A man in formal suit with a striped tie standing in front of American flags.

Mike Levin

Democratic Incumbent

Mike Levin presents as a pro-environment, pragmatic Democrat — but his record also shows centrist compromises, heavy ties to pro-Israel interests, and a willingness to back tougher immigration enforcement and an economy focused on maintaining the status quo. Those tradeoffs matter: they shape whose interests he defends when the pressure’s on.

  • Can be bought and sold. When your campaign is funded by wealthy special interests and Israel-aligned super PACs like AIPAC, working people don’t come first — your donors do.

  • An Establishment Democrat that’s more loyal to the party and its donors than his constituents. Acts like a safe, status-quo insider instead of fighting for all working class Americans.

  • Puts Israel ahead of America. Regularly votes to send billions in taxpayer dollars to the Israeli government while people here can’t afford rent, healthcare, or college — that’s a choice, and it’s not for us.

  • Backed the Laken Riley Act — stripping due process. He chose to support Trump’s fascist agenda of cruelty and fear over civil liberties, putting all undocumented Americans and their families directly in harm’s way.

  • Won’t take on monopolies that are jacking up prices. Instead of breaking up giant corporations and utility giants, he settles for weak rules while families keep paying more.

  • Refuses to use his office to hold corporations accountable. He could force votes and big public hearings to expose price-gouging and abuse, but instead trades fights for district dollars and quiet deals.

  • Doesn’t support a true living wage. Backs minimal wage increases that don’t keep up with the cost of living, leaving working families unable to get ahead.

  • Willing to settle for weak climate action when the crisis demands emergency-level response. Small, safe steps won’t stop fires, floods, and heat waves — but bold action would go against the party line, so he won’t push it.

  • Frames poverty, debt, and lack of healthcare as “unfortunate” problems. He treats the outcomes of policy choices as accidents, not deliberate results of a system that protects the rich.

  • Puts “bipartisanship” and “civility” ahead of fighting for people. He prefers compromise to confrontation — even when compromise means handing the powerful what they want and leaving working families behind.