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: Claire Ragge Anderson
Current job title: Business Owner
Age: 67
Political party affiliation: No Party Preference
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: None
City where you reside: Los Angeles
Campaign website or social media: voteclaire.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.)
The top issues facing Californians are affordability, public safety, and effective governance.
First, affordability continues to drive families and businesses out of the state. As a lawmaker, I would prioritize policies that increase housing supply, reduce regulatory barriers, and support small businesses through targeted tax relief and streamlined permitting. We need practical solutions that lower everyday costs—not policies that make it harder to live and work here.
Second, public safety remains a fundamental concern. Californians deserve safe communities and accountability. I would support funding for local law enforcement, investments in proven crime prevention programs, and reforms that ensure laws are enforced consistently while protecting civil liberties.
Third, Californians are frustrated with a government that feels unresponsive and inefficient. I would focus on improving transparency, requiring measurable outcomes for public spending, and conducting regular oversight to ensure programs are delivering real results. Taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going—and whether it’s working.
Across all three areas, my approach is simple: focus on what works. That means setting clear goals, measuring outcomes, and being willing to adjust when policies fall short. Californians don’t need more promises—they need results.
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 gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, and that structure is important. States are best positioned to manage the practical details of voting in ways that reflect their populations and needs.
At the same time, the federal government has a legitimate role in setting baseline standards to protect the integrity and accessibility of federal elections. That includes ensuring elections are secure, transparent, and that eligible citizens can participate without unnecessary barriers.
Going forward, I would support a balanced approach that respects state authority while promoting consistency where it strengthens trust in the system. That means encouraging secure voter registration processes, maintaining accurate voter rolls, and using modern technology to improve verification and efficiency—while also ensuring that lawful voters are not discouraged or excluded.
Rather than one-size-fits-all mandates, Congress should focus on setting clear goals—security, accessibility, and public confidence—and allow states flexibility in how they meet those goals. The objective should be elections that are both trusted and accessible.
Ultimately, Californians, like all Americans, want confidence that elections are fair, secure, and reflective of the will of the voters. That should guide any future policy decisions in this area.
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.)
The federal government should focus on an immigration system that is secure, orderly, and workable in practice.
First, border security is essential. The government has a responsibility to maintain control of the border and ensure that immigration laws are enforced in a consistent and credible way. Without that foundation, it is difficult to sustain public trust in the system.
Second, we need a legal immigration system that better reflects the country’s economic needs. That includes improving and modernizing visa programs—particularly for high-skilled workers—while also addressing workforce gaps in critical industries. Legal pathways should be clear, efficient, and responsive to real demand.
Third, the asylum process should be fair and timely. Individuals with legitimate claims deserve protection, but the current system is too slow and often overwhelmed. Improving processing capacity and setting clear standards would help ensure that cases are resolved more quickly and consistently.
Overall, the goal should be a system that is both humane and functional. That means enforcing the law, creating workable legal pathways, and ensuring that policies are grounded in reality. An approach focused on what works can improve outcomes, reduce strain on communities, and restore confidence in the system.
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.)
Communities affected by the Palisades and Eaton wildfires need more than requests—they need results. As a lawmaker, I would take a more active and coordinated approach to securing disaster relief.
First, I would work to build a bipartisan coalition of members representing disaster-affected districts across the country. Wildfire recovery is not a partisan issue, and aligning with colleagues facing similar challenges—whether from fires, hurricanes, or floods—can increase pressure for action and move funding forward.
Second, I would push to attach disaster relief funding to must-pass legislation. Congress often advances critical funding by including it in broader bills, and disaster recovery should be treated with that level of urgency.
Third, I would engage directly with federal agencies responsible for disaster response and recovery to identify bottlenecks and ensure California communities are positioned to receive funds quickly once they are approved. Oversight and follow-through matter just as much as authorization.
Finally, I would maintain consistent public accountability by keeping the issue visible—working with local leaders, community organizations, and the media to ensure that recovery efforts remain a priority until funding is delivered.
The goal is simple: use every available tool to move from requests to results and help communities rebuild as quickly as possible.
Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, I support stronger restrictions on stock trading by members of Congress and their immediate families. Public service should not be an opportunity for personal financial gain based on access to non-public information.
At a minimum, lawmakers should be required to place assets in qualified blind trusts or invest in broadly diversified funds, such as index funds. This approach allows individuals to invest for their future while removing the ability to trade specific stocks based on inside knowledge or perceived influence over policy.
In addition, disclosure requirements should be strengthened and enforced in real time. Current reporting timelines are often too slow to provide meaningful transparency. Faster, more accessible reporting would help restore public trust.
Enforcement also matters. Clear rules must be paired with meaningful penalties for violations, including financial penalties and potential ethics investigations. Oversight should be consistent and nonpartisan.
The goal is not to limit legitimate investing, but to eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure that lawmakers are making decisions based solely on what is best for the public—not their personal portfolios.
Restoring trust in government starts with accountability, transparency, and clear standards. This is an area where practical reforms can make a real difference.
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 practical, effective measures to reduce pollution and carbon emissions. Protecting the environment and addressing climate impacts are important for public health, economic stability, and the long-term well-being of our communities.
At the same time, policies need to be designed in a way that is workable and fair. Regulations that are overly complex or costly can place a disproportionate burden on small businesses and lower-income families. That’s why I would focus on approaches that reduce emissions while maintaining economic stability.
This includes investing in cleaner technologies, modernizing infrastructure, and creating incentives that help businesses transition rather than simply imposing penalties. For example, targeted tax credits, streamlined permitting for clean energy projects, and support for energy efficiency improvements can lower costs while reducing emissions.
It also means evaluating policies based on results. We should prioritize strategies that demonstrably reduce emissions and improve air quality, and be willing to adjust or replace programs that are not delivering meaningful outcomes.
The goal should be to make progress in a way that is sustainable both environmentally and economically. By focusing on what works—solutions that reduce emissions without unnecessary burden—we can protect the environment while supporting jobs, innovation, and affordability.
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.)
I would evaluate any request for additional defense spending based on clear needs, measurable outcomes, and accountability—not simply approve or reject it as a matter of course.
National security is a core responsibility of the federal government, and ensuring that service members have the resources they need is essential. At the same time, defense spending should be disciplined, transparent, and aligned with defined strategic priorities.
Before approving additional funding, I would look for a clear justification tied to specific objectives, along with an assessment of how those funds would improve readiness, deterrence, or long-term security. Just as importantly, I would expect strong oversight to ensure that funds are used efficiently and as intended.
That includes regular audits, performance benchmarks, and efforts to reduce waste and duplication within the defense budget. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively, especially in areas as significant as defense.
The goal should be a military that is strong, prepared, and responsibly funded. By focusing on what works—clear priorities, accountability, and measurable results—we can support national security while maintaining fiscal responsibility and public trust.
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 engage in war should be made with the highest level of care and only under clearly defined circumstances. War should always be a last resort, used when there is a direct and serious threat to the United States, its citizens, or its vital national interests.
First, the U.S. should be prepared to act when there is a clear need for self-defense or to protect Americans from imminent harm. Second, we may also consider action when treaty obligations require us to support allies, particularly when collective security is at risk. Third, in limited cases, the U.S. can play a role in preventing large-scale humanitarian crises, but those situations must be carefully evaluated with clear objectives and an exit strategy.
In all cases, military action should be guided by constitutional processes, including authorization from Congress when required, and grounded in a well-defined strategy. That means clear goals, realistic expectations, and an understanding of the risks and long-term consequences.
Equally important is knowing when not to engage. Military force should not be used without a clear purpose, broad support, and a plan for what comes next.
The objective should always be to protect American lives and interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict. A disciplined, thoughtful approach is essential to ensuring that when force is used, it is both justified and effective.
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.)
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, and that role is an important part of maintaining accountability and public trust. For sustained military action overseas, a president should seek congressional approval.
At the same time, there are situations where the president must be able to act quickly to protect American lives or respond to immediate threats. In those cases, limited and time-sensitive military action may be necessary before Congress can formally act.
The key is maintaining a clear balance between flexibility and accountability. When military engagements extend beyond immediate defense or become ongoing operations, congressional authorization should be required. That ensures there is a defined mission, public transparency, and shared responsibility for the decision.
I would support efforts to clarify and modernize the framework governing the use of military force so that it reflects current realities while preserving constitutional roles. Clear guidelines help avoid ambiguity and ensure that decisions of this magnitude are made with appropriate oversight.
The goal is to ensure that military action is both effective and accountable—allowing the United States to respond when necessary, while maintaining the constitutional balance that underpins our system of government.
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.)
Congress is designed to serve as a coequal branch of government, providing oversight and acting as a check on executive power regardless of which party holds the presidency. In practice, that responsibility has not always been consistently fulfilled.
Too often, oversight has been shaped by partisan considerations rather than a steady commitment to accountability. At times, Congress has been overly deferential when aligned with the president, and at other times, more focused on political conflict than constructive oversight. Neither approach serves the public well.
Effective oversight should be consistent, fact-based, and focused on results. That includes reviewing how taxpayer dollars are spent, ensuring that laws are implemented as intended, and holding agencies accountable when they fall short.
As a lawmaker, I would approach oversight as a responsibility, not a political tool. That means asking tough questions regardless of party, supporting transparency, and working to ensure that government programs are delivering measurable outcomes.
The goal should be a Congress that functions as intended—providing steady, responsible oversight that strengthens public trust and improves how government operates. Accountability should not depend on who is in the White House; it should be a constant.
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.)
Social media presents real concerns, particularly for young people, including impacts on mental health, attention, and overall well-being. At the same time, technology and social media can also be valuable tools for learning, communication, and connection when used appropriately.
Rather than broad age bans, I would focus on targeted, workable protections. That includes stronger privacy safeguards for minors, limits on data collection, and greater transparency around how platforms design and promote content to younger users. Parents should also have better tools and clearer information to help guide their children’s use.
I would also support age-appropriate design standards—such as default safety settings for minors and clearer controls over time spent on platforms—while ensuring that these policies are practical to implement and enforce.
Equally important is improving digital literacy and education. Helping young people understand how to use technology responsibly and giving families the tools to set boundaries can be just as effective as regulation.
The goal should be to reduce harm while preserving flexibility and personal responsibility. By focusing on what works—privacy protections, transparency, and practical safeguards—we can address legitimate concerns without creating policies that are overly restrictive or difficult to enforce.
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.)
Public safety is about both reality and perception. While crime statistics may show improvement in some areas, if people do not feel safe in their own communities, that concern deserves to be taken seriously.
As a member of Congress, my role would be to support policies that address the underlying drivers of crime while also strengthening trust in public safety systems. That includes supporting resources for local law enforcement, investing in proven prevention strategies, and ensuring that laws are applied consistently and fairly.
I would also focus on addressing the underlying issues that lead to instability, such as housing affordability, substance abuse, and access to mental health services. Californians also want to see that public resources are being used effectively—particularly when it comes to major investments in areas like homelessness—and that those efforts are delivering measurable results.
At the federal level, this means directing funding toward programs that demonstrate measurable outcomes, improving coordination between agencies, and ensuring that resources are reaching communities where they are most needed.
Equally important is accountability and transparency. People are more likely to feel safe when they understand how decisions are being made and see that systems are working as intended.
The goal should be to improve both outcomes and confidence—reducing crime where it occurs while also restoring a sense of safety in everyday life. That requires practical, results-focused solutions that address both immediate concerns and long-term causes.
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 support reasonable term limits for members of Congress as a way to encourage fresh perspectives and reduce the incentives for long-term entrenchment in Washington.
At the same time, any approach to term limits should be thoughtful. Experience and institutional knowledge matter, particularly when it comes to complex issues like national security, budgeting, and oversight. The goal should be to strike a balance between continuity and new leadership.
I would support a limit that allows members enough time to be effective while ensuring regular opportunities for new voices to serve. A structure such as a maximum of 12 years in the House—equivalent to six terms—offers that balance. It provides time to develop expertise and deliver results, while also creating a natural point of transition.
It’s also important to recognize that term limits alone are not a cure-all. Transparency, accountability, and competitive elections remain essential to ensuring that elected officials are responsive to the people they serve.
Ultimately, term limits should be part of a broader effort to strengthen trust in government by promoting accountability, encouraging new ideas, and ensuring that public service remains focused on results.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
One of my more unexpected skills is picking up new things quickly when I need to. If something isn’t working, I tend to dig in, learn what I need to learn, and get the job done.
For example, when one of the booths at my business was torn before a private event, and no one was available on short notice to fix it, I bought a sewing machine, watched tutorials, and did it myself. I’ve taken a similar approach in other situations—breaking a problem down, learning quickly, and working toward a solution.
People have come to expect me to get the job done, but they’re often surprised by how I go about it.