Rep. Mike Thompson did not say whether he would vote to ban corporate PAC contributions to members of Congress, his own included. He was asked on Oct. 15 in Davis, 19 days before the Nov. 3 election against fellow Democrat Eric Jones.
He said he voted to reverse Citizens United and is a coauthor of the bill. Congress.gov lists him as a cosponsor of H.J.Res. 122, a constitutional amendment on campaign finance, and his campaign says the two words mean the same thing. He also put the share of Jones’s money that comes from the district at 2 percent. Jones’s filings show 3.8 percent through June, and the Davis Enterprise puts it near 10 percent of his individual contributions.
The interview also covered ICE, Gaza, PG&E, his opponent’s investments and his farm bill vote. Where the public record or his campaign’s written follow-up bears on an answer, a short paragraph follows it, set flush left below his indented words. Stutters, false starts, small talk and anecdotes that did not answer the question or concern Jones were removed, and the questions appear as asked. The topics are grouped, not in the order asked. Some questions went to both men in the same words.
Q: At the forum, you said you voted against creating ICE because it lacked guardrails. Your February op-ed with the Vanguard asked for less ICE funding and a mask ban, and you cosponsored the Noem impeachment, but none of that says abolish. Where do you stand on abolishment?
Thompson: Well, actually, I think what I said was not proper guardrails, not proper oversight.
The issue of abolish is interesting because there’s a function that department is supposed to provide. They provide a law enforcement function within the immigration space, and that has to happen. So when you say abolish, it means different things to different people, like, don’t do any law enforcement in the immigration space? Change the name? Changing the name, to me, kind of sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I think fix is the best approach. And I think I’ve said more than just a mask ban. I’ve been very outspoken against wearing masks.
I’ve been very outspoken about wearing police identifiers on uniforms. That’s created a lot of problems with community policing. Local police departments work really hard to build trust with immigrant communities. And when ICE starts showing up, identifying themselves as police, the immigrant communities get wigged out, understandably so. And that breaks down the relationship that local law enforcement has. So if there’s a crime against you or your daughter, and there’s an immigrant who witnesses that crime, they’re reluctant to cooperate. If there are immigrants who are the victim themselves, they’re reluctant to come forward.
So you need to get rid of that. ICE agents should be wearing body cameras, just like any other law enforcement agency. And probably most important is the need for judicial warrants before ICE can come in and, you know, kick down your door and drag you out. So that’s a hard no on abolishment. No, it’s not a hard no on abolishment.
It’s just, I understand there are factors. Personally, I think we could abolish ICE and reform something that addresses all the needs. We’d still have the same structure if you get rid of all that structure and build a whole new structure that’s not revolving around race necessarily. That doesn’t have the power structures already in place that have been there for thirty years. That’s what I personally think. I’m open to doing that. But again, I don’t think you just change the name and have the same thing.
Thompson voted against the 2002 Homeland Security Act, 299 to 121, which created the department that houses ICE. In May he voted for the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, 348 to 60. The bill sets up a coordination center inside ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit (source 28).
The ACLU calls its definitions vague and its data-sharing a surveillance risk. A Senate Judiciary spokesperson says it gives DHS no added enforcement authority (source 4).
Thompson told the Oct. 8 forum he had not voted to provide funding for ICE. House Clerk roll calls show him voting no on DHS appropriations H.R. 7147 (Roll 42, Jan. 22, 2026) and H.R. 7744 (Roll 87, Mar. 5, 2026) (source 31). The comparison covers the two 2026 DHS bills.
Q: In May 2025, you told protesters outside the Woodland Senior Center that the U.S. would speak out to end the killing in Gaza. In April 2024, you voted yes on the Israel supplemental, 366 to 58. On July 15, you voted present on cutting the $3.3 billion in military funding for Israel. Present isn’t a vote. So why not actually put a yes or no?
Thompson: Actually, it is a vote. It has three options on the vote. It’s counted as a vote. I put my card in the voting machine on the floor, and I have a choice to vote aye, nay or present. And I voted present on that Massie bill that you’re talking about because there’s no way I was going to vote for Netanyahu. And there was no way I was going to vote against humanitarian aid for the Palestinians.
Q: By saying it isn’t a vote, it’s not voicing your opinion one way or the other. Would you vote for that 2024 package again?
Thompson: Knowing what I know now, probably not.
A present vote is recorded and counts toward a quorum, but not as a yea or a nay. Thompson’s July 15 statement said he voted present “in protest of Netanyahu and in solidarity with our peacekeeping efforts,” which matches the tape. It also called Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment poorly drafted and too broad.
The 2024 bill was H.R. 8034. Thompson voted yes.
Q: At the debate, you called the Iran war illegal and said noncombatants are being killed. The North Coast Journal reports a judge dismissed a taxpayer suit against you and Rep. Huffman over Israel aid on standing, and the court never ruled on the genocide claim. You held Iran to a standard. Do you hold Gaza to it? Is it genocide?
Thompson: I believe what’s happening in Gaza is a tragedy. I think there’s been illegal actions taken, illegal activities taken. And I believe that once we stop what’s going on now, a negotiated ceasefire, all of that needs to be investigated. And if there are war crimes, they need to be prosecuted.
He did not say whether he considers it genocide. At the Oct. 8 forum he called for an immediate negotiated ceasefire, more humanitarian aid for Palestinians and a two-state solution.
Near the end, after the interviewer said he was finished, a member of Thompson’s staff asked whether he wanted to mention Block the Bombs and Silver Shield.
Thompson: Yeah, I don’t think we really got into that a lot. In regard to what’s going on in the Middle East, I am a coauthor of the Block the Bombs bill, which would prohibit the transfer or sale of offensive weapons to Israel. Silver Shield, same thing. And I’m a cosponsor of the legislation to increase humanitarian aid. And that came up at the Woodland debate.
And my opponent said something that I thought kind of defined his knowledge of public policy and international affairs. He said something along the lines of, what’s an offensive bomb? All bombs kill kids. But I think that just shows that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Because when these bills prohibit the sale or the transfer of offensive weapons, it’s not about bombs, it’s about offensive versus defensive weapons. So I support the Iron Dome, which is protection from bombs coming in. And I think that’s really important. That would be defensive weaponry. Offensive weaponry would be a bomb going out, which I think is pretty clear in my opposition to that.
Congress.gov lists Thompson as a cosponsor of H.R. 3565, the Block the Bombs to Israel Act. Its sponsor is Rep. Delia Ramirez. His campaign says coauthor and cosponsor are interchangeable, but a bill’s sponsor is the member who introduces it.
Silver Shield is H.R. 4502, sponsored by Rep. Sara Jacobs, which would create a program to monitor whether U.S. weapons are used in serious violations of humanitarian or human rights law. Thompson is a cosponsor.
The conversation then moved to money.
Q: You went after Jones for his donors at the debate. Your FEC filings through June show defense contractor PACs have given you about $233,500 since 2004. The Napa Valley Register counted about $750,000 from 251 PACs this cycle through the primary. At the forum, you said you need to reverse Citizens United. How is your PAC money different from the outside money you hit Jones for? And would you vote to ban corporate PAC contributions to members of Congress, yours included?
Thompson: What I said was, on Citizens United, I’ll clarify it. I have voted to reverse Citizens United, and I’m a coauthor of the bill to reverse Citizens United. I think that’s incredibly important. I think the most important part about any type of campaign contributions is transparency and openness. You need to know who’s given what to whom.
The money that I’ve received from PACs is from employee PACs. The difference is my opponent gets his money from the head of those companies whose employees form PACs. So what I was talking about was, he is quick to point out and criticize me for PAC contributions, but he gets the same money from the same entities. They’re just the CEOs of those companies, not employees. And I think it’s really important, there’s another side of the money that he receives, and that’s personal money.
He’s now put over $10,000,000 of his own money in. And the way that PACs came about was to combat rich people from being able to buy seats. So my opponent is trying to buy the seat in Congress with his personal wealth and contributions from people who don’t live in his district. I think like 2% of the contributions that he’s received are from the district. Everything else is from outside the district. And they’re different types of contributions than mine.
I think 74% of my contributions are $250 or less. 65% of my contributions come from my district. My average contribution is $400. His is $4,500. So it’s just a different ballgame.
He did not say whether he would vote to ban corporate PAC contributions to members of Congress, his own included.
Thompson’s committee reports $5.5 million raised this cycle, $2.4 million of it from other committees such as PACs. Jones took no PAC money and reports $10.1 million of his $13.3 million raised through Sept. 30 from himself. The Napa Valley Register reported Oct. 24 that his self-funding had reached about $14.8 million, including a $4.8 million loan.
Thompson said 74 percent of his contributions are $250 or less. His campaign’s count is 60 percent of donations.
Congress.gov lists him as a cosponsor of H.J.Res. 122, a constitutional amendment on campaign finance, not its sponsor, and Congress.gov records no floor vote on it.
The $233,500 is FEC-recorded PAC gifts since 2004 from Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. The PG&E PAC figure in a later question, $95,776 since 2004, comes from the same records.
He said about 2 percent of Jones’s money is from the district and that Jones’s average gift is $4,500. In Jones’s itemized receipts through June 29, donors in the district’s counties gave 3.8 percent (source 27), and the Davis Enterprise reports about 10 percent of his individual contributions came from the district (source 30). Neither is 2 percent.
The average itemized gift was about $2,800.
Jones’s itemized receipts do not show money from the executives of those companies: no donor lists a defense contractor or PG&E as an employer. Company heads do give to Jones, though. 107 donors with CEO, founder, chair or president titles gave about $561,000, and they run venture, private equity and tech firms.
The interviewer’s question on this topic was dropped. Thompson went on to speak about Medicare for All.
Thompson: I’ll elaborate. I believe that we need to have single payer health care. I have always been a supporter of that, and I’ve always voted consistently.
When I was in the state Senate, I voted that way. When I was in Congress, I voted that way. I voted for the public option on the Affordable Care Act. And as I’ve said, I’ve been a cosponsor of Medicare for All for at least ten years.
And as a matter of fact, I had a conversation this morning. Pramila Jayapal called me this morning about this issue because I’m going to have the gavel for the Health Committee on Ways and Means. And she was calling me to ask me about that. And I don’t want to mix up the questions, but because you just asked me about campaign contributions, she also told me that her PAC for Medicare for All was making a contribution to me today.
Congress.gov lists Thompson as a cosponsor of H.R. 3069, the Medicare for All Act of 2025. His campaign says he has cosponsored the bill every Congress since 2017.
Thompson went on to talk about Jones.
Thompson: And while we’re at that, because you brought up my opponent a number of times, I think it’s probably a good juxtaposition on health care. The $10-plus million that he’s put in, those are $10-plus million that he made on the backs of medical patients, the companies that he claims he was part of. The fact of the matter is, he’s just an investor in those companies, as you know, but they’ve been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for taking advantage of patients, denying health care, in some instances emergency health care, overbilling. I’m not sure what debate you listened to, but the one on KCRA, when he said that I couldn’t name one company…
And I said, well, how about Carbon Health? And he said, well, that happened. They went bankrupt after I left. Forbes Magazine has a great interview with Jones, him touting how the guy who ran it was his friend. He’s the cutting edge. It’s going to be wonderful.
The next night in Woodland, when that issue came up again, he said something, and I don’t know, he said something that provoked me to pull out a list. And so, well, here’s a list of them. I listed all of the health care companies, to which he said, the only one on there that I know about is Carbon Health. So, you know, it always goes.
But these are people who abused, it takes predatory practices to a new low, what they did to health care. And that’s where he got his money. Now he’s spending that, I don’t know if it’s ill-gotten gains, but certainly gotten the wrong way to try and buy a seat. It could possibly be called blood money.
The CEO of Carbon Health was personally fined $100,000 by the state for his role.
Jones’s campaign says he left Carbon Health’s board more than four years ago and left Dragoneer in June 2025. California’s $4.4 million settlement with Carbon Health, whose 2020 round Dragoneer led, is under court review.
Thompson’s campaign sent a list of companies Dragoneer held that paid penalties. It adds up to more than $430 million, most of it paid by Block and Robinhood, and those figures check against agency releases. The health care companies on the list paid about $62 million, mainly Oak Street Health’s $60 million settlement with the Justice Department.
The list doesn’t show what Dragoneer or Jones earned from any of them.
The $10 million Thompson describes is the money Jones put into his campaign. The FEC filings don’t trace it to any company, and Jones’s 2025 House disclosure reportedly lists an $8 million Dragoneer salary and bonus.
Utility rates came next.
Q: You told viewers that PG&E rates are a state matter. Then in the rapid-fire round, you said absolutely to breaking PG&E up. If it’s a state matter, who breaks it up, and what’s your part? PG&E’s PAC has given you roughly $95,000 since 2004. Does that money have anything to do with why you won’t use federal power against them?
Thompson: Well, again, it was PG&E employees who gave me that money. Six thousand PG&E employees live in my congressional district. And these are the people that when the wind is blowing 100 miles an hour and the power goes out, they get out of bed, go out and fix your transformer. So I think that’s an important distinction.
I did say that PG&E rates are set by the state. And the reason I said that is because they are. That is a state function. It’s done through the CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission.
In regard to using federal power to somehow affect that, I’ve done a number of things at the federal level, starting with fire prevention measures and fire resiliency programs. One of the big problems that we have is the fact that things aren’t resilient, things burn up and there’s a problem. I also did legislation to require FERC, which regulates the big power lines, to make sure that they were at a standard that ensured that there wouldn’t be any problems.
And I did that a few years ago. And what we found was they were pretty much in compliance. And the legislation wasn’t going to pass. But it was a shot across the bow to make FERC step in. So I’ve been pretty active on that stuff.
And then in addition to that, if you remember, I’m the one that did all the renewable energy work that advanced the deployment of renewable energy, which is much safer, much cheaper, creates good jobs. And I’ve since advanced it, and in the new bill that I have, I’ve made sure that there were tax credits available for utility companies to expand their grid. Part of the problem that we have is grid capacity. And that’s a problem for renewables, for everybody, fossil fuel type stuff. In my new bill, I provide the same tax credit for fixing existing grid. A lot of it’s old and dilapidated.
As far as breaking it up, what I was referring to, and you see a lot of it, we have it right here in Yolo County, the clean power entities. There needs to be room for those folks. That needs to be done in a way, and we’re doing it. I’ve been supportive of that ever since. We’ve got Sonoma Clean Power, we’ve got, I think it’s called Yolo…
He did not say who breaks PG&E up or what his part is, or whether the PAC money affects his position. He described state regulation, his FERC and grid bills and clean power programs, and said the money came from employees.
The clean power program in Yolo County is Valley Clean Energy (source 29). Thompson’s campaign says PG&E’s employee PAC gave $5,000 for both the primary and the general election, and that PG&E told his office 6,000 employees live and work in the district. CalMatters reported he took $20,000 from the PAC across his last two reelection bids.
Q: You said you’ll chair the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee next Congress. Lloyd Doggett is its ranking member. How does the gavel get to you? And I’d like a date for a Medicare for All hearing if you can.
Thompson: That was my discussion with Jayapal this morning, too, except she wanted a markup, not a hearing. You shoot too low.
The way that happens is Lloyd’s retiring. So he’s leaving. And I’m the third person on the dais now. I’ll be second on the dais, and I get first choice. And I’ve already made it known that I’m going to take health care. And interestingly, one of the other things that Congresswoman Jayapal asked me about was legislation that she wants to do that would expand Medicare to deal with hearing, dental, vision. And that’s a long-standing bill that Mr. Doggett has always carried. And he has asked me to carry that bill in the next Congress.
So he asked me to carry that because I’m going to be the chair of the committee, and I’ve supported it for as long as he has. And it’s another one that I, and it’s interesting when you’re looking at the two candidates, I don’t think there’s anything credible that my opponent says he’s for that isn’t already a bill that I’m carrying, a bill that I’ve voted for, or a bill that somebody else in the Democratic Party is carrying. So it’s only the innovative things that he brings up that are a problem, like sunsetting Social Security and Medicare, sunsetting veterans benefits, or having the federal government pay for AI data centers. Yeah, not a fan of that.
He did not give a date for a hearing. Doggett is retiring, and Thompson is the third-ranking Democrat on the committee and has said he will seek the gavel. The gavel depends on Democrats winning the House in November.
Jones’s website first called for sunset reviews of nearly all federal programs, and was changed after a Social Security advocacy group objected. Jones told the Davis Enterprise that Social Security and Medicare are “permanently off the table.”
Later questions turned to local policing.
Q: You’ve said that local police should help federal agents with deportations in certain areas. Which areas?
Thompson: Well, I think California law is pretty clear on that. And I support California law. So if there is someone here who is guilty of heinous crimes, then absolutely there should be some cooperation provided.
But people who are here who haven’t committed heinous crimes, not only just crimes, but, you know, the little stuff, we shouldn’t be worried about. We should be worried about getting violent people off the street, dangerous people off the street. And as I say, I think a combination of state law and the county processes that we have in our district are pretty doggone good. Napa County is the one I think that probably really stands out, and I suspect Yolo’s good too. But at Napa, I know, for other reasons, that they are called on by other counties in the state for helping to direct how they should build their systems. From my end, this district has a very high population of undocumented immigrants, and it’s rather run by them in a lot of ways.
Q: I asked Jones this one, so I’ll ask you exactly the way I asked him. I think you’ve already answered it, but I should ask. Would you support local police protecting their citizens from federal agents who are not providing legal due process?
Thompson: Absolutely. Yeah. And we do that. We’ve got processes in place at the county level and at the state level to make sure that’s protected.
And to take it even further, I’ve been way out front on this stuff. I’ve held know-your-rights town halls for both the immigrant population as well as the business community. And it’s really interesting because when this guy came back into office and things got out of hand, I was contacted with equal intensity and by equal numbers from the immigrant community and the business community. Chambers of Commerce were calling and saying, you need to do something, you need to bring us together so we know what’s going on. I’ve done a number of those and it’s been really helpful.
Q: You’ve represented parts of this district since 1999. What’s the biggest way life has gotten worse for the people who first elected you here in this district, and not nationally?
Thompson: Well, I think there’s two areas that, you know, there’s constant challenge no matter when everything’s going smooth. If you’re in your happy places, there’s always challenges of one type or another. But right now, the two big issues are one, affordability, and that’s affecting everybody. And two, the threat to our democracy.
I just had a press conference over in Woodland about voter security and the importance of voting. People are scared. People want to know, as they should be, is my vote going to be counted? What are you doing to secure the ballots and make sure that they get to the right place? I hear it every time I do a town hall.
And people want to know. And so that’s what kind of prompted this press conference, to let people know what’s going on, how to best vote and cast their ballot to make sure it’s protected. So both of those issues, affordability and the threat to our democracy, have become an issue because of the guy that’s in the White House, the constant chaos that he is creating. People are overwhelmed.
Q: You still live in the county. How many nights a year do you sleep in this district?
Thompson: Well, the way it usually works is I go to Washington either Monday or Tuesday morning. So I wake up at my house in the district and I leave my house at 3:30 in the morning to drive to San Francisco International Airport. I take an 8:35 flight. At 5:30 in the morning, it’s a pretty quick shot to SFO. So I’ll either fly to DC Monday morning and fly home Thursday night, or fly to DC Tuesday morning and fly home Friday night.
And then I’m here Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or some combination thereof. And when I say I’m here, I’m somewhere in our district. It’s a big district. And back to people feeling anxious and concerned, I think it’s really important that I am out in the community meeting with people. They have questions, they have concerns, and they want to know that their representative understands their feelings and their concerns. So I just think it’s really important.
So I don’t know the exact day. I figured it out once, and I think it was like, I do 45 flights, five round trip flights a year, something like that.
CalMatters reports that Thompson still lives in the family home in St. Helena, which his great-grandfather bought in the 1890s. He did not give a number of nights.
The last questions concerned farm policy.
Q: You told debate viewers the California Farm Bureau backs you.
Thompson: So they endorse me. Okay. Endorse. The California Farm Bureau has endorsed me. The Napa Farm Bureau has endorsed me, and the Sonoma Farm Bureau has endorsed me.
A member of Thompson’s staff then told him he had received an email that another farm group had endorsed him.
Thompson: Oh, wow. Okay. That was nice. Yeah. Well, ag is a big part of this district. It’s even bigger now in the new district. And they need somebody who knows ag and has worked in ag.
And you saw it with the peach. Del Monte folded. They had a big town hall meeting for peach farmers in Yuba City, and they asked me to come up. There was no member of Congress for Sutter County at the time. Doug LaMalfa had passed away. James Gallagher, they hadn’t even set a time for an election. So I came up, I listened to what they had to say.
And I made two proposals. I said, there’s two areas where I believe I can help you. I can help you get disaster relief to help pull trees, because with the cannery closing, another cannery took capacity, you just had too many trees and they needed to get them the heck out of there. So I can help you get a tree pull program. We did that with pears up in Lake County. I think I could get that here. Or I could help get you a loan from USDA if you want to buy the cannery and run it as a co-op. I looked into it a little bit. I said, you probably know this, but when they did bankruptcy, a lot of the equipment at that cannery was leased, so it went back to the owner, and some of it was sold. So I don’t think it’s a turnkey deal. If you want to do that, just know there’s other stuff.
My opponent showed up, and he said, yeah, there’s other ways. This is not the best way. We should impose a sales tax in every county in the new district. This is a new district, it’s nine counties. We should impose a sales tax, all that money going to a fund to help for agricultural disasters. And it’s like, you don’t just pass a sales tax that’s voted on by the voters. That takes months, if not years of socialization. You’ve got to run campaigns. Half of these peach farmers are going to be retired or dead before that comes. So they voted on the spot and they decided they wanted a tree pull program. So I went back to Washington, and in two months and five days, I got them a tree pull program, $9,000,000. They know that I can perform, they know I know how to do things, and I’m effective.
USDA announced up to $9 million for a clingstone peach tree removal program on April 28. Thompson sent a bipartisan letter with 38 colleagues, and the linked file is dated March 13. He said he got the program in two months and five days.
His campaign says the meeting he describes was Feb. 13, which puts the announcement 74 days later, about two months and two weeks.
His campaign says Jones spoke several times at that meeting and concedes that his exact suggestions aren’t documented. The campaign cites the Appeal-Democrat’s Feb. 13 report on the meeting.
Q: On April 30, you voted no on the Farm Bill, H.R. 7567, and the Farm Bureau welcomed its passage. 14 California Democrats voted yes. Why did you vote no? And what did you tell the growers who wanted it?
Thompson: I don’t think 14 California Democrats voted yes. I think two California Democrats voted yes.
I think it was Costa and Gray. Yeah, I’ll have to go look back on that. I think you got that from my opponent. I think he said that, but he was just wrong.
So I can tell you why I voted no for it for two reasons. One, it cut food security programs, school lunch programs, food security for people who need the help, seniors, veterans, et cetera. And then the other thing is it didn’t provide any help for specialty crops. And our district is pretty heavy on specialty crops. And I had an amendment to the farm bill that would have provided disaster assistance to specialty crops. And they wouldn’t make it in order. They wouldn’t make it part of the bill. So for those two reasons, I voted no.
I’m not voting for anything that’s going to take food away from kids and hungry folks. That’s where I stand. People need to eat. And it’s sad that my opponent doesn’t feel the same way, but I guess if you’re worth $85,000,000, $100,000,000, you don’t have to worry about where the next meal is coming from.
He did not say what he told the growers who wanted the bill.
The bill passed 224 to 200. Fourteen Democrats voted yes, and two of them, Costa and Gray, are from California, as Thompson said.
Thompson voted no.
Press Democrat reporting puts Jones’s wealth at $18 million to $86 million, below the $100 million Thompson cited.
Thompson’s campaign sent written follow-up answers after the interview, and they are cited where they apply. Jones was interviewed separately on Sept. 22, and that interview runs as a companion piece. The election is Nov. 3.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
