplined, interest-based, and time-bounded. The question is not whether America engages, but how and why.

On Ukraine, I support continued military and economic support. Russia’s invasion is a direct challenge to European security and the postwar order. Helping Ukraine defend itself weakens an aggressive adversary without putting U.S. troops in combat. That support should include strong oversight and increasing burden-sharing from Europe.

On Israel, I support Israel’s right to defend itself, but the current Netanyahu government has gone too far. Its conduct against Hamas has put far too many civilians at risk, and the blockade was wrong. Until there is a new government in Israel, U.S. policy should shift to defensive support only. Offensive weapons sales should stop, and any additional aid should be paused until there is a government we can trust to act within clear humanitarian and strategic boundaries.

On Venezuela, I oppose military intervention. The U.S. should pursue targeted sanctions relief tied to real democratic concessions, regional diplomacy, and humanitarian support. Regime change by force would likely destabilize the region and fail.

Across all three cases, the principle is the same: defend core U.S. interests and allies, avoid open-ended conflict, and ensure Congress plays a central role in decisions that could lead to war.

Where do you stand on federal legislation regarding abortion access and reproductive rights?

I strongly support a woman’s right to choose and federal action to protect it.

For decades, Roe v. Wade recognized that deeply personal medical decisions belong to women, not politicians. Codifying Roe as a national baseline is about protecting freedom, dignity, and bodily autonomy, and ending a system where a woman’s rights depend on where she lives.

This is a fundamental right, and Congress has a responsibility to protect it.

Should federal law protect same-sex marriage rights? What’s your position on LGBTQ+ protections?

Yes. Federal law should protect same sex marriage, full stop.

Marriage equality is settled law and settled freedom. People should not lose fundamental rights because the courts or politics shift. Congress should make those protections permanent.

More broadly, I support strong LGBTQ protections so people can live their lives openly and safely without fear of discrimination. Equal treatment under the law isn’t a special privilege, it’s a basic promise.

Is systemic racism still an issue in the United States? What role should the federal government play in addressing it?

Yes, discrimination and unequal outcomes are still real problems. But slogans alone do not fix them.

The federal government should focus on concrete, universal fixes that actually improve outcomes: fair policing and accountability, clean air and water, safe housing, good schools, access to healthcare, and equal treatment under the law. Those things raise living standards across the board and disproportionately help people who have been left behind.

The goal should be equal opportunity and equal treatment, enforced by law and measured by results, not endless rhetoric.

What climate and energy policies should Illinois prioritize at the federal level?

Illinois should push a climate and energy agenda that lowers costs, strengthens reliability, and actually cuts emissions.

At the federal level, that means accelerating clean firm power like nuclear, building transmission and grid capacity so cheap energy can move, and speeding up permitting so projects don’t die on paper. It also means investing in manufacturing and supply chains here at home so the clean energy transition creates jobs instead of exporting them.

Climate policy works when it’s about building more clean energy, not making energy scarcer or more expensive.

How should Congress regulate artificial intelligence, if at all?

Congress should regulate AI, but narrowly and with humility, and it should do so through a clear national standard.

We need one federal framework so innovators know the rules and people know they’re protected. That framework should focus on real harms, not hypothetical fears. Existing laws must clearly apply; fraud, discrimination, and consumer protection don’t disappear because AI is involved. There should also be strong safeguards for national security, including preventing malicious uses tied to terrorism, cyberattacks, or critical infrastructure.

At the same time, Congress should protect children, require transparency when AI is used in high-stakes areas like healthcare, finance, or hiring, and make sure there is always human accountability.

The goal is simple: set clear guardrails at the federal level, protect the public, and let responsible innovation move forward.

Do you support the proposed elimination of the Department of Education?

No, I do not support eliminating the Department of Education.

Public education is a core public good, and the federal government plays an important role in protecting civil rights, supporting students with disabilities, and making sure access to education doesn’t depend on zip code or family income. Eliminating the department would weaken those protections and create uncertainty for students, families, and schools.

Is the CDC a trustworthy, qualified source of information under RFK Jr.?

RFK Jr. has damaged the trustworthiness of the CDC. His long record of promoting vaccine skepticism has blurred the line between evidence-based public health and personal ideology, and that erosion of trust is dangerous. CDC guidance has to be grounded in science, not conspiracies or half-proven theories.

At the same time, credit where it’s due: his push to remove harmful food additives and colorings already banned in Europe is a step in the right direction. That work follows the science and addresses a real public health problem.

The standard should be consistent, follow the evidence, strengthen trust, and keep politics out of public health.

How do states’ autonomy balance with federal policy, for example, with abortion rights vs. Immigration enforcement?

States matter, but they are not sovereign nations. The Constitution draws different lines depending on the issue.

For abortion, we are talking about an individual constitutional right. That requires a federal baseline so a woman’s freedom does not depend on her zip code. States can regulate around that baseline, but they should not be able to nullify a fundamental right.

Immigration is different. It is explicitly a federal responsibility. Border control, asylum, and visa policy cannot function if every state sets its own rules. States can help with implementation and integration, but enforcement and standards must be national.

The principle is simple: when individual rights are at stake, federal protection comes first. When national sovereignty and borders are at stake, federal authority must be clear and uniform.

Should private equity and hedge funds be allowed to purchase so many homes?

No. Allowing large financial firms to buy up large numbers of single-family homes distorts local markets and makes it harder for families to buy or rent at reasonable prices.

That said, the bigger problem is still supply. Prices are high because we don’t build enough housing where people actually want to live. If we keep restricting new construction, capital will always find a way to bid up scarce homes.

We should limit excessive consolidation by large investors while also fixing zoning and permitting so we build more homes and bring prices down.

Do you support or oppose the expansion of work requirements for SNAP recipients? Why?

I oppose broad expansions of work requirements for SNAP.

Most SNAP recipients who can work already do, and piling on stricter requirements mainly creates paperwork traps that kick people off food assistance without meaningfully increasing employment. That hurts families and children while doing little to raise wages or job quality.

If the goal is work, the better approach is making work pay and making it accessible: job training, childcare, transportation, and a strong labor market. Food assistance should not be a bureaucratic obstacle course.

Who are your top five donors? How do you ensure donor influence doesn’t compromise your independence?

I’ve chosen to self-fund the vast majority of my campaign (over 99 percent) so my independence is never in question.

That means I’m not running to please donors or outside groups. I’m accountable to the voters of Illinois and to my own principles. It gives me the freedom to take on powerful interests, including ones inside my own party, and to be honest about what I think will actually work.

My goal is simple: represent the people of Illinois, not a donor class.