U.S. Representative, Idaho District 2 Candidate Q&A: May Primary Election

IDAHO — As part of Idaho News 6’s election coverage ahead of the May primary, candidates in the contested race for U.S. Representative, Idaho District 2, were invited to complete a written questionnaire about their candidacy, priorities, and approach to key issues facing voters.

Their responses are included below as submitted, with no edits except for length when necessary. Candidates who did not respond are noted as “did not respond.”

Candidates are listed alphabetically by political party, then by last name.

Republican —

• 1. What motivated you to run for this position?

  • Brian Keene

    • I am running for this position for three primary purposes: first, to restore accountability in all three branches of the federal government; second, to establish and implement a stable, fair, and equitable long-term tax plan that maintains a balanced budget; and third, to do the first two while absolutely maintaining and defending human rights.
      Our state depends on agriculture, small businesses, and outdoor recreation. These are the pillars of our community, and they deserve our protection and our support. That's why I'm proposing a Stable Maintenance and Responsible Taxation (SMART) Amendment to establish a fair and equitable tax code which respects small businesses, family farms, and the middle class.
      My proposed SMART Amendment and Balanced budget amendments BOTH include stable multi-year budgets to prevent government shutdowns. My proposed legislative accountability amendment specifically includes a provision for requiring bills to be co-sponsored with at least one sponsor from each party. It is intended to not merely foster bipartisan cooperation, but to restore legislative accountability by requiring bipartisan cooperation.

  • Perry Shumway

    • President Trump sometimes says that Republicans in Congress who vote against his agenda should get “primaried,” meaning they should lose their primary elections to other Republican candidates. In actual practice, incumbents almost never get primaried.
      When the framers of the Constitution set up congressional elections to take place every two years, they meant to encourage turnover and voter empowerment. With Americans’ approval of Congress hovering around 15%, one would think that primary elections would be characterized by “throwing the bums out.” Sadly, the opposite is true.
      In the 2024 primaries, congressional incumbents were re-elected at a rate of 99%. Of 198 who sought to retain their seats, only two lost to primary challengers. That’s amazing job security for people who have to re-run every other year!
      In studying this paradox, I’ve come to learn that there are a number of built-in advantages, designed to keep incumbents in office. Because no candidate (at least here in Idaho) seems overly concerned with this problem, I concluded that a run for Congress, against long-time incumbent Mike Simpson (27 years in Congress; 46 years as a politician) would be the best way for me to fight against incumbency and staleness in government.
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.

• 2. What experience has prepared you to serve?

  • Brian Keene

    • With a PhD in Education Administration, I have both education and extensive experience as a teacher, principal, and central office supervisor, developing skills in public engagement, controversial issue negotiation, tax-dollar budget management, problem-solving, and leadership. My post-doctoral certification in Emergency and Disaster Management and military experience, working in Civil Affairs and Special Operations, took advantage of my education and civilian experience and equipped me with numerous opportunities to implement these principles in aiding victims of fires, floods, and war in recovery and community rebuilding.

  • Perry Shumway

    • The fact that I’ve never really served in public office (except for the time I was on the school board in Soda Springs for four years) is a plus, not a minus, in my way of thinking. More often than not, the members of Congress who have the most experience and the greatest number of years in office are the very ones who commit the most shenanigans and cause the most trouble.
      The ideal citizen legislature is, in my view, comprised of people whose careers have been outside of the political realm, who volunteer to serve for a limited number of years and then exit the arena of politics to return to the private sector. Based on that metric, I’m eminently qualified for the office I seek.
      I’ve worked in a number of industries (manufacturing, videography, food processing, casual dining (restaurants), technology (software implementation), student housing, and healthcare. Further qualifications:
      • I have an MBA from BYU
      • I speak and write Spanish fluently after having served a two-year mission for my church
      • I’ve raised nine amazing children with my wonderful wife
      • I earned my Eagle Scout award in 1979
      • I’ve started three entrepreneurial businesses
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.

• 3. What do you see as the most significant issue facing your constituents, and how do you plan to address it?

  • Brian Keene

    • The most significant issue facing my constituents and the country as a whole right now is the economy. Gas prices impact on the cost of EVERYTHING and high taxes on small businesses and the middle class make it even more difficult to recover. My plan to address the unfair taxes is a proposed SMART Amendment to establish a fair and equitable tax code which respects small businesses, family farms, and the middle class and shifts the tax burden BACK onto the uber wealthy and large corporations. Shifting the tax burden back to the top 1% will rebuild the economy by putting money and economic leverage BACK into the hands of the working class. My proposed Balanced budget amendment will establish the practice of developing stable multi-year budgets to prevent government shutdowns by holding Congress and the President accountable for balancing the budget. My proposed legislative accountability amendment specifically includes a provision for requiring bills to be co-sponsored with at least one sponsor from each party. It is intended to not merely foster bipartisan cooperation, but to restore legislative accountability by requiring bipartisan cooperation.

  • Perry Shumway

    • By far, the biggest elephant in the room as far as Congress is concerned is the national debt. When Mike Simpson was first elected to Congress in 1998, our debt stood at $5.5 trillion; today, we’re rapidly approaching $40 trillion, with no end in sight. Many of the spending bills and budgets Congressman Simpson voted for over the years have contributed to this debt, though to be fair, he has often voted against such things, as well. But it is the height of irony that he claims to support a balanced budget amendment, yet he’s often voted “yes” on bills which represent deficit spending and would’ve been outlawed by such an amendment.
      Having such an astronomical debt hanging over our heads makes our nation extremely financially fragile, subject to any number of potential catastrophes, including hyperinflation, recession/depression, excessive unemployment, and a profound devaluation of the American dollar. We’re teetering on the brink of economic collapse, and the tragedy is that our pending crash is entirely avoidable.
      As a member of Congress, I will never, ever vote in favor of any bill or measure which increases our national debt in any way. Ever.
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.

• 4. If elected, what is the first policy you would seek to implement or change?

  • Brian Keene

    • My proposed Bill of Accountability includes Constitutional Amendments focusing on Accountability in ALL three branches of government, a SMART (Stable Maintenance and Responsible Taxation) Amendment, and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Day one, I intend to submit these amendments as a package along with similarly worded bills as temporary stop gap measures. The reason that these need to be submitted as amendments instead of merely as bills or acts is that bills and acts change laws, but those laws are subject to the whims of the next congress or president who might choose to change them whereas an amendment alters the Constitution and cannot simply be overlooked or changed whenever convenient or politically expedient. Graham-Rudman-Hollings Emergency Deficit Control Act (1985) was aimed at reducing the deficit and balancing the budget but was overturned partly because it was merely an act, but primarily because it placed accountability with the comptroller instead of holding congress and the president accountable.

  • Perry Shumway

    • Article V of the Constitution provides two ways in which the Constitution can be amended. The first way, which has been successfully utilized 17 times (the first 10 amendments were part of the original Constitution), involves Congress initiating the process and passing the amendment with supermajorities in both houses, and then for 38 state legislatures to do the same.
      The second method calls for a so-called convention of the states, something which is only loosely defined, and subject to interpretation and (potentially) a whole lot of politicking. The only specifics regarding such a convention are that Congress calls the convention and sets it in motion, meaning that Congress can, arguably, set the rules. So, for example, Congress might say that California gets to send 43 voting delegates to the convention, while Idaho only gets to send two.
      I want to amend the Constitution to create a third way for the document to be amended, namely, that 38 of the state legislatures can pass a single, identically-worded amendment, and that both houses of Congress will then be forced to vote on it, with supermajorities in both houses causing the amendment to become part of the Constitution.
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.

• 5. How would you balance community needs with budget constraints, particularly during times of rising costs?

  • Brian Keene

    • This is why we are plagued by the Tax Cut Bait and Switch game in politics. New Congressional candidates promise tax cuts to get elected, but don’t know how tax cuts or budgets work. I propose the SMART (Stable Maintenance and Responsible Taxation) Amendment AND the Balanced Budget Amendment side by side and couple them multiple-year budgets AND legislative accountability because we need a consistent plan for balancing the budget by cutting spending but ALSO planning for fair and responsible taxation to cover those items which can’t simply be cut.
      At the end of World War II, our national debt was roughly 120% of our GDP. Today, it’s roughly 125% of our GDP. We have been in roughly the same position that we are in today. THEN The answer was to raise taxes on EVERYBODY. We CANNOT allow that to happen again TODAY. We need a plan that RESTORES the taxes on the corporations and the uber-wealthy, but PROTECTS family farms, small businesses, and the middle class. MORE tax cuts for the corporations and the top 1% WILL increase the national debt, which WILL increase taxes on the working class and on future generations.

  • Perry Shumway

    • This is a bit of a trick question. It presupposes that “community needs” are something that Congress should address. In fact, as a national body, Congress should not be enacting any legislation which pertains to, or benefits, only certain communities or areas of the country. Congress should concern itself with national laws, not local ones.
      Congressional earmarks, in which people like Congressman Simpson tout their successes in “bringing back” Idaho taxpayers’ money by funding local projects (hospitals, schools, libraries, airports, etc.), should be illegalized. Such earmarks represent a corrupt system and lead to all kinds of problems.
      Budget constraints should be driven not just by whether there is money to pay for things, but also by whether such things should be paid for by the government in the first place. In many cases, government budgets call for expenditures for agencies and departments which are neither constitutional nor necessary nor cost-effective. Such things should be eliminated entirely.
      As far as the “times of rising costs” part of the question, so-called “balancing community needs” (a euphemism for spending money on social programs) will increase inflation, rather than reducing it. Instead, unrestricted market competition is the best way to bring prices down.
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.

• 6. With multiple candidates on the ballot, why should voters choose you?

  • Brian Keene

    • There are three candidates in the Republican Primary. When Mike Simpson went to Congress, the national debt was approximately $5 trillion. Today, it is eight times that amount, nearly $40 trillion. That is unsustainable and unconscionable. He’s been there for nearly 28 years, and we CAN’T afford to let him be there any longer. Perry Shumway and I are both unknown. I have a very specific plan for fixing the actual problems that we are facing. There are members of Congress with whom I have been personal friends for decades (some democrats, some republicans). I can work with them to get Idaho’s best interests represented in Congress. If you’re happy with the status quo and a do-nothing Congress that has given corporate tax breaks while exploding the national debt, creating economic instability, and making our country less safe, then you should re-elect Mike Simpson. If you’re ready for a change, a strong and stable economy, a balanced budget, and the kind of safety and security that comes with that, it’s time to vote for Brian Keene.

  • Perry Shumway

    • I truly wish that having “multiple candidates on the ballot” meant that there were people in this race, other than the incumbent Mike Simpson, who also might stand a chance of winning. Sadly, that is not the case, due to a number of factors:
      - Simpson has widespread name recognition, due in part to the congressional “franking” privilege, in which he gets to send out postcard mailers touting his achievements, all paid for 100% by the taxpayers.
      - Simpson likewise gets taxpayer-paid email and newsletter campaigns, radio ads, TV ads, and social media ads and placements.
      - Simpson’s fundraising eclipses that of any of his challengers, largely because he sits on influential committees (including three of the 12 appropriations committees) and controls expenditures, thereby making him an attractive target for out-of-state PACs and funders.
      Idaho voters should choose me because I will (a) adhere to self-imposed term limits; (b) hold at least four in-person town hall meetings, in Idaho, every year; (c) never, ever vote to increase the national debt; (d) maintain a perfect conservative record on pro-life, anti-gun-control, and border protection issues; and, (e) work to eliminate or minimize the advantages congressional incumbents enjoy.
  • Mike Simpson (Incumbent)
    
    • Did not respond.