Sean Casten: Illinois Sixth Congressional District Candidate

DOWNERS GROVE, IL — U.S. Rep. Sean Casten is running for his fourth term in the Illinois Sixth Congressional District on the democratic ticket. He faces GOP opponent Niki Conforti.

The remapped IL-06 includes all or sections of the suburban Cook Count communities of Alsip, Chicago Ridge, Palos Heights, Worth, Crestwood, Oak Forest, Oak Lawn, Tinley Park, Orland Park, Orland Hills, Palos Hills, Palos Heights, Hickory Hills, Justice, and extending into the Chicago neighborhoods of Clearing, Beverly and Mount Greenwood; and in DuPage, Downers Grove, Oak Brook, Oak Brook Terrace, Lisle, Wheaton, Glen Ellyn, Lombard, Elmhurst Darien, Hinsdale and Willow Springs.

You can find Casten's answers to the Patch candidate questionnaire below:

Candidate

Sean Casten

Campaign website

https://castenforcongress.com

What county do you live in?

DuPage

City or town of residence

Downers Grove

Office sought

U.S. House of Representatives for the 6th Congressional District

Party affiliation

Democrat

Education

Sean Casten has represented Illinois’ 6th Congressional District since 2019. In Congress, Sean has used his real-world experience to pass legislation to reduce the federal government’s carbon footprint, expand access to electric vehicles, and invest in clean energy technology. In addition to his climate work, Sean has voted to lower costs for families like prescription drugs and child care costs, introduced legislation to address the gun violence epidemic, and fought to protect a woman’s right to choose.

After starting his career working as a scientist, Sean co-founded and led his own business, which focused on recycling wasted energy and converting energy facilities to cleaner, more economic uses. He has also served as the president and CEO of a clean energy company, which used energy recycling technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sean has advocated for clean energy policies and has authored articles on clean energy technology, energy policy, and energy regulation.

Sean holds a B.A. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry from Middlebury College and Masters of Engineering Management and an M.S. in Biochemical Engineering from the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth.

Occupation

Member of Congress for Illinois' 6th Congressional District

Does anyone in your family work in politics or government?

"My wife, Kara, serves on the District 99 School Board in Downers Grove."

Previous public office, appointive or elective

U.S. House of Representatives for Illinois 6th Congressional District (2019 - Present)

The single most pressing issue facing our (board, district, etc.) is _______, and this is what I intend to do about it.

Last July 4 as I was traveling the district and walking in parades a woman approached me and asked “is our democracy going to survive?” This was a day that we were celebrating our nation's 248th birthday and the question on her mind was how many more we could look forward to.

That question, in some fashion, has loomed over too many conversations in recent years. Ourbest, most inspiring leaders have celebrated how much we have in common as Americans andhave worked to more fully expand our founders’ promise of liberty and justice for all. From thecivil rights leaders and suffragists of the 19th century who expanded our democracy to includeAfrican Americans, women, and native Americans to Ronald Regan’s vision of a city on a hillto Barack Obama’s reminder that we are not Red and Blue America but simply Americans... thisis America at its best. These leaders were not perfect but they inspired us to be better.

But the era of Donald Trump has scared people. They watched the separation of migrant families at our border, watched women lose their rights in the Dobbs decision, watched a mob descend on the Capitol on January 6 all while simultaneously seeing a Senate that refused to hold the perpetrators to account and a Supreme Court that chose to bestow immunity on the President rather than uphold the bedrock principle of equal treatment under the law. Our former colleague Elijah Cummings used to remind us that “we are better than this.” Too many Americans are wondering whether that’s still true.

I think we are. Not because our courts aren’t flawed, and certainly not because any assembly of American elected officials doesn’t also assemble their “prejudices, passions, errors of opinion, local interests and their selfish views” as Benjamin Franklin memorably described the Constitutional Convention in 1789. We may not immediately restore the rights that this Supreme Court has taken away through the Courts, nor will men of low character in high office suddenly become moral beacons to future generations. But we will survive because of our nation’s collective decency, and our collective willingness to organize ourselves into collective action and fix problems.

The response to Donald Trump’s excesses in 2016 was not to abandon hope. It was to march for women, for science, for our lives. And to organize and vote. Waiting for others to fix problems has never inspired anyone. But those who stand up now will deserve the love and thanks of us all. As Thomas Paine said, tyranny is not easily conquered, but the harder the
conflict, the more glorious the triumph. We will emerge stronger, together.

What are the critical differences between you and the other candidates seeking this post?

Back in 2018 I had no prior elected experience. Like my opponent today, I was running not on a record but on a promise of what I would do if elected. Over the course of almost 6 years since then, I’ve played a key role in the crafting of the Inflation Reduction Act through my service on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

I have participated in two impeachments and one attack on the US Capitol. I’ve averaged one town hall a month to ensure open communications with all of my constituents. I’ve delivered
over $6 million back to constituents through constituent services casework and helped to recover veterans benefits, social security funds, IRS refunds and more.

I’ve led multiple initiatives that became law, from the local (securing funds to upgrade municipal water and sewer systems and update 911 facilities) to the transformative (creating a $1B program to help deploy technologies that decarbonize energy-intensive sectors).

Throughout that all, I’ve been guided by the belief that there’s an awful lot more that unites us than divides us. The overwhelming majority of us trust science. The majority of us think markets are extremely powerful tools to harness ingenuity, but they require a functioning, ethical, and competent government to make sure everybody gets a fair chance. The majority of us think that democracy is worth defending.

The majority of us think women should have full autonomy over their health care, and that all Americans should have access to affordable healthcare. Most importantly, the overwhelming majority of us know that we are only as good as the world we leave it to our children. I ask only to be judged on my record. Did I deliver on the promises I made in the last election? Did I rise up to the unexpected challenges of the day? Did I make myself available to constituents to explain those challenges, solicit your input and explain how decisions were made? I believe that I did, and hope I have done so in a manner sufficient to again earn your trust.

Describe the other issues that define your campaign platform:

My top priorities are combatting the climate crisis, protecting a woman’s right to choose,
defending democracy, and lowering costs for families - like prescription drugs and child care.
But, there are a plethora of issues I am working to address in Congress, like flooding, housing,
health care, education, gun control, and many more. You can find a full list of issues I’m focused
on at Casten for Congress.

If you gain this position, what accomplishment would define your term in office as a
success?

Ultimately, the only fair judgment of any politician is whether they left the office a little better
than they found it. I ran on a promise in 2018 to do what my predecessor didn’t do. To hold town
halls, to stand up to Donald Trump, to make decisions based on facts and science rather than
political convenience. On those measures, I think I’ve succeeded in making this office better. But
on the major points of the day, there is still much to be concerned about. We are still working to
combat the climate crisis.

The GOP’s attack on women’s rights has put us in a more dire place than we were in 2018. The scourge of gun violence continues largely unabated. And while I’m proud of the work I’ve done to oppose those decisions and to make things better than they might otherwise have been, I’m not so naive as to suggest that we don’t have a lot more work to do.

As I said on the House floor last year, many of the things that would make our country stronger
and safer are quite popular, but can’t find a legislative solution because of the structure of our
government. To that end, I introduced a package of bills to reform the structure of the Senate, the Electoral College and the Supreme Court to improve the effectiveness of our democracy. Those changes may seem too ambitious for a single member, and perhaps not possible in this moment.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that the government our founders created didn’t allow
women, African Americans or Native Americans to vote. It didn’t allow for the direct election of
Senators. It did not provide equal protection under the law. Our country’s progress has always
depended on people who - in the words of Condoleezza Rice - “made the impossible inevitable”.
My definition of personal success would be to do that for climate change and democracy reform.

Why are you running for office?

I’m running for office because there is more work to get done.

When I first ran in 2018 I had 20 years of private sector experience under my belt, including 16
as an entrepreneur. I had a theory of how government should work but had never held public
office, nor did I have any experience working in a parliamentary body. Six years later, I’ve had
my share of legislative successes as described elsewhere in this questionnaire.

I’ve been one of just 12 members of the US government representing our country at the climate
conference in Madrid in 2019 (and part of a much larger delegation at subsequent meetings in
Glasgow and Sharm el-Sheik). I’ve formed and led caucuses to protect investors who want to
invest in sustainably-oriented companies, served in leadership positions in environmental and
energy caucuses, led the call for democracy reform - and yes, gained a fair amount of seniority.

The work we have to do is not done. The ship of state that is the US government turns slowly,
but I’ve been proud to play a role in helping steer it in the right direction, and have gotten a little
better with each successive oar stroke. I’d like to keep rowing.

Explain your attitudes toward fiscal policy, government spending and how taxpayer dollars
should be handled by your office?

Government debt as a percent of GDP is at an all-time high and we need to turn that around.
However, government revenue as a percent of GDP is also near historic lows and we would be
foolish to focus only on government spending to close that gap. Undoing the Trump tax cuts, that accrued primarily to the wealthiest Americans and corporations is both fair and fiscally
responsible.

Fully funding the IRS so that they can prosecute tax cheats is also urgent. We made partial
progress on fixing their historic shortfalls in the Inflation Reduction Act, but they still do not
have the software or human resources necessary to go after the largest and most sophisticated tax cheats. But beyond that, we need to avoid the lazy narrative that “government should be run like a business” and never spend more than we take in - because no successful business operates that way.

Every business that ever borrowed money to build a new factory, just like every household that
ever borrowed to buy a home spent beyond their revenue. But they built something that delivered future returns. When the US spends money on roads, bridges, early childhood education, courts to protect and enforce the rule of law, healthcare to ensure every American can live up to their full capacity, national labs and other R & D to build the technologies of the future… all of these are worthy investments, so long as the future return exceeds our cost of borrowing. Because while it is true that US debt is historically high, it’s also true that our economy is growing faster than all of our competitors and that countries around the world put trillions of dollars of their own currency in US Treasuries and US equities because they can earn a better return here then they can in their home countries.

We should of course be fiscally responsible - but we should also acknowledge that there isn’t a country in the world that wouldn’t love to trade with our economic position. Let’s keep it that way.

What would you do to help constituents struggling with the ever-increasing cost of living?

During the COVID-19 economic downturn, the entire global economy saw a surge in inflation.
The global nature of that inflation should have made it clear that it was not to be blamed on any
one country’s fiscal or monetary policy, but actually reflected significant - and, largely transitory
- supply/demand imbalances as consumption in certain sectors collapsed and decades of “just in time” manufacturing/inventory systems were unprepared for that level of volatility. Since then,
the US has not only had stronger growth than all other OECD countries but also - somewhat
uniquely - has been able to deliver wage growth that on average has outpaced inflation. By
comparison, the “low inflation” era from 2000 - 2020 generally saw wage growth lag inflation,
contributing to ever-increasing wealth inequality.

Today’s economic data is helping more Americans build more wealth, closing historic gaps even
as inflation was still a bit higher than we’d like. To be sure, those economic averages don’t apply
to every American. Also, the way we define inflation excludes the cost of housing which continues to rise much faster than the rest of the economy.

The last 4 years have been great for the wealth of homeowners, but lousy for aspiring first-time buyers. Since 2020, we’ve provided direct funding to the neediest through economic impact, child tax credits and business “PPP” loans which required businesses to use the majority of those loans to cover payroll. Those payments have all substantially ended but made a big difference in keeping folks afloat. As we move forward we should make the child tax credit permanent.

While that was in place, child poverty in the US fell by nearly 40%. My Republican colleagues
refused to extend it when it expired and I hope in the next term we are able to make it permanent.

We also need to continue to strengthen workers’ rights to ensure that economic gains are shared by company owners and employees. I was proud to sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and passed it on the floor in the last Congress, but was frustrated that we could not get through the Senate. It will be critical to pass that soon in order to ensure that wage growth continues apace with economic activity.

Finally, we need to make housing affordable for all income levels in America. Many of the
barriers to housing are local (zoning rules, NIMBYism, etc.) but federal support for low-income /
affordable housing, ensuring full enforcement of the Fair Lending Act to undo the legacy of
redlining and creating the fiscal conditions to encourage the Federal Reserve to lower interest
rates will be key to the next Congressional term.

Regarding the migrant crisis: Should the Biden Administration stiffen requirements for
asylum seekers, and should Texas provide more notice to Illinois when busing migrants to
the Chicago area?

It should be lost on no one that the party of Donald Trump sees value in a broken immigration
system - the better to sell fear and mobilize reactionary voters, and it is hard to see that political
dynamic changing soon. What Governor Abbott has done is a heartless, shameful, and inhumane political stunt. Yes, he should absolutely provide more notice to Illinois. With respect to asylum seekers, it is important to separate the local from the national.

Locally, we’ve all seen municipal resources stretched as immigrants with few, if any, resources
require housing, vaccination, and other social services while they wait for their asylum hearing.
I’ve been tremendously impressed by the humanity and dignity our local mayors and citizens
have shown support for their needs but appreciate the fiscal constraints they are all under. In
January, Rep. Bill Foster, Rep. Lauren Underwood, and I led a letter to President Biden urging
him to use all available tools to support both the City of Chicago and the suburbs as they
navigate the challenges caused by the arrival of migrants.

I’ve also pushed the White House to shorten and simplify the work visa process so that these
asylees can get jobs to cover their expenses and not depend on local services. Which brings us to the national data. We have a very strong economy that is consistently creating more jobs than
workers. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the recent increase in net
immigration to the United States will add $7 trillion in economic activity to the US over the next
decade as these working-age immigrants offset the demographics of an aging native-born
population. Countries in Asia and Europe are looking at long-term structural slowdowns in part
because they have not been as attractive to, nor as welcoming of immigrants as the United States.

There always has been, and probably always will be a xenophobic backlash against immigration
to the United States. But the moral and economic case for immigration has always been strong
and our historic success has always depended on our nation’s ability to prioritize the latter over
the former.

Should state or federal funding be provided to help municipalities address the arrival of
asylum seekers?

Yes. I have pressed the White House to make sure that as immigrant processing facilities are
shifted from border states to Illinois, we ensure that the federal resources also flow to our
municipalities. We have also been pushing consistently to expedite the provision of temporary
work visas so that immigrants who are awaiting their asylum hearings can earn a paycheck to
help feed themselves, grow our economy, and minimize the draw on local social services.

Is the federal government doing enough to secure the borders? Why or why not?

I have always been fond of Ronald Reagan’s description of America as a “tall proud city…
teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace - a city with free ports that
hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and
the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

That is the vision of America that drew most of our ancestors here and we remain American only so long as we hold onto that vision. There is nothing about that vision that is inconsistent with border security - but lose something essential to our character when we focus so much on
keeping bad people out that we fail to let the good people in.

Recent decades have seen a surge of immigration to the United States. Some are driven by
foreign factors beyond our control (political destabilization in Venezuela and Central America),
some by natural disasters (hurricanes in Honduras, earthquakes in Haiti) and much driven by the fact that the United States remains the place where the best and brightest want to come.

The challenge over the last several terms is that while there is bipartisan support for increased border security to keep the bad folks out, it is increasingly partisan to provide necessary screening and support for the good folks trying to get in. From the Dreamers and DACA recipients we’ve left in limbo to underfunded asylum courts / refugee processing facilities to the farmworkers we have welcomed when they give us cheap food but demonized as “illegal”... we can do better.

I’ve been proud to cosponsor and help pass on the floor of the House bills to address all these issues, from the Dream and Promise Act to the Farm Workforce Modernization Act - and to provide increased resources for Border Security and immigration processing. I’ve watched in sadness and anger as my colleagues across the aisle remained silent when Donald Trump separated families at the border and sought to prevent Muslims from entering our country. And I’ve been frustrated when those in my own party overstated the cost of immigration and understated the benefits.

But so long as it remains partisan to uphold Ronald Reagan’s vision it will remain a challenge to
get proper, comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate by virtue of the Senate’s
structure and rules which allow a small, xenophobic minority to control what comes to the floor.
That is one of the many reasons why I have so consistently called for the Senate to abolish the
filibuster so as to at least allow themselves to vote on bills that are supported by the majority of
their members.

Should the US stop funding Israel and support a ceasefire in Gaza?

Hamas’ attack on October 7 was horrific and unconscionable. Israel has the absolute right to
defend itself from those attacks, to secure the release of their citizens who are still held hostage
by Hamas, and to ensure that their citizens are safe from future attacks.

However, that does not afford Israel the carte blanche authority to decimate the Gaza strip any
more than the 9/11 attacks gave the United States the authority to decimate Afghanistan or any
other countries harboring al-Qaeda fighters.

I have consistently called for the creation of conditions to lead to a permanent peace - with two
fully autonomous states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Hamas’ stated
goal to eliminate the state of Israel is inconsistent with that peace - but so too is the rhetoric from the far right in the Israeli Knesset.

In the near term, this will require US diplomacy to press both parties to (a) return all hostages,
(b) demilitarize Hamas, (c) prevent civilian casualties, (d) curtail settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank, (e) prioritize near-term flows of food, water and humanitarian aid to Gaza, (f) provide long-term rebuilding of the Gaza strip and restoration of a peaceful civilian government (g) elevate moderate voices in the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority who advocate for peace and tolerance rather than demonization and war and (h) constructive
engagement with other Arab countries as partners for peace and to curtail malign Iranian
influence.

We have engaged with the White House directly and with affected constituents on all of those
points. I am quite confident that US actions have substantially accelerated the end of the war and reduced the humanitarian cost than it would have been without our active diplomacy - even as I am horrified by the loss and suffering experienced over the last 11 months.

Should the U.S. continue providing aid to Ukraine?

The United States is the only country that can effectively advocate for the rule of law,
democracy, and the post-WWII order. As a European parliamentarian once noted to me: “Bad
things happen when the United States doesn’t lead.”

We should continue to support Ukraine until either (a) all territory seized by Russia including
Crimea has been returned to Ukrainian control or (b) the Ukrainian government is satisfied with
something less. The needless delays in the delivery of aid as Republican leaders in Congress
dithered over whether to bring an (overwhelmingly bipartisan bill) to the floor undoubtedly cost
Ukrainian lives and contributed to Russia’s advances this past summer. I am pleased that
Congress finally passed an aid package but we could have and should have done more to stand
up to Putin’s aggression.

In the early stages of the war, we were careful not to act in a way that could be interpreted by
Russia is unduly aggressive, lest we provoke a larger war. That led us to focus on shorter-range, defensive weapons and to maintain diplomatic ambiguity with respect to NATO expansion. As Russian strategy adapted and moved their control operations beyond the reach of Ukrainian weapons into Russian territory it became necessary to provide Ukraine with longer-range weaponry which has in turn helped Ukraine to execute operations inside of Russia and change the dynamics of the conflict.

Candidly, I don’t know how to calculate the counterfactual. If we provided more lethal, longer-
range weapons earlier would we have ended the war by now or would we have provoked Russia into a broader conflict? We will never know, but I am generally supportive of the flexible and expanding approach taken by the Biden administration.

When the price of success is this low and the cost of failure is so high, the moment calls for us
not to give up, but to finish the job.

Should candidates be disqualified from holding office if they faced misdemeanor charges
related to Jan. 6, 2021?

The plain text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is quite clear: “No person shall be a Senator
or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an
oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability.”

Note that this says nothing about whether someone was charged or convicted of misdemeanor (or felony) offenses. It is the act of “engaging in insurrection of rebellion” that is disqualifying. And while that may raise due process concerns, the alternative is unworkable since successful insurrections are - by definition - never prosecuted in a court of law.

One need look no further than the waves of pardons Trump issued (and the even larger number
that were requested by sitting members of Congress who supported his efforts in the final days of his Presidency) to see that limitation.

What else would you like voters to know about yourself and your positions?

I ran for Congress in 2018 having spent 20 years in the private sector running companies that
were dedicated to profitably reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was the conceit of those
companies - and my Congressional career since - that there is no conflict between our wallets
and our morals; there is only a conflict between the interests of energy producers (who want to
sell as much of their product as possible at as high a price as possible) and the interests of energy
consumers (who want access to clean, reliable energy at the lowest possible price.)

Since coming to Congress, I’ve been able to bring that perspective to the Select Committee on
the Climate Crisis, where I served for two terms and where we wrote the report that became the
Inflation Reduction Act - a consumer-focused bill that is the biggest climate bill ever passed by
any government anywhere. But that conceit - that there is a win/win provided we craft regulation
to align profit incentives with the public interest, and that no business in any industry ever comes
to Washington to ask for a change in the status quo - has informed all of our other legislative
efforts as well. Pushing for expansions in the Affordable Care Act as a way to lower healthcare
costs for all.

Pushing to give women the right to choose because a society where all are equal is also a society
where all are productive. And pushing to expand the promise of our democracy over those who
derive power from minoritarian institutions like the Senate, the Electoral College, and the
Supreme Court.

Do you support your party’s candidate for president?

Yes.