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: G. Rick Marshall
Current job title: Senior Data Analyst
Political party affiliation: Republican
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: City Commissioner on Planning, Airport and Water Commissions
City where you reside: Torrance
Campaign website or social media: grickmarshall.com
Do you believe balancing the state budget should rely more on spending cuts, new revenue streams or a combination? Tell us how you would propose tackling California’s projected budget deficit. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
You overlooked the darker side of California’s spending system—the hidden world of NGOs, fraud, and political patronage draining public funds with little oversight.
Consider Proposition 64. Voters were told that the California Cannabis Tax Fund (CCTF) would support youth education and substance abuse prevention. However, its complex grant network has quietly become a funding pipeline for Democratic-aligned nonprofits and advocacy groups.
The Small Business Administration identified $8.6 billion in suspected PPP and EIDL COVID-era relief fraud in California alone—money meant for struggling businesses siphoned off through fake companies, identity theft, and organized grifters.
Healthcare fraud needs serious investigation. Federal investigators uncovered $3.5 billion in fraudulent hospice and home-health billing in Los Angeles County alone, revealing a vast criminal network based on fake providers, fabricated patients, and stolen Medicare IDs.
But the most staggering problem is the enormous scale of California’s nonprofit sector: more than 213,000 NGOs generating $593.4 billion annually, surpassing even New York. A recent viral post warns that up to 20% of these organizations may face serious regulatory or financial problems. That could mean as much as $120 billion in potential waste, fraud, and abuse—nearly one-quarter of California’s entire FY25–26 budget.
This is the real leak in California’s finances: billions funneled through opaque, politically connected nonprofits with little transparency, weak audits, and almost no accountability. Taxpayers never agreed to this hidden budget. Until challenged, California will keep pouring money into systems designed to avoid scrutiny rather than serve the public.
For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
At the top of any list of budget cut non-starters are California’s roads and bridges. They’ve been neglected for decades, leaving the state with some of the worst-maintained infrastructure in America. The gas tax, which should be used solely for road repair, now funds a maze of unrelated programs, guaranteeing chronic shortfalls.
California has some of the worst-maintained roads in the nation. Caltrans evidently is not up to the task and is too slow. California should contract out repairs to firms that can deliver results quickly. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the collapsed Santa Monica Freeway bridge was rebuilt in 74 days—at twice the cost—but saving an estimated $1 million per day in economic losses. Let’s reward speed, penalize delay, and evaluate every project for economic impact.
Water infrastructure is number two. Every rainy season, enormous volumes of water that Southern California could use and store flow out under the Golden Gate Bridge because the Sacramento political class refuses to authorize modern capture systems—despite the ability to protect the Bay-Delta ecosystem and fish. With proper storage, California can secure reliable water supplies even in drought years.
Voters approved Proposition 1 (2014) with $2.7 billion for new water storage and Proposition 4 (2024) with another $75 million for existing projects. Yet not a single new reservoir or dam has been built. Instead, the state is moving to remove dams in the Klamath Basin—dams that help supply Southern California with water.
These are just two. There are more.
What are the top three most pressing issues facing the state, and what would you propose, as a state legislator, to address them? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The top three issues all relate to quality of life for the average Californian: available, affordable housing; plentiful, cheap energy, and the elimination of feel-good but failed homelessness policies. We must reform California’s incompetent government, lower taxes, eliminate failed policies, and reduce regulatory burden on ordinary Californians.
Unless we act, the rising Millennial, Gen X, and Gen Z generations will continue to be locked out of homeownership, affordable gas, groceries, and electricity—amenities that, along with the 40-hour work week, make a middle-class lifestyle and family formation possible.
Half the cost of a new home comes from government regulations and mandates. Keep safety regulations and best industry practices but remove the others. Make homes more affordable by cutting out unnecessary mandates and regulations.
California now imports 63% of its crude oil from foreign countries—even though the state sits on 1.7 billion barrels of proven reserves. Two major refineries are gone: the Phillips 66 Los Angeles plant and Valero’s Benicia refinery. Together, they wipe out nearly 20% of California’s refining capacity, leaving only five refineries operating statewide.
Our state is becoming more reliant on foreign suppliers and is dangerously vulnerable to global price shocks. California should learn from Germany’s green energy mistakes, reverse course, and develop our own energy sources.
Helping people experiencing poverty and homelessness sounds good, but it is seldom achieved at any reasonable cost. What current policies have done is increase the homeless burden on our streets and decrease the safety of our neighborhoods.
What specific policy would you champion in the statehouse to improve the cost of living for residents? Would you see this having an immediate impact on Californians or would it take some time? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would work to eliminate unnecessary regulation, lower the tax burden (especially sales and gas taxes) on ordinary Californians, downsize government, and free California’s economic engine from the parasites that keep it down.
I would work to eliminate density mandates for housing and return housing to local control. I would aim to restore the single-family home to its rightful place. I would work to make housing affordable for a family earning California’s median income by encouraging a building boom to bring down prices.
I would find a way to repeal the billionaire tax that drives innovators from our state, who fund a disproportionate share of our state government and deliver a disproportionate share of the innovation. I would work to tap the vast oil and gas reserves we have in California to reduce imports, lower gas prices, and create vast numbers of jobs.
I would work to reduce the influence of special interests that control our state for their own benefit, much like Hiram Johnson did at the turn of the last century, and to limit the ability of government-sector unions to control their leaders elected by the people.
I would work to provide the rising Millennial, Gen X, and Gen Z generations with the same opportunities of homeownership, affordable gas, groceries, and electricity, and of the 40-hour workweek that Boomers had—all the amenities that make a middle-class lifestyle and family formation possible.
Some would have immediate effects. Others would take time. But all would require working with my colleagues in the State Senate to make them happen.
There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The role of a state legislator is to help craft sensible laws that protect and serve our communities and command the respect and ascent of the governed.
Sacramento and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have created street-level chaos by blocking local law enforcement from notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an illegal immigrant in their custody is about to be released. ICE is forced to carry out federal law enforcement in our streets, making our streets and neighborhoods unsafe — a direct result of policies attempting to nullify federal law.
In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court struck down S.B. 1070 for intruding on exclusive federal immigration authority. While Arizona tried to enforce federal law, California and Los Angeles County are doing the opposite — actively nullifying it. America already fought one Civil War, with states trying to override federal authority. Let’s not make that mistake again.
California’s leaders should work with the federal government. Making enforcement harder only escalates to harsher actions and higher costs for our communities. Deportations are difficult for those living here illegally, but they are a clear result of not enforcing federal laws at the border. A nation that cannot control its borders cannot remain a country or stay safe.
America is the most generous country in the world, welcoming over 1 million legal immigrants each year. Apply through a U.S. embassy in your home country and wait for your turn. Order is maintained, and only those who want to build a life and home in America come, not those who maintain allegiance to their home country and are only looking to send the money they make here back home.
Health care costs — like in many other areas — are continuing to rise. What policies, specifically, would you support or like to champion that could lower premiums or out-of-pocket expenses? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
We need to introduce competition into healthcare by segmenting the market so that most healthcare can be provided by those other than doctors, and limit malpractice awards. In exchange for those limits, doctors convicted of malpractice should lose their medical license.
Sadly, Obamacare has achieved the opposite of what we were promised. Instead of lowering premiums, they have increased and continue to rise. Much of this is caused by government regulations, both state and federal, that require documentation of all healthcare decisions doctors make. With astronomical malpractice awards, healthcare access is restricted due to record-keeping and the time required to compile records.
The problem is with the government as the payer of care. It disconnects the healthcare consumer from the true cost of services. A basic human truth is that we will all use what we need in large quantities when it costs almost nothing or when we believe it costs nothing. The solution is to give the healthcare consumer back control over healthcare decisions, along with responsibility for paying for them.
Health insurance helps consumers understand the true cost of healthcare while meeting their needs. Obamacare was an attempt to provide healthcare in bulk and spread the costs of large consumers across a broader population, including those who didn’t use healthcare much, to balance expenses. It has failed again because the government got involved. We will not get out of this mess overnight, but we need to start by getting the government out of the healthcare business and restoring cost responsibility to the consumer.
Would you support expanding state health care programs to ensure more residents — including those who are not citizens — are covered? How would you propose the state fund such an expansion? Or, how would you propose the people who cannot afford health care still get the necessary care they need without expanding state programs? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would not support expanding state healthcare programs. There is no need to expand state programs. The government should not be used to meet every need. The state should not be in the business of providing or paying for health care.
A government healthcare provider introduces burdensome regulations that don’t always justify their costs, raises costs by increasing demand for limited services, and creates a bureaucracy that requires a large operation just to manage the burden, driving niche providers out of the field.
The affordability of healthcare will improve for everyone when the number of healthcare providers is significantly increased, especially in areas where a doctor’s expertise isn’t required. We should promote growth in the provider workforce by expanding medical schools and student enrollment. This should be complemented by increasing the number of nurse practitioners to make healthcare more accessible and affordable.
As for the needy accessing health care they cannot afford, that already occurs under the law requiring hospital emergency departments to care for all comers. When they cannot pay, the hospital passes the cost on to those who have insurance. It’s not perfect, but it keeps everyone in business.
We may be on the cusp of a breakthrough with artificial intelligence that could significantly reduce costs by guiding consumers on how to care for themselves. Yes, it will require validation and oversight, but it will do for healthcare what it has done for every other industry—lower costs.
As part of combating homelessness, elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place. What policies or programs should the state adopt to make housing more affordable for renters and homeowners? What do you propose the state do to incentivize housing development and expedite such projects? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
If losing a home were the cause of homelessness, the billions of tax dollars given to the homeless industrial complex over the past 20 years would have solved the problem by now. It hasn’t.
40% of the homeless population suffer from mental illness, another 40% are addicts, and the rest choose to live on the streets. Homelessness should be addressed with a three-part plan: increase the availability of affordable housing, enforce vagrancy laws, and commit individuals to institutions using Section 1115 Medicaid waivers to bypass the IMD Exclusion in the Social Security Act of 1965.
No. 1 requires deregulation in the building sector. Half the cost of a new home is due to unnecessary mandates and regulations. Return zoning and density choices to local control. Remove state mandates. One size does not fit all. Preserve the single-family home.
No. 2 requires challenging the reasoning in the Jones v. City of Los Angeles and Martin v. City of Boise decisions, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. They are a dangerous expansion of Eighth Amendment rights that have made our city streets filthy and our neighborhoods unsafe. The responsible portion of the population should not have to subsidize the irresponsible. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No. 3 requires using the Medicaid waiver granted by the Trump administration, something the state of California has yet to do, and place homeless individuals—including involuntarily—into psychiatric facilities with fewer than 16 beds, which would otherwise be restricted.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2023 authorizing state energy regulators to penalize oil companies making excessive profits. But the California Energy Commission put off imposing the penalties last year after two oil refineries, which represent nearly a fifth of California’s refining capacity, said they would shut down operations. Those announcements prompted many to be concerned about soaring gas prices. What do you think of the commission’s decision? And how would you, as a state legislator, propose balancing California’s climate goals with protecting consumers from high gas prices at the pump? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I support the decision and urge the Commission to continue to delay the imposition of those penalties until the law can be repealed by a new legislature. Help is on the way.
High gas prices stem from an unwavering devotion to the green agenda. Oil, gas, and electricity are crucial for modern life. Without them, we would be forced to work every day just to eat. We ignore this risk at our peril. Unless we change course soon, we face a decade or two of declining quality of life.
There is no need to balance climate goals with protecting consumers from higher gas prices. In fact, that is the wrong approach. We do not have the technology to transition from oil and gas for our energy needs. We do not have the infrastructure to go all-electric and will not for some time.
What we do have is in its infancy. Windmills are still killing birds. Solar farms are still frying them. Both are incredibly expensive and cannot interface with our electrical grid without additional, more expensive equipment. Ironically, they even increase the likelihood of electrical blackouts because of their inability to maintain the grid’s voltage and frequency.
I am open to government efforts to improve environmental quality, including air and water quality – especially if these efforts are at the local level. But the policies aimed at transitioning our state toward renewable energy must respect individual freedoms – and individual choice – and address the technological challenges inherent in any energy transition.
In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36 to increase penalties for certain drug and retail theft crimes and make available a drug treatment option for some who plead guilty to felony drug possession. Would you, as a legislator, demand that more funding for behavioral health treatments be included in the budget? How would you ensure that money is used properly? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Proposition 36 was titled the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act” and reversed a decade of “feel-good” criminal justice reform that was not working. That reform perpetuated homelessness, making it easier to fund drug habits and live on the street.
We used to coddle the offenders, ignore their crimes, and expect the victims to accept this. With Proposition 36, which I supported, that has now changed.
Admittedly, Proposition 36 has not lived up to its billing. In October of last year, our state’s Judicial Council released a report that found that of the nearly 15% — or 1,290 people — who elected treatment, only 771 were placed into treatment, and of those, only 25 completed it. Part of the problem was that Proposition 36 did not provide the funding for behavioral health treatment.
While opponents raised concerns about the lack of a funding source, voters approved it anyway, choosing to at least implement the tough-on-crime measures. It seems they, too, had had enough of coddling criminals.
What has been a success, however, is the reduction in retail theft through increased penalties and a lower threshold for felony theft.
If our communities are going to be safe for retail shopping and strolling through the neighborhood, we must quit ignoring criminal activity, no matter the source, and find and lock up the offenders to prevent more crime and victimization. The people of California understand this, which is why Proposition 36 passed statewide with just shy of 70% support.
What role should the state play in ensuring hospitals and doctors are providing gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ residents? Similarly, what role do you believe the state could play should other states adopt policies that restrict that care? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The state should play no role in mandating gender affirming care, especially with children under the age of consent.
There are now lawsuits against doctors over the surgery by adults who had it done as a child and regret it. In time, I imagine that those types of interventions will decline, especially if a doctor or therapist can expect a lawsuit many years after the fact. The taxpayers should not be forced to take on that liability either.
It’s time we recognize the mental pain, confusion, and isolation of those seeking such surgery and help them get the counseling and help they need to cope with their feelings, desires, impulses, and gender confusion without resorting to body-altering interventions.
California should not take on additional burdens from other states. Nor should our state be a place people flock to for gender-affirming care. Such policies will only turn California into a “sinkhole” for taxpayers as more states restrict gender-affirming care and those seeking it come here.
We would be wise to defend ourselves and doctors by restricting that type of care, or at least not encouraging it with our policy choices.
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. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I do not believe it is the state’s responsibility to “parent” young people. It is a parent’s job to watch out for and protect their own children. True, there are many families unable to supervise their children, but the answer is not for the state to step in.
I agree, social media can be addictive and is not handled well by many. However, social media can also be beneficial, but only if it operates in an environment where freedom of speech is respected and censorship is rejected. Its positive role is in questioning the mainstream narrative and presenting diverse viewpoints, sometimes outside the Overton window, that challenge that narrative. It is similar to peer review when it functions effectively and create competing that gets the story right on major news events quicker. At its worst, it can be a chaotic free-for-all that benefits no one.
Yes, there need to be some guardrails, but what those are must be up to social media companies, given the criticism they receive for not moderating offensive content or censoring important content. Yes, offensive content is in the eye of the beholder.
What I’m trying to say is that there are no easy answers other than that the state, for constitutional reasons, should not intervene, so that the truth can be worked out in the free marketplace of ideas.
As for specific proposals beyond this, I would have to be persuaded of the need to legislate in this area.
Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I think the central problem with artificial intelligence is that we don’t really know what it is capable of or how to use it properly as a tool. None of us has had enough experience with it. The developers are mortgaged to the hilt. It is gobbling up computer resources and electricity at an alarming rate, limits that will slow progress for a while until we catch up.
Far from destroying jobs, AI will increase them. Yes, our jobs will be different, but we will still need plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, and carpenters. Everyone will work differently because AI will handle the menial tasks, allowing us to focus on more important tasks, which AI will help us accomplish more quickly.
AI is not perfect. It makes many mistakes and lacks all the safeguards needed to keep the world safe, like AI showing someone how to make a bomb. But as we get used to it and discover its deficiencies, it will make us all better. Can it learn enough to outsmart us? I don’t know. I surely hope it will always be our servant.
I don’t believe we need to worry about AI destroying our future just yet because we still don’t fully understand what to be concerned about. We’re in a space somewhere between Donald Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns.” For now, AI still makes mistakes, so it needs to improve. We have time to respond.
Don’t worry. Be Happy.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California is on the decline, but still, residents are not feeling safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in the state legislature in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The renowned author, lecturer, and humorist, Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, once remarked that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” That thought came to mind after reading about violent crime being on the decline in California. Perhaps it’s true. Perhaps it isn’t.
I note that the linked survey was taken during COVID, when everyone was on lockdown at home, except for those dining at French restaurants in the Wine Country. I also note that Apple Maps location data was used as a statistical source. Novel to say the least.
I’m skeptical of any report using an automated criminal history system from the California Department of Justice during the COVID timeframe. At best, the system must rely on criminal reports; if they don’t exist, crime will go down. Were all crimes reported? I don’t know.
I do find it interesting that “views of crime vary notably across demographic groups. Among racial/ethnic groups, nearly half of African Americans say [crime] is a big problem, compared to about three in ten or fewer among Asian Americans, Latinos, and whites. Adults with lower incomes are much more likely than adults with higher incomes to call crime a big problem.”
My role is to identify policies and programs that create safe communities for all Californians, and to work toward enacting them into law and securing the funding they need to succeed. Anything less would mean I’m not fulfilling my duties.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I have no idea. Whatever talents I have are on display 24/7. If I have a hidden talent, it is an undiscovered talent, and so I cannot say.