Kaylee Peterson is the Democratic candidate running to represent Congressional District 1. Her opponent, incumbent Republican Rep. Russ Fulcher, declined Idaho Public Television’s invitation to debate.
This year we at Idaho Public Television, along with debate organizers nationwide, saw a number of candidates decline to participate in debates or fail to respond to our invitations in the first place. As Federal Election Commission rules say we cannot hold a debate with just one candidate, we’re allowing those who did qualify for the debates a chance to sit down with us for a one-on-one interview in which they can answer questions much like they would have received in a traditional debate setting.
Melissa Davlin, Idaho Reports host:
Thanks so much for joining us. First of all, why are you running for Congress?
Kaylee Peterson, Congressional District 1 candidate:
I think for me, when I started school, the plan was to go into public policy and policy reform. But then in this election specifically, I found out we had hundreds of seats that were running unopposed.
IR:
By “we” you mean the Idaho Democratic Party, right?
Peterson:
Right, absolutely. For a lot of Idaho citizens, that meant there was no choice, and that ultimately means no accountability for people that are already in office. Running in this election meant giving the people of Idaho a voice – a choice – and making current representatives accountable for their actions in Congress.
IR:
Why Congressional District 1, as opposed to a legislative seat or a College of Western Idaho trustee, or one of the many other offices that were on the ballot this November?
Peterson:
Absolutely, and that’s a fair question. I mean, I can’t go in as a freshman candidate without expecting this question. But for me, I live in Legislative District 14. And District 14, thankfully, has some phenomenal female candidates at the state level. But we had no one at the federal level and specifically, my opponent, Russ Fulcher, I think needed somebody to hold him accountable for his actions over the last couple of years.
IR:
We’ll get to the issues that you’re running on in a second. But you bring up the fact that you are a freshman candidate. You are new to the Idaho political scene. Incumbent Russ Fulcher is running for his third term in Congress, and he served in the Idaho Senate for several years before that. Why should voters trust you with this office?
Peterson:
I think one of the things we’ve learned is that experience does not equal qualifications or integrity. Russ Fulcher has proven that even though he has two decades of experience, he is not ultimately delivering on the promises that he’s made to Idaho people. What I hear is “Who is Russ Fulcher?” and “Where is Russ Fulcher?” So that 20 years has not taught him how to get involved, how to listen, and how to represent while he’s in D.C.
IR:
What issues are at the top of your priority list?
Peterson:
I think first and foremost, we can’t accomplish anything if we don’t restore some of the trust in government that we should come to expect. I mean, government is supposed to hold all of the potential that we have as a population towards a brighter future, a stronger future. And right now, people feel disconnected. They don’t trust the people in office. They don’t trust policy. They don’t trust the political process.
By restoring integrity and truth and transparency to office, then we can start to deliver on some of the promises. That means public land and conservation. That means health care, both mental, physical and veterans’ benefits. That means tax reform, so that we can take some of the burdens off of our middle class, working class, and blue-collar Idaho citizens. Those are those are huge priorities for me.
IR:
Right now, Democrats control the House and very narrowly the Senate, as well as the White House. What would be different if you get elected to Congress when it comes to issues that are facing Idahoans and Americans, like inflation and rising gas prices?
Peterson:
It’s difficult because my opponent uses these terms a lot as evidence of failure in this administration, but what we see is inflation and gas prices are a global issue. They’re on the rise across the entire globe, not just America. What we need are representatives that are willing to sit down at the table, work across the aisle, to try and mitigate some of these issues. For instance, the price gouging bill that tried to prevent gas stations from hiking up prices even if the cost of oil was going down – my opponent voted against that. He’s unwilling to sit at the table to find solutions when it comes to a Democrat in office, and that’s unacceptable.
IR:
You have also mentioned public land management. What is your approach, especially as we’re seeing longer, hotter, and more devastating fire seasons?
Peterson:
We have some of the greatest research coming out right now on how to mitigate drought and how to protect our watersheds, how to manage our forests. That comes down to properly funding these programs. We need to make sure that the federal funding in place is enough to maintain that property. That also means looking at how we reimburse counties for property management. Some counties right now receive a lot more than other counties in the state that have more [federal] property. I think it’s looking at where funding is going and trying to find programs that can properly fund the forest management we need.
IR:
Money is one thing, but then what you do with the money is another. How would you hope the federal government and these agencies approach that land management to do things like reduce the fuel load?
Peterson:
You know, I think right now we look at what Russ Fulcher has done, and he’s trying to refuse all federal funding. His big approach is trying to return land to state lands and deregulate industries that are already on federal lands. And what we’ve seen is that that’s a complete failure when it comes to conservation and public land management because the state has a responsibility to use that land for a certain profitability factor. And what we see is when Russ Fulcher was in the state legislature, we sold off over 100,000 acres of public lands.
What we really need to do is focus on the programs we already have, and we have some fantastic ones. Pittman-Robertson is an 85-year-old conservation program – that Russ Fulcher recently tried to dismantle – that uses money from sportsmen’s programs and guns, ammo, and bows, and then puts it back into conservation. So, focusing on programs that are already successful, and then how do we maximize that and use federal funding appropriately?
IR:
In Congressional District 2, Rep. Mike Simpson has introduced a concept to breach the four Lower Snake River dams to help save the salmon and address some of the other regional needs that would be affected by dam breaching. This is something that not only Rep. Fulcher opposes, but several other lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican. Where are you on breaching the dams?
Peterson:
It was one of those issues that I did not expect to probably be one of the most divisive issues when I decided to run for office. But it is incredibly important to so many different communities for different reasons. What I’ve seen from the proposal that Mike Simpson put forward, there are several solutions to a lot of the issues that worry communities like Lewiston, worry communities like the small agriculture businesses that rely on the dams.
But once again, we see Russ Fulcher is not even willing to sit down at the table, so whereas the First Congressional District should have someone representing their interests in making sure that there are solutions to all of these issues facing these real, everyday Idahoans – we have Oregon and Washington who right now are at the table making decisions for communities like Lewiston. Whether we’re for or against breaching the dams, what’s more important is we have somebody who’s willing to actually sit down at the table and represent the interests of the people that are worried about the impacts that are coming for them.
IR:
One of the other issues that you mention on your campaign website is reproductive choice. Congressional District 1 is a very conservative district, as you know. How do you square your message with what voters of CD1 seemingly want?
Peterson:
It’s difficult because I think right now, we have a very vocal minority. I mean, in polling we see that minimum 70% of people do not support the extent to which Idaho’s trigger law has gone. We see that women across this district need autonomy. They need choice. And I don’t think it’s a matter of me against the will of the people. I think it’s me representing a silent majority of people that want balance. Even if they’re not entirely pro-choice and believe in complete lack of restrictions, they certainly don’t believe in the extremes that my opponent has gone to that put actual lives at risk.
IR:
Assuming Idaho’s delegation and leadership stays mostly Republican if you’re elected, how do you plan to work with them for Idahoans in CD1?
Peterson:
I’ve said since the beginning – people put so much weight into a single word or a single letter next to a name, Democrat or Republican, when these are individuals that are so much more complex, and their policy is so much more intricate than just a single word. And so for me, it’s just about relationship. It’s about looking at the policy. It’s about finding solutions the same way we would try to find solutions on any policy matter. It doesn’t matter if they’re a Republican or a Democrat. My goal is to represent every single Idaho citizen, no matter the letter next to their name.
IR:
Kaylee Peterson, Democratic candidate for Congressional District One. Thank you so much for joining us.
Peterson:
Thank you so much for having me.
