Greg Tanaka
Greg Tanaka (Democratic Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 16th Congressional District. He lost in the primary on March 5, 2024.
Biography
Greg Tanaka was born in Los Angeles, California. Tanaka earned a bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1994 and a graduate degree from Stanford University in 1998.[1][2] His career experience includes founding Pika Group and the business analytics firm Percolata.[2]
Elections
2024
See also: California's 16th Congressional District election, 2024
California's 16th Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 top-two primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 16
Sam Liccardo defeated Evan Low in the general election for U.S. House California District 16 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Sam Liccardo (D) | 58.2 | 179,583 | |
| Evan Low (D) | 41.8 | 128,893 | ||
| Total votes: 308,476 | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 16
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 16 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Sam Liccardo (D) | 21.1 | 38,492 | |
| ✔ | Evan Low (D) | 16.6 | 30,261 | |
| Joe Simitian (D) | 16.6 | 30,256 | ||
| Peter Ohtaki (R) | 12.8 | 23,283 | ||
| Peter Dixon (D) | 8.1 | 14,677 | ||
| Rishi Kumar (D) | 6.8 | 12,383 | ||
| Karl Ryan (R) | 6.3 | 11,563 | ||
| Julie Lythcott-Haims (D) | 6.2 | 11,386 | ||
| Ahmed Mostafa (D) | 3.2 | 5,814 | ||
| Greg Tanaka (D) | 1.3 | 2,421 | ||
| Joby Bernstein (D) | 0.9 | 1,652 | ||
| Total votes: 182,188 | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Evan Bell (D)
- Nickesh Viswanathan (Independent)
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Tanaka in this election.
2022
See also: California's 16th Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 16
Incumbent Anna Eshoo defeated Rishi Kumar in the general election for U.S. House California District 16 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Anna Eshoo (D) | 57.8 | 139,235 | |
| Rishi Kumar (D) | 42.2 | 101,772 | ||
| Total votes: 241,007 | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 16
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 16 on June 7, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Anna Eshoo (D) | 47.9 | 81,100 | |
| ✔ | Rishi Kumar (D) | 15.6 | 26,438 | |
| Peter Ohtaki (R) | 12.6 | 21,354 | ||
| Richard Fox (R) | 7.8 | 13,187 | ||
| Ajwang Rading (D) | 6.7 | 11,418 | ||
| Greg Tanaka (D) | 6.6 | 11,107 | ||
| Benjamin Solomon (R) | 1.6 | 2,659 | ||
| John Karl Fredrich (Independent) | 1.3 | 2,120 | ||
| Travis Odekirk (D) (Write-in) | 0.0 | 2 | ||
| Total votes: 169,385 | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
Endorsements
To view Tanaka's endorsements in the 2022 election, please click here.
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Greg Tanaka did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Tanaka’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
ADDRESSING THE PRIORITIES OF TODAY Unfortunately, Congress has failed to keep up. Congressional productivity and approval have dropped considerably over the past twenty years, and the average age of Congress remains high. Even as emerging technologies radically redefine the ways in which Americans live their daily lives, few members of Congress have any experience in such fields. Entrenched incumbents remain in office for decades, exploiting and exacerbating a broken system which rewards inaction and partisanship. MAKING CONGRESS WORK FOR YOU I am running for Congress because we need legislation for the digital age. As your representative, I will work tirelessly to promote proactive and pro-business reforms, combat discrimination and hatred, and push for policies that help Americans recover as fast as possible from the devastation of the pandemic. By tapping into the pioneering spirit of innovation which made our district what it is today, I’ll use my experience as a technology entrepreneur to champion evidence-based, solutions-oriented, policies which will finally make Congress work for you. THE ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE CHANGE NUCLEAR ENERGY AIRPLANE NOISE FLOODS MASS TRANSIT ALONG HIGHWAY 92 THE U.S ECONOMY INFLATION REDUCTION ACT: BIOTECH PROVISIONS R&D AMORTIZATION HEALTHCARE REFORM EDUCATION COVID RESTART TECH AND INNOVATION CRYPTOCURRENCY ENTREPRENEURSHIP FREE TRADE GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX FOREIGN DERIVED INTANGIBLE INCOME (FDII) AI POLICY DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TAX SIMPLIFICATION NATIONAL SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY FREEDOM OF SPEECH IMPROVING THE VOTING METHOD GUN CONTROL WOMEN'S RIGHTS ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMISSION TRANSPARENCY |
” |
| —Greg Tanaka’s campaign website (2024)[4] | ||
2022
Greg Tanaka completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Tanaka's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
We need a new type of leader prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the future. I was born in a working class LA neighborhood and raised in a single parent household. Despite my humble beginnings, I went on to attend Caltech and UC Berkeley. In 1994, I moved to Silicon Valley. As a father, entrepreneur, and devoted public servant, I have the fresh perspective and experience necessary for pragmatic and innovative leadership. I am known as a “fiscal hawk” on the Palo Alto City Council where I’ve served since 2017. At a time when millions of Americans are feeling the sting of record high housing and gas prices driven by runaway inflation, fiscally responsible legislators who can distinguish short term gains and long term disasters are in short supply. My campaign is built on the belief that Silicon Valley needs legislation for the digital age. There are many problems to tackle, including post-pandemic economic revitalization, a democracy in crisis, and the ongoing threat of climate change. However, there are also countless opportunities that we can harness with tech-savvy policies and an innovative spirit. I will deliver to Silicon Valley residents solutions for the twenty-first century.
- Economy: Americans have seen inflation rates skyrocket to their highest points in over 40 years. Furthermore, the national debt has reached over $30 trillion or $89,000 per American. Congress must rein in its wasteful spending and ensure every tax dollar is used efficiently. Consequently, we need policymakers willing to balance the immediate needs of the present with a realistic outlook on the future so we do not pass this crippling burden to our children. I am a firm advocate for fiscal responsibility because I believe that we have an obligation to ensure that our democracy can sustain the fast expanding pressures of today’s global economy.
- Healthcare: Our healthcare system is broken. We spend twice as much as other Western countries per person on healthcare, yet we have seen little to no improvement on a host of metrics ranging from life expectancy to the timeliness and effectiveness of care. To fix the system, I will propose legislation ensuring true competition in the healthcare industry to prevent corporate monopolies from reaping unlawful profits at the expense of the American people. We must demand transparency from Big Pharma and commit to the idea that Americans need not just treatment, but a system that cares for them – healthy or sick.
- Climate Change: Environmental scientists estimate we are fast approaching the point of no return. Californians have experienced this trend firsthand through massive wildfires and record breaking droughts. Consequently, any hesitation to act will have disastrous and irreversible consequences. I will take decisive steps to curb our dependence on fossil fuels by shifting our focus to green and renewable energies such as wind, nuclear, solar, and hydropower.
Changing times bring with it a new set of challenges to overcome. As the needs of constituents and the problems facing their communities evolve, so too should the policies aimed at addressing these concerns.
Education - Compared to our international counterparts, our education system is falling behind. Education is absolutely essential to determine the health of our economy, our quality of life, and the success of our nation. Without decisive action, we risk losing our place as an international leader.
Voter Rights - Democracy is under attack. The right to vote is sacred to maintaining our status as a republic and I will take a stand to stop the gradual disenfranchisement of millions of Americans.
Immigation Reform- This country was built on the backs of immigrants. However, today’s immigration system is in dire need of reform. As such, we must do all we can to ensure that immigrants receive fair treatment and fundamental protections. We should also reinforce the pathway for permanent residence for immigrants who offer immense talents, skills, and expertise, as they have the potential to contribute greatly to our workforce and economy wellbeing.
COVID Restart - Small business owners were sidelined by Congress during the COVID pandemic. We need to make sure that these businesses thrive.
Free Trade - Our trade policies determine our overall economic success. Embracing responsible and free, fair trade is crucial to our country’s economic recovery.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Tanaka's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY ANTI-ASIAN CRIME Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, hate crimes and hate incidents against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) have drastically increased. In fact, the national coalition of Stop AAPI Hate alone recorded more than 6,600 reports of hate incidents directed at AAPIs between February 2020 and March 2021. The AAPI community of CA-16 needs a politician who will go beyond the partisan platitude to fight for Asian American interests. To stop Asian hate, I believe that we need to first ensure that hate crime perpetrators are prosecuted for their action. We should also work on expanding the AAPI political participation and representation to make sure our voices are heard. ADVOCATE ASIAN AMERICAN VOTING WITH #8BY8 In addition to Congressional representation, Asian American voices aren’t being heard in government as much as they should be because of low voter turnout. That is why I have founded the #8by8 Stop Asian Hate initiative to encourage AAPI voter turnout. Learn more at www.8by8.us. STRENGTHENING HATE CRIME PROSECUTION The hate crime bill introduced by Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Grace Meng took a step in the right direction by streamlining the collection of hate crime data and providing further training to local law enforcement agencies, but it failed to address the biggest concern: prosecution. In the case of hate crimes, there is an extremely strong prosecutorial discretion. Since prosecutors face the extra and often excessive burden of proving that the crime is racially driven (“probable cause” in each and every element rather than “more likely than not”), many refrain from charging the suspect with hate crimes. For instance, recently, the Manhattan District Attorney office declined to prosecute Salman Muflehi as a hate crime perpetrator after he knifed a 36-year-old Asian American victim in Chinatown. A recent report even shows that, between 2005 and 2019, the Justice Department declined to prosecute 82% of hate crime suspects investigated. I believe that we should both incentivize and equip prosecutors more tools to apply hate-crimes provision by
BUILD PREVENTATIVE HATE CRIME POLICIES It is important to remember that most hate incidents we experience on the street, such as verbal harassment and shunning, do not amount to crimes. Ultimately, prevention and intervention are almost always more effective than prosecution. Thus, to fully fight back anti-Asian hate, we must adopt preventive, educational policies as well. Addressing the Manifestations of Hate
Addressing the Root Causes of Hate
MY STORY: SUPPORTING ASIAN AMERICAN POLITICAL REPRESENTATION America has become more diverse in the past decades, but our Congress has failed to reflect this change. Although Asian Americans constitute 5.7% of the U.S. population, Asian American Congressmen only amount to 3% of the Congressional membership. Similarly, in Santa Clara county, Asian Americans take up 39% of the population (the second largest group), but only 12.5% of the county elected officials are Asian. We know the reason all too well: ever since I was kid, my parents instructed me to stay away from politics. Political scientists have told us that one of the biggest hurdles to minorities in office is that not enough of us run for office in the first place. Minority candidates often perceive themselves to be less qualified and therefore less electable than those who have the benefit of prior representation. Minority underrepresentation, in short, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a feedback loop. But we also know the price of inaction. On my paternal Japanese side of the family, my grandparents were put in internment camps, where my great grandfather passed away, and were forced to relinquish their wealth during WWII--yet no one, not even the ACLU, were willing to stand up for their rights. As a 2nd generation Chinese American and a 4th generation Japanese American, I am no foreigner to America, nor to the struggle of an Asian American. I am not the first Asian American politician, and I won’t be the last. My pathways and motivation as a politician are closely ingrained in my passion for racial equity and Asian representation. Through listening to the constituents and engaging more citizens in activism, this campaign truly intends to restore the voices of the Asian American community.
The protection of the freedom of speech is an integral part of American democracy, and preserving this right is of the utmost importance. In these times where sources of information abound as never before, it is essential that all people have the freedom to choose what media they consume. Efforts to combat the proliferation of misinformation and hate speech should be, and are entirely compatible with retaining the inherent liberty of citizens to express their viewpoints. Ensuring that legitimate media outlets are not targeted simply for expressing a divergent perspective or opinion is central to protecting this most sacred of American civil liberties. Disagreements over political matters is a natural aspect of the democratic process, and safeguarding the diversity of opinion and the freedom of speech is crucial to preserving democracy as a whole. Attempts at clamping down on the legitimate diversity of opinion are antithetical to ensuring the preservation of democracy. Instead, an approach should be taken that carefully balances the fight against hatred and blatant misinformation with a keen understanding of the critical nature of protecting the freedom of speech. Threats to eliminate voices of opposition should not be tolerated and efforts should be made to ensure the coexistence of differing perspectives, for it is this diversity itself which allows democracy to flourish.
There are many cases where our current Choose-One voting method is not doing a good job. The Choose-One method, which is sometimes called the Plurality method, works fine when just two candidates are running, but fails terribly when three or more people are running for office. The person elected is determined by the random mix of candidates instead of the will of the people. This happens multiple ways:
The processes of vote splitting and spoiling are so well known that they affect every aspect of our democracy.
The simple and effective solution to these problems is to convert to Approval Voting. Approval Voting lets voters indicate all the candidates they approve of, instead of just one. For instance, they can approve of both Al Gore and Ralph Nader. The winner is the one with the most approvals. Vote splitting and spoiling problems are eliminated with no additional complexity. The ballot looks the same as our current ballot, but the words “Vote for one” are replaced with “Vote for all you approve of”. With Approval Voting, political polarization is reduced and new ideas get a chance to be heard. Even candidates that “lose” get an indication of how much support they have. Candidates can emphasize the things they have in common because voters don’t have to pick just one. Approval Voting doesn’t require primary elections, but voters can still decide to have them. Primaries take extra effort, but allow the voters time to learn about the candidates. Vote splitting in the primary election can be avoided by allowing more than two candidates to advance to the general election. Approval Voting has been well studied by political scientists. With all its advantages, it is free to implement. It can even reduce election costs if voters decide they don’t want primary elections. Primaries are optional with Approval Voting and probably not needed for many local elections. For all of these reasons, I endorse Approval Voting.
THE ENVIRONMENT NUCLEAR ENERGY As the specter of climate change continues to loom over the United States, the search for viable and renewable fuel sources has never been more important. One of these sources, nuclear power, has been largely overlooked on Capitol Hill for far too long. Any ambition for the United States to be powered by clean and zero emission energy cannot come to fruition without significant investment in nuclear power. Nuclear energy currently supplies 20% of the nation’s electricity and has done so consecutively since 1990. In 2020, nuclear energy provided 52% of America’s carbon free electricity, making it the largest domestic source of clean energy. The most notable advantage of utilizing nuclear power is the fact that nuclear facilities emit zero greenhouse gases when producing electricity. When compared to fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants are exponentially safer on a per unit electricity generated basis. Furthermore, nuclear is by far one of the safest sources of energy, resulting in a significantly reduced number of fatalities per year that is 99.7% fewer than coal, 99.6% fewer than oil, and 97.5% fewer than gas. Encouraging the use of nuclear power as well as other renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar should be both an economic and national security priority. However, our domestic nuclear industry has begun to lag, especially when compared to the nuclear industries of the international community, without the firm support of our government. In 2012, US nuclear electricity generation peaked at 104 operating reactors. As of November 2019, there were 23 reactors in various stages of decommissioning and the industry is concerned that over half the existing plants are at risk. In order to ensure nuclear energy thrives in the United States, we must protect our existing nuclear facilities by recognizing their reliability and clean output capability. We must also invest in the construction of new nuclear facilities as well as nuclear R&D to retake our place as the world’s foremost producer of nuclear energy. This change cannot occur until lawmakers who fully support this vital energy source are elected into office. Incumbent Representative Anna Eshoo, throughout her tenure in Congress, has voted against government support of the nuclear industry. If elected, I pledge to completely support our domestic nuclear industry by acknowledging that nuclear power is the solution to the global problem of climate change. NUCLEAR WASTE However, naturally as we produce nuclear energy, we also produce spent nuclear fuel or so-called waste. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) to ensure the nation had a permanent repository to store its spent nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada [6]. The federal government mismanaged the approval process for Yucca Mountain and has been mired in its controversy for nearly thirty years. As a result, there is still no place to permanently dispose of high level nuclear waste. Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored in 121 communities across 39 states because the country lacks a permanent location to dispose of the waste. The state of California is home to 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste, waiting to be shipped to a deep geologic repository that was owed to this nation over two decades ago, which cannot happen until Congress prioritizes energy security and technological advancement over political infighting. Consequently, Congress’ failure to create a repository has resulted in a substantial waste of taxpayer dollars. It is projected that the cost of this inaction to the American people, if Congress continues to falter on its commitments, ranges in the tens of billions of dollars. The federal government has been mired in the controversy of where to put the nation’s spent nuclear fuel for decades. It has become abundantly clear that new and innovative solutions are necessary to solve this pressing issue. However, if we are to make any progress on this decades-old obstacle, it is imperative that we work with the leading experts in the nuclear field. In 2018, Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation released a report calling for a reset of US policy regarding nuclear waste. The report called for the creation of a new, independent, single-purpose nuclear waste organization dedicated to managing the storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear fuel, which accounts for nearly 95% of the radioactivity of nuclear waste requiring permanent geologic disposal. I wholeheartedly endorse this position and the other recommendations made in the study, including finance reform to reduce cost inefficiencies and consent driven site selection for permanent nuclear repositories. As gas prices continue to rise across the country, we are in the midst of an energy crisis. Furthermore, the significant effects of climate change have forced Californians to undergo a third year of drought, with the state experiencing the driest January, February and March ever recorded (ca.gov 2022). However, there is a simple and cost-effective solution for both of these problems: Diablo Canyon. One of the most pressing issues facing the state of California is the decommissioning of the nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon. The plant is scheduled to go offline in 2025. A Stanford study published in November 2021 found numerous benefits to delaying the retirement of Diablo Canyon. Delaying retirement of the plant to 2035 would reduce California power sector carbon emissions by more than 10% from 2017 levels and reduce reliance on gas, save $2.6 Billion in power system costs, and bolster system reliability to mitigate brownouts; if operated to 2045 and beyond, Diablo Canyon could save up to $21 Billion in power system costs and spare 90,000 acres of land from use for energy production, while meeting coastal protection requirements. Using Diablo Canyon as a power source for desalination could substantially augment fresh water supplies to the state as a whole and to critically overdrafted basins regions such as the Central Valley, producing fresh water volumes equal to or substantially exceeding those of the proposed Delta Conveyance Project—but at significantly lower investment cost. Operating Diablo Canyon as a polygeneration facility—with coordinated and varying production of electricity, desalinated water, and clean hydrogen—could provide multiple services to California, including grid reliability as needed, and further increase the value of the Diablo Canyon electricity plant by nearly 50% (and more, if water prices were to substantially increase under conditions of worsening drought). These key findings highlight the state’s dire need for nuclear energy due to its low cost and high versatility. If elected, I will do everything in my power to keep Diablo Canyon open. WE NEED ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS There are significant barriers for nuclear technology and it cannot progress without substantial government support. As a result, I support government funding and investment in advanced nuclear reactor technology which has the potential to make nuclear energy much more efficient, safe, and clean. This technology has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of electricity and in other forms of energy production in every sector of the economy. These extensive advantages have led me to the conclusion that we need advanced nuclear reactors both here in the state of California and throughout the nation. If elected, I am committed to ensuring that Congress supports advanced nuclear initiatives and will provide the legislative backing for private industry to establish a new generation of clean nuclear reactors for a more sustainable nation. I particularly support the work of the American nuclear industry in developing advanced small reactors (SMRs) because of the numerous advantages that they can provide such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, the ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security and nonproliferation advantages. I also fully endorse the SMR work being done by Nuscale Power, which received the first ever Standard Design Approval of a small modular reactor design from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I believe this is a huge step forward in making the commercial production of SMRs a reality. In addition, I firmly support the funding of research initiatives by the federal government to assist in making leaps and bounds in the field of advanced reactor technology. Not only would advanced nuclear reactors help greatly in solving our climate crisis, government funding would also engage the private sector in the development of this important environmental and energy security objective. This is why I’m running for Congress. I promise to put science and facts ahead of partisan politics in an effort to ensure a sustainable and clean environment for both our nation and the world.
Since the Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen implementation in early 2015, the amount of aircraft noise, emissions, and community concerns have increased exponentially. The FAA’s mission is to “provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system”, but this provides limited protection for residents on the ground. The FAA estimates of noise impacts do not reflect how residents experience noise and are not accurate. Furthermore, the FAA is neither proactive nor transparent in its communication with the community, and does not disclose sufficient information. Elected officials and residents learn about changes after decisions are made and without prior, meaningful involvement with the communities that are affected.
THE U.S ECONOMY COVID RESTART There has never been a time more difficult and perilous for small businesses than the COVID-stricken world we live in. I know this because I am the owner of a small business in Palo Alto myself--during the pandemic, retailer clients I worked with plummeted from 35 to 1. Small businesses built America, but Congress has sidelined their needs during their most difficult time. It is, sadly, too late to save those businesses that have already failed, but with the end of the pandemic comes a new promise: a promise to recover, rebuild, and restart; a promise for small businesses to come back--but better and smarter. Some Federal programs administered by the SBA, such as the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), came too little too late. Other programs offered limited help and, in some cases, were even detrimental to small business owners. For instance, the previous two rounds of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)--the Federal loan to small businesses which they had to spend on two months of payroll--took place when many businesses remained closed because of public health restrictions. This meant that many business owners had to continue paying for utilities, rent, and employees who could not actually show up to work for two months. For them, the PPP only became financial burdens. WHY IS THIS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW? While Congress has failed to address small businesses’ most immediate needs, such as the piling rent and utilities cost during COVID-19, generous landlords and eviction moratoria have kept businesses afloat so far. Yet, as the nation continues to reopen and lift the moratorium protections, many small businesses will be driven out of business if nothing is done. WHY SHOULD I CARE? Small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy. They hire 47.1% of private sector employees (61 million) and provide 40.3% of private sector payroll. Between 2000 to 2019, small businesses created 10.5 million net new jobs, whereas large businesses only generated 5.6 million. In addition, when small businesses declare bankruptcy, they tend to have a greater impact on the local economy than big businesses. Since small businesses are more likely to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidations) instead of Chapter 11 (reorganization), it triggers 20 percent more neighboring job losses in the five years following the bankruptcy. IMPACTS OF BANKRUPTCIES When small business owners declare bankruptcy, the consequences are far higher than a simple restart. According to FICO, bankruptcies will stay with your credit reports for 7 to 10 years. A ruined credit means that you likely won’t be able to qualify for mortgages and will have to deal with subprime lenders for car loans for years, making it very difficult to restart a business. We need to reform the credit reporting system to aid these people whose business failed through no fault of their own. MY PROPOSAL: RECOVER, REBUILD, RESTART RECOVER
REBUILD
RESTART
The Bay Area is known around the world for its entrepreneurial spirit--a place where companies can begin in small garages and end up as giants like Apple and Google. There is nothing more representative of the American dream than entrepreneurship. However, we live in a time when that dream seems to be slipping through our fingers. In the past decade, the risks and costs associated with start-ups have deterred way too many aspiring individuals from entrepreneurship. In a competitive global economy, we must encourage entrepreneurship in the United States by reducing cost, promoting innovation, and attracting venture capital. RIDE THE WAVE OF COVID-19 STARTUP BOOM As counterintuitive as it sounds, the COVID-19 pandemic has actually rejuvenated American entrepreneurship. According to a Peterson Institute report, business startups in the U.S. grew from 3.5 million in 2019 to 4.4 million in 2020, a 24% increase. The trend can be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, the changing customer preferences during COVID-19--online shopping, healthcare preference, digitalization--offer new opportunities for entrepreneurship in retail and tech industries. Secondly, the economic downturn and rising unemployment rate forced many into entrepreneurship by necessity. According to the creative destruction theory, firm deaths and start-up booms go hand-in-hand. This is, again, not to say that we should ignore the needs of pre-existing businesses. What it does say is that supporting start-ups leaves us with the possibility of newer, younger businesses that will make existing industries more efficient--not to mention the possibility of creating entirely new industries. This is crucial since the U.S. market has become increasingly concentrated in a few firms over the past three decades through merger and acquisition as well as government subsidy--at the cost of market competition, dynamism, and productivity. WE MUST RIDE THIS WAVE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPLOSION TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND INNOVATION. WHY SHOULD I CARE, EVEN IF I'M NOT AN ENTREPENEUR? Entrepreneurs are spearheading our nation’s economy by improving productivity, spurring innovation, and creating new employment opportunities. When entrepreneurs falter, so does the economy. Many economists have attributed the slowing growth of the U.S. economy in recent years to declining entrepreneurship. The U.S. GDP has expanded at a rate of 3.5 percent per year on average after WWII, but since 2008, this number has dropped to around 2.2 percent--more than a percentage point slower. This gap means that over a 25-year period, the U.S. would lose at least $110 trillion in economic output; revitalizing entrepreneurship would be the key to closing this gap. In addition, entrepreneurs make great personal sacrifices, often giving up jobs with higher wages for new business ideas and opportunities. In short, a nation that fails to support entrepreneurship is a nation that refuses to reward innovation. COST REDUCTION AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE The lack of affordable healthcare has deterred many entrepreneurs--I know this because it was one of the biggest obstacles my start-up faced in its early days. That is why I support the Primary Care Enhancement Act, which would provide more affordable and flexible high-quality healthcare to 23 million Americans--including entrepreneurs--by correcting an outdated aspect of the U.S. tax code that currently classifies Direct Primary Care (DPC) as insurance rather than medical care. LOW-RENT OFFICE SPACE The pandemic has resulted in office vacancy rates that are alarmingly high across the United States. At the end of March 2021, around 16.2% of America’s offices remained vacant, forcing landlords across the country to repurpose the space. I believe that there is a win-win solution to this problem: landlords can lease their empty offices to start-ups rent-free, in exchange for property tax credits. Through a joint operation between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration, we can develop grants for states and local governments to institute this policy and help both the landlords and the entrepreneurs. Other spaces can be converted into startup incubators, accelerators, and other mentorship programs. This would encourage large enterprises to collaborate with startups, giving startups access to funding and the large enterprises’ corporate capabilities and networks. PROTECT HOME-BASED ENTREPRENEURSHIP For years, overzealous local zoning rules have significantly restricted home-based businesses. For instance, in Palo Alto, home-based business owners must live within the same building [5]. This means that Google, HP, or Apple’s humble beginning in the garage would be deemed illegal today. I believe that through Federal deregulatory preemption, we can liberalize the local zoning rules to make home-based business a possibility for every entrepreneur. INNOVATION AND TALENT SECTION 382 EXEMPTION In the R&D period, companies often lose money and accumulate tax net operating losses (NOLs) and credits, which can be used to offset the company's tax payments in other tax periods--a tax break of sorts. However, the IRS also created Section 382. a stringent rule that limits NOLs use when there is an ownership change. Thus, under Section 382, accepting critical equity investments can inhibit a start-up’s ability to utilize its NOLs in the future, discouraging venture capital investment in innovation. I believe that Congress should exempt start-ups from Section 382 to foster economic growth and job creation. NUANCED PATENT REFORM The rise of “Patent Trolls”--individuals or companies that thrive on purchasing patents and then threatening or bringing patent infringement litigation against alleged infringers--has been a serious issue to America’s innovation. However, previous attempts of patent reforms that my opponent sponsored would make litigation so punitive for the plaintiff that it would inadvertently discourage small start-ups from enforcing their patents against larger incumbents. Broad stroke legislations won’t solve the patent troll problem; instead, we must take a nuanced approach to it. EXPAND OUR PIPELINE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL TALENT Immigrants are the lifeblood of entrepreneurship in America. According to New American Economy, 44% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. However, the current H-1B visa (work visa) system is broken for both foreign entrepreneurs and foreign workers at start-ups. For the company founder, the H-1B visa does not cover the self-employed entrepreneurs--since it requires aa employer-employee relationship--and offers no path to a green card. For the company workers, getting a H-1B visa is often a constant struggle since it is capped at 65,000 annually, and startups have historically struggled to obtain H-1B visas for their workers. I believe that we need to create a new “start-up visa” for the global entrepreneurial talent. At the same time, we need to reform the H-1B system to ensure that other foreign talent won’t feel forced to work in big, established corporations just for the visa. VENTURE CAPITAL EXPAND THE QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK RULE The Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) rule is, in short, a tax break for shareholders selling the stock of certain small businesses in the manufacturing, retailing, technology, and wholesaling industry after growth. For instance, if an investor acquires the stock of a qualified small business after September 27, 2010 and holds it for more than five years, there is no tax (income tax, alternative minimum tax, and the 3.8% net investment income tax) on the gain. The QSBS is therefore critical to attracting venture capital for small businesses, and I believe that expanding the rule would encourage entrepreneurship across the country. ALLOW FOREIGN INVESTMENT INTO VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS Policies during the Trump Administration, such as the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) added new restrictions to foreign investment. While national security considerations are important, we must find the right balance with economic growth. ENCOURAGE CORPORATE VENTURE CAPITAL In the past decade, more and more companies began setting up corporate venture capital (CVC) units. In 2018 alone, the number of active CVC business grew by 35%, rising to 773 units. The CVC acts similar to a venture capital investor, but with the added offer of collaboration to support the start-up’s growth. This enables the start-up to continue to reinvent the future by acting entrepreneurially, while allowing the corporate to pursue ideas and opportunities that would be difficult to address through its own entrenched ways of working and thinking. We need to continue supporting--not restricting--CVC to create a robust startup ecosystem where entrepreneurs and big corporations can work and grow together.
The introduction of the first decentralized peer-to-peer payment system, Bitcoin, has led to the creation of a novel and booming set of payment services- known collectively as “cryptocurrencies” (researchgate.net). These digital currencies are not created by any government nor does any one individual have complete control over them. Consequently, these cryptocurrencies have become an integral part of today’s digital economy. As a firm supporter of tech innovation, I believe that we not only have a responsibility to cultivate this new technology but we also have a responsibility to integrate it into our society. Numerous benefits have already sprouted from cryptocurrency such as user autonomy, protection from inflation, accessibility and, most importantly, a massive reduction in economic inefficiencies (cnn.org, fas.org). In order to further adopt cryptocurrencies in our financial system, we should allow taxes and fees to be paid to government agencies in virtual currency. Some states such as Florida and Ohio have already adopted this proposal and if adopted federally, would go a long way to facilitate the utilization of cryptocurrencies as a widely used payment method. After implementing this proposal, I support making Bitcoin legal tender, paving the way for wider acceptance of cryptocurrencies in a rapidly digitizing world. These proposals will magnify the previously mentioned benefits of cryptocurrencies for our financial system and modernize our economy. It’s clear that cryptocurrencies and digital assets have grown exponentially in recent years to represent a large amount of value and economic activity. This quick growth, however, has far outpaced the government’s ability to respond. A national framework for regulating these digital assets has failed to emerge, with several federal agencies claiming conflicting jurisdictions (brookings.edu). If elected to Congress, I will promote legislation that clarifies and establishes a uniform regulatory framework for cryptocurrency markets in the United States. Technological innovation is an issue that transcends the partisan divide and as such, I support the efforts of bipartisan actors in Congress to establish an interagency task force with the purpose of researching financial crimes and terrorism with regards to cryptocurrency then developing regulatory and legislative proposals to counter those illegal activities (rollcall.com). I am a firm believer in the idea that the government should play a decisive role in driving innovation, not hindering it. As such, the goal of any legislation or regulation should be to (1) clarify the regulatory obligations for innovators to ensure market integrity and consumer protection, and (2) ensure that these obligations are not so burdensome as to stifle innovation. As a result, I support the bipartisan attempts made in the 116th Congress to exempt blockchain developers and providers of blockchain services from certain financial reporting and licensing requirements that would unnecessarily burden rising entrepreneurship (HR 528). Specifically, the act would confirm that blockchain innovators who do not take control of consumer funds, do not need to register as a money transmitter. Examples of these entities include "miners" that validate network integrity and multi-signature providers that provide enhanced asset security to users. The benefits that cryptocurrency can provide to our economy are immense. While we are recovering from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, we should be doing as much as possible to incentivize innovation and this cannot occur until we implement laws that foster growth rather than suppress it. In addition, I am dedicated to tackling the other obstacles standing in the way of this rapidly growing technological innovation. One serious obstacle was recently signed into law in December 2021 in the form of a small provision contained within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework (BIF). The crypto tax provision in the BIF was a change to the tax code definition of a broker, effectively changing the entities that are required to do IRS reporting and submit Form 1099 annually. Consequently, every single market actor who is involved in the process of facilitating transfers of digital assets could be required to identify the users who they are facilitating transfers for and then report that information to the IRS. In addition, any business or person conducting business that receives more than $10,000 in digital assets to verify the sender’s personal information, including their social security number, and sign and submit IRS form 8300 to the government within 15 days. Financial data reveals some of our most sensitive personal information, including our personal interests, the causes we support, and our plans for the future. I consider this ill-considered legislation to be an assault on our right to privacy and a burdensome regulation that would do much more harm than good (eff.org). I believe that such an invasion of privacy by the government is a serious violation of our constitutional rights and should be curtailed with prejudice. I am committed to protecting your individual right to privacy and I strictly oppose this provision as well as others like it that would jeopardize your civil liberties. Recently, bipartisan legislators have introduced various solutions in an effort to alleviate the harms presented by the crypto provision in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Among these solutions was the Keep Innovation in America Act (H.R. 6006). The Keep Innovation in America Act would effectively remedy the reporting requirements for crypto brokers and ensure that cryptocurrency investors would be able to comply with sound standards. I wholeheartedly support this proposal and call upon lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support this essential legislation to ensure that the American crypto industry remains strong. However, while Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17) has gone to the extent of cosponsoring this bill, incumbent Anna Eshoo (CA-16) has failed to support the bill in any manner. Keeping in mind that both of these lawmakers represent parts of the world renowned Silicon Valley, a fundamental question arises as to why Anna Eshoo has not translated her public support for tech innovation and cryptocurrency into legislative action? Another serious obstacle hindering the growth of cryptocurrency is the capital gains tax. I fully support a limited-time moratorium on the capital gains tax on cryptocurrency to ensure that this thriving innovation can progress unburdened. Consequently, I am against efforts made by the Biden Administration to raise this particular tax at this time because I believe that taxing cryptocurrency heavily stifles tech entrepreneurship and thus, leads to a loss of potential economic activity. Empirical studies have shown that capital gains creates an additional level of taxation on successful entrepreneurs. Consequently, the asymmetric taxation where gains are taxed more heavily than losses discourages risk taking. One major problem is that capital gains rates can lock in entrepreneurs, preventing the sale of assets to more efficient managers (accf.org). This is especially important as the US has seen a decline in the formation of new companies, worker flows, and job creation and destruction. Many economists note that this is a “worrisome trend because an important driver of productivity growth is the reallocation of resources from less productive to more productive firms” (brookings.edu). Thus, in order to ensure cryptocurrency grows and entrepreneurship progresses, the capital gains tax on cryptocurrency must be temporarily suspended until this vital technology can further develop. Web 3 is the third generation of the internet. It is a group of technologies that encompasses blockchain, cryptographic protocols, digital assets, decentralized finance and social platforms, NFTs, and DAOs. These systems build on existing internet infrastructure and leverage the power of cryptography to distribute power, resources, returns, and information across stakeholders. The fact that they are distributed and cryptographically secured gives rise to a host of new characteristics that have the potential to fix many of our existing institutions. Web 3 systems offer a better vision for how societies should use technology. Open, distributed technology platforms that are directly accountable to their users provide an alternative to a digital status quo that is dominated by big tech and subject to exploitation by potentially oppressive regimes and malicious non-state actors. Decentralization is the organizing principle of our past and future success. Decentralized competition was at the foundation of American growth and dynamism in the 20th century when it helped the country outcompete authoritarian adversaries. It can help us succeed in the face of new challenges today. Decentralization fosters democratized technology platforms that embody the values of open societies and will provide the infrastructure to power tomorrow’s economy and institutions. Policymakers should work with market actors to unlock the potential of Web 3 technologies and design regulatory frameworks that are carefully calibrated to address perceived risks. America’s technological and financial leadership depends on developing world-class systems that support better payments, digital identity management, data protection, and broader access to opportunity. Those systems will emerge from public-private collaboration, sensible regulation, and standards that are tailored to the different levels of risk inherent in different sectors and projects. If elected, this will be of the utmost importance to me. Cryptocurrency is the future of finance. The tech innovations pushed forward by this country and especially this district have made the possibilities of cryptocurrency limitless. If elected to be your representative, I will be wholly committed to ensuring that our district and our nation remain at the forefront of the world technological stage.
Research and Development (R&D) Amortization was in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in a section going into effect in 2022. After 2022, companies will be required to amortize R&D costs over 5 years instead of being able to deduct them in the immediate year. This is the first time since 1954 that companies cannot deduct the full R&D expense immediately, and this change will lead to the costs of research and development being largely overstated. See below to see the impact of reversing this policy and cancelling R&D amortization. ISSUES WITH R&D AMORTIZATION
WHAT IS IT? Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) refers to income derived from intangible assets, such as copyrights, trademarks and patents. FDII was included in Section 250 of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with the purpose of lowering the tax rate on income from exports of goods and services of American multinational corporations. Governments globally seek to incentivize location of intellectual property because it is associated with high-value jobs that accompany patents, copyrights and trademarks. IP is a critical component of our economy today, contributing to everything from vaccines to the software we use daily. FDII was created as an incentive for domestic investment of intangible assets and to encourage multinational companies to repatriate IP to the United States. FDII is especially applicable to software, steaming, and app related firms but is also critical to businesses that create movies and for consumer brands that are sold globally but maintain trademarks in the U.S. If we let FDII be repealed, competitor countries like China will gain an advantage with increased IP and innovation from the United States. ISSUES WITH REMOVING FDII FDII is paired elegantly with Global Intangible Low-taxed Income (GILTI) so that the US tax code is neutral with respect to location of IP making it a cost-effective means of encouraging development, maintenance or repatriation of IP to the US. The Made in America Tax Plan would increase GILTI while repealing and replacing FDII, meaning the overall tax burden of American firms would increase, and incentive to be based in America would decrease. Following the implementation of FDII in 2017, there was a nearly 130% increase in IP based in the United States, Google, Cisco, and Qualcomm being three of the major corporations who repatriated their IP, bringing jobs and profits back into the United States to benefit the American economy. Through the FDII deduction, Qualcomm saved $800 million in the years 2019 and 2020 combined. Without FDII, Qualcomm and others will have an increased tax burden, potentially harming the domestic economy or resulting in their expatriation of the United States to foreign domains, reducing American jobs for these companies. Prior to enactment of FDII, American companies were subject to takeovers or inversions because foreign businesses paid less tax on the income earned from IP. To keep America competitive and avoid inversions, takeovers, and expatriation of large U.S. companies, tax incentives such as FDII are critical. When IP is moved offshore, the jobs that support it are moved offshore reducing innovation and competitiveness of the American economy. The FDII incentive is critical for domestic investment, competition, and to ensure the American economy is innovative and prosperous. Eliminating FDII discourages multinational firms from bringing their profits back to the United States by increasing their tax burden.
The Global Minimum Tax is a set minimum tax rate that will be applied to all multinational corporations who participate in business across the globe. It is intended to increase the cooperate tax burden on business investments worldwide, therefore increasing global tax revenue. As companies grow internationally due to increasing globalization, the question of how to tax these firms in different countries across the world does as well. There is no current all encompassing system for taxing companies doing business globally, resulting in an imbalanced digital tax system decided by foreign governments on American technology companies to be used as a foreign revenue stream. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) drafted an agreement initially with the economic global Group of 7 (G7), detailing a two-pillar tax plan to solve the imbalanced implantation of taxation. The first pillar included a reallocation of the tax realm, and the second pillar was the global minimum tax. The global minimum corporate tax rate was agreed upon by the original G7 in June to be at least 15% on multinational corporations doing business across the globe. PUERTO RICO AS A PROTOTYPE In 1996, the U.S government begun the process of removing tax benefits for U.S companies operating in Puerto Rico. As a result, companies affected by this policy change experienced a 4.65-6 percentage point increase in taxes Global investment is also estimated to have been reduced by 10%. ISSUES WITH THE GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX By setting a global minimum tax rate, world governments will impose on American corporations a significantly increased share of the global tax burden, and the current Administration will cede American tax jurisdiction to foreign countries. Not only would the global minimum tax make American firms less competitive in the world economy, but would also weaken the U.S. economy, inevitably harming American businesses, jobs, and workers at a critical time in the process of economic recovery following the pandemic. An increase in taxes on American companies will be paid for by American consumers, and the tax revenue will not be returning to the U.S Treasury, but instead foreign countries. This lack of tax revenue leads to a decrease in American shareholder wealth, those who are taking risks in the development of the multinational companies, which could lead to less investment in American companies, and thus the American economy.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the US in 2019- before the COVID-19 pandemic- spent $11,582 per person on healthcare, which represents 17.7% of our GDP. For perspective, no other high income nation spends more than 10% of their GDP on healthcare. And according to projections from the same source, in 2028 we’re expected to increase our spending to 19.7% of our GDP. However, this exorbitant spending isn’t translating to better health outcomes. We have among the lowest of life expectancies among high income countries, and this number is falling. Other measures like infant mortality rates confirm that we see worse health outcomes on average than these same high income nations. ISSUES WE FACE 10.9% of Americans are uninsured: Due to the high costs of going to see doctors and specialists, these residents generally don’t have access to preventative care. This not only hurts their health, but means that they are more likely to experience medical emergencies, resulting in emergency room visits which are extremely costly, often causing extreme medical debt and bankruptcy. And under our current system, those who are unemployed are in the worst positions for receiving affordable care. Individuals with insurance are also affected because when the uninsured are unable to pay the exorbitant emergency costs, the government mostly pays through taxpayer dollars. 1 in 4 Americans Struggle Affording their Prescription Drugs: The prices of life-saving prescription drugs are rising more than 3 times the rate of inflation. This is a medical crisis, hurting the health of our residents and increasing the financial burden and stress placed upon middle and lower class families. Meanwhile Congresswoman Eshoo is fighting to protect drug companies, harming Americans and worsening the crisis. Misaligned Incentives: Our current system rewards the overuse of medical procedures. The fee-for-service payment structure that is most common today reimburses doctors for every individual service they provide, regardless of whether it helps the patient. We need to shift this system towards one that incentivizes quality, integrated, and cost-effective care, so doctors, nurses, and specialists are rewarded for working together to save money and improve patient outcomes, not for ordering unnecessary services. Concentrated Markets: Right now, both the provider and insurance markets are concentrated, meaning these groups aren’t competing to lower costs and improve quality and convenience. To harness the benefits of competition, we need to encourage new insurers and providers to enter the market, and improve price and quality transparency to allow individuals to choose the best option for them. Lack of Access: With Medicare and Medicaid reimbursing providers worse than private insurance, patients on those programs may not have access to all the services that those on private insurance do. This reimbursement system also hurts hospitals in rural and lower income communities, who are struggling to stay in business because a large portion of their patients are members of these government programs. We need to improve the system so providers treating our underserved populations are not at a financial disadvantage.
Our trade policies determine our relationship with other countries and the strength of the American economy. Embracing responsible and free, fair trade is crucial to our country’s economic revival as we emerge from the pandemic. The economic damage caused by high tariffs is well-documented. Tariffs, or import taxes, cost American jobs and increase the cost of manufactured goods, making it more difficult for U.S. industries to benefit their employers and customers. Moreover, tariffs are unnecessary and burdensome to the business community. In Silicon Valley, our high-tech industries are more than capable of competing with their foreign counterparts. Placing trade barriers on their operations will only hinder their capability to contribute to the economy and provide jobs for thousands of skilled workers. A removal of unnecessary tariffs and commitment to a free-trade policy will allow America’s businesses to become more competitive and drive economic growth.
It’s no secret that Silicon Valley was built on tech. Companies and entrepreneurs from our region have transformed the way that billions of people go about their daily lives and fundamentally revolutionized the global economy. It is imperative that our collective focus turns to harnessing the limitless potential of the internet and technology sector. Doing so hinges on making public policy more compatible with the realities of the digital age and updating our priorities accordingly. Revitalizing American innovation, enacting common-sense regulatory policy, and protecting a decentralized and constantly evolving internet are of paramount importance if we are to fully realize the benefits of the information age as a nation. Above all, policy surrounding technology and the internet should be consumer-first. Regulations should address harm being caused to consumers without impeding the productive and innovative potential of businesses. While regulatory action should be taken in instances like the corporate infringement of user data and privacy protections, federal regulators and lawmakers should consider the effects that antitrust policies would have on those who count on the products and services provided by major tech companies. The priority of policymakers should be to create and safeguard a system that rewards ingenuity and promotes innovation, rather than relying upon overbearing and out-of-touch regulation which ignores the greater problems at hand. Communities in California’s 16th congressional district and across the country benefit considerably from the presence of major internet and technology companies, and as such, enacting damaging regulations would simply bring significant economic harm to millions. Instead of dismantling highly productive tech firms, policymakers should instead turn their attention to strengthening the innovative capacity of public and private firms and educational institutions. By significantly increasing federal spending on research and development, broadening the talent pool for the internet and technology sector, and expanding the availability of information, we can breathe new life into American innovation. Putting greater resources into the hands of researchers, making data and ideas more accessible, and attracting the brightest minds from home and abroad to startups and laboratories can ensure that America continues to be a beacon of discovery and innovation well into the twenty-first century, and create the new digital infrastructure necessary for success in a continuously evolving internet age. By leveraging the unparalleled promise of the internet, we can use the benefits of this new technological frontier to better the lives of Americans and create unimaginable opportunities. Furthermore, policy frameworks which support and advance vital web3 technologies are essential to unleash the yet untapped potential of blockchains, DAOs, and digital assets. Doing so will extend needed financial services and resources to millions of Americans and bring them into the fold of an emerging decentralized financial system. Building comprehensive regulatory infrastructure for stablecoins that prioritizes equity, creates safeguards against financial crimes, and promotes integrity within the system is crucial for realizing the dream of a more inclusive financial future. Additionally, enhancing the resilience of digital infrastructure to defend against growing cybersecurity threats and data leaks is imperative as more and more essential public services and economic sectors digitize. We need solutions which fit into the modern digital economy, instead of adhering to outdated dogma that fundamentally misunderstands the very technologies and platforms being regulated. The opportunities and benefits of technological innovation should be embraced and utilized to our advantage, rather than demonized and treated as something to fear. Misguided tech policy threatens to leave us behind, and we need legislators who recognize the unique qualities of the internet and tailor evidence-based policy solutions to contend with the unprecedented threats and rewards of a decentralized internet and a rapidly digitizing world. Our future increasingly lies in tech, and in this day and age, we need leaders who understand that reality. THE CASE AGAINST EXCESSIVE REGULATION Major internet and technology companies, including Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook, produce a number of products and provide numerous services which have greatly impacted the lives of millions upon millions of consumers in America and the world over. The ways in which people connect with each other and interact with the world have changed dramatically due to Facebook’s social networking services, Google Search, and countless other innovations. Companies born in Silicon Valley, many of which arose in California’s 18th district itself, have been the driving force behind American innovation and ingenuity for decades, and represent just what Americans can achieve when granted the business friendly environment that allowed technology giants to thrive in their infancy. Directly targeting and harming these companies through overbearing regulations would not only stifle American innovation by clamping down on major engines of growth and technological development, but would also have far-reaching economic consequences for millions of Americans and their communities. In CA-18 alone, major tech companies are responsible for tens of thousands of well paying jobs, and the presence of these firms in cities across the district are a financial boon to communities. Google, which is headquartered in Mountain View, is a considerable source of job creation, with Facebook fulfilling a similar role with its headquarters in Menlo Park. Beyond the district, the offices and facilities of major technology and internet companies are linked with significant economic benefits for the residents of communities with which they interact. Amazon fulfillment centers, for instance, not only create jobs within the centers themselves, but spur growth in the towns and cities where the centers are located, boosting employment rates and putting revenue into the pockets of small business owners and local workers. Succumbing to the so-called ‘tech-lash’ and following through with misguided antitrust attempts would thus negatively alter the livelihoods of millions of Americans. PROMOTING INNOVATION FOR THE TWENTY- FIRST CENTURY Effective policy solutions aimed at encouraging and fostering technological innovation and development should ideally be grounded in the three fundamental tenets of incentivizing research, expanding the talent pool, and increasing the dissemination of information. Falling under these categories are a broad set of policies that can leverage government resources and expertise to promote innovation in the technology and internet sectors and beyond. By encouraging research, which can be achieved through providing tax-based incentives for research and development (R&D) spending and government-directed research grants, companies are given an incentive and additional resources for R&D, which can yield significant technological breakthroughs in the private sector. Growing the American talent pool through supporting expanding skilled immigration and investing in domestic training programs would grow the number of researchers available at American educational institutions and private firms, which has been shown to correspond to an increase in patents per capita, for instance. Thirdly, bolstering free trade and expanding open datasets, for instance, are part of improving access to crucial information necessary to boost innovation and technological development. In the United States, federal spending on research and development is incredibly low compared to many other developed countries, or even relative to past decades in America. Increasing R&D spending includes cancelling R&D amortization, expanding tax incentives, and direct research grants to educational institutions. Additionally, an increase in available researchers is directly linked to an increase in research and development activity. A one percent increase in the population of immigrant college graduates in the United States has been shown to increase patents per capita by 18 percent, and as such access to H1B, EB5, and O-1 visas should be expanded to increase the arrival of talent from abroad. The United States is also undergoing a shortage of college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Job training and youth mentorship programs in these fields should be expanded to decrease this deficit in domestic talent. Increasing connections between sources of growth and the minds and businesspeople at the forefront of key developments is crucial to expanding technological innovation. Expanding free trade, creating more open datasets, and transferring knowledge in universities into the market are the core facets of this strategy, which should hopefully result in global and domestic movement of institutional knowledge and information.[3] |
” |
| —Greg Tanaka's campaign website (2022)[5] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
|
Candidate U.S. House California District 16 |
Personal |
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on May 13, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Greg Tanaka for Congress, "Meet Greg," accessed May 16, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Greg Tanaka for Congress, “Priorities,” accessed February 12, 2024
- ↑ Greg Tanaka for Congress, “Priorities,” accessed May 10, 2022
