Mike Long
Election Information:
Party:
Libertarian
District:
21
Office:
State Senate
Contact Information:
https://mike4id21.wixsite.com/mike4id21
@itsapsyopbro
Survey Responses:
S = Support
O = Oppose
NR = No Response
O = Oppose
NR = No Response
|
Life
|
S | O | NR |
|---|---|---|---|
1.Prohibiting Abortion: Prohibiting abortion after a baby’s heartbeat is detected, with limited exceptions such as to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest. |
X | ||
2.Taxpayer Funded Abortion: Allowing taxpayer dollars to fund organizations that provide abortion. |
X | ||
3.Physician-Assisted Suicide: Allowing voluntary physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. |
X |
|
First Amendment
|
S | O | NR |
|---|---|---|---|
4.Conscience Rights for Professionals: Prohibiting the government from denying required licensure or certification to individuals because of their religious or political beliefs. |
X | ||
5.Conscience Rights for Faith-Based Organizations: Exempting faith-based organizations (e.g. adoption/foster care providers, private schools) from regulations that cause them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. |
X | ||
6.Transparency in Banking: Allowing consumers to obtain a written explanation when a financial institution shuts down the consumer’s account to protect against ideologically driven cancellations. |
X | ||
7.Privacy in Financial Giving: Protecting confidential donor information so individuals are able to privately support charities and causes of their choice without fear of being doxed. |
X |
Candidate's Comments:
4/5. In my view, the government should not be in the business of granting or denying licenses or certifications for individuals to participate in what is essentially private commerce. Whether it's someone seeking to practice a profession or start a business, government involvement in licensing often creates unnecessary barriers and opens the door to discrimination or bias. People should have the freedom to engage in their chosen fields without needing state approval. When it comes to private organizations, the same principle applies. Businesses, schools, or service providers should be free to operate based on their own principles and models, without having to comply with burdensome regulations that interfere with their operations. Overregulation stifles innovation, limits competition, and ultimately harms the communities these organizations aim to serve. The government’s role should be minimal, focused on protecting basic rights, not controlling who can or cannot participate in the marketplace. This would ensure a freer and more dynamic economy where individuals and organizations are able to pursue their goals without unnecessary interference. 6. In my view, private, unsubsidized businesses should have the freedom to conduct their operations as they see fit, including decisions about whom they serve or with whom they choose to do business. If a financial institution decides to close a customer’s account, that decision should be within their rights as a private entity. Requiring them to provide written explanations for such actions introduces unnecessary regulatory burdens. If these businesses are acting as agents of the government, that suggests they are likely under too much regulation, which compromises their independence and distorts the free market. When businesses become entangled with government mandates, they lose their ability to operate on their own terms. Ultimately, if a business makes decisions that go against the preferences of the market, they will be replaced by competitors who better meet the needs of consumers. The natural forces of supply and demand will correct for any behavior that is seen as unfair or unresponsive, without the need for additional government interference. 7. In my view, if a cause or organization is involved in politics, influencing policy, or supporting elected officials, I strongly oppose any level of privacy for donors and contributors. Transparency is crucial in these cases to ensure that political influence remains open and accountable to the public. When donations are used to shape laws or elections, the public has a right to know who is funding that influence. However, if the organization is private and focused on non-political, non-policy-related functions, there is no public good served by denying privacy to its donors. Individuals should be able to support charitable causes or community services without fear of being exposed or targeted. In these cases, protecting donor confidentiality respects the rights of individuals to contribute to organizations of their choice without unnecessary public scrutiny.
|
Family
|
S | O | NR |
|---|---|---|---|
8.Parental Rights in Gender Identity Counseling: Allowing parents to obtain professional counseling for a child struggling with gender confusion to help the child find comfort with his or her biological sex. |
X | ||
9(a).Protected Class for Sexual Orientation: Elevating “sexual orientation” to a protected class alongside race, religion, sex, age, and disability in nondiscrimination law. |
X | ||
9(b).Protected Class for Gender Identity: Elevating “gender identity” to a protected class alongside race, religion, sex, age, and disability in nondiscrimination law. |
X |
Candidate's Comments:
In my view, there is no moral or ethical justification for the government to fund or involve itself in personal medical or counseling decisions. Whether it's seeking counseling for a child dealing with gender confusion or any other private matter, those decisions should be left to individuals and families without government interference or financial support. Similarly, I see no moral or ethical case for the government to enforce special protections for any specific group, whether based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic. The role of government should be to protect the basic human and natural rights of all individuals equally, without creating special classes or privileges. When the government focuses on protecting individual rights for everyone, rather than offering preferential treatment, it fosters a more just and free society.
|
Education and Public Safety
|
S | O | NR |
|---|---|---|---|
10.School Choice: Allowing the use of tax credits, vouchers, and/or education savings accounts to cover the cost of children attending the school of their parents’ choice, including private religious schools. |
X | ||
11.Free Speech at School: Protecting teachers and students from being forced to refer to a person by inaccurate pronouns that do not align with the person’s sex. |
X | ||
12.Parental Rights in School Healthcare Disclosure: Directing schools to inform parents of any mental, physical, or emotional health information and treatment that a child is receiving at school. |
X | ||
13.Transparency in School Curriculum & Activities: Giving parents access to the curriculum, presentations, and activities that their children are learning in school and allowing them to opt their children out of school extra-curricular activities, presentations, or specific lessons to which the parents object. |
X |
Candidate's Comments:
These questions operate under the assumption that education is a proper function of government, and the concerns they raise are a natural consequence of allowing an ideologically driven government to control education. When the government manages education, it inevitably imposes social and moral positions, leading to these types of disputes over issues like school choice, pronouns, parental rights, and curriculum transparency. In my view, if government schools are to exist, they should focus strictly on basic academic subjects, free from ideological influence or moral instruction. Schools should not be in the business of promoting or enforcing social or political agendas. Furthermore, no tax money should be used for any purpose that is not a core, proper function of government. If education is provided by the government, it should be limited to its most basic, neutral form, without extending into roles better left to families, communities, or the private sector.
|
Health and Welfare
|
S | O | NR |
|---|---|---|---|
14.Medical Rights of Conscience: Protecting health care workers from losing their jobs if they decline to participate in a procedure or treatment that violates their personal beliefs and conscience. |
X | ||
15.Women’s Privacy: Preventing males who identify as female from entering sex-separated spaces intended for females, such as showers, locker rooms, bathrooms, dormitories, women’s shelters, prisons, etc. |
X | ||
16.Protecting Pregnancy Centers: Ensuring pregnancy centers that provide life-affirming support to women and their families are not targeted or penalized by government officials. |
X |
Candidate's Comments:
From my perspective, abortion is primarily about individual liberty and the right to make personal medical decisions free from government interference. I believe the state should not intervene in these deeply personal matters, and that decisions around abortion should be left to individuals and their doctors. However, I also see a critical role for family, community, and broader culture in addressing the issue. Rather than relying on government force, I believe it's the responsibility of families and communities to provide support—both emotional and financial—that empowers individuals to make informed decisions and reduces the need for abortion. This includes fostering a culture of personal responsibility and encouraging behaviors that avoid unwanted pregnancies, all while adhering to the non-aggression principle. By focusing on education, access to contraception, and creating environments where individuals feel supported in their choices, families and communities can help prevent abortions without the need for coercive state involvement.