I interpret the United States Constitution through an originalist perspective because it was built on enduring principles. It is the responsibility of each generation to understand the Constitution, not to reshape it to fit themselves. The U.S. Constitution is meant to provide structure and identity to this civilization it governs, grounded in natural law, God-given rights, ordered liberty, and a moral framework rooted in the Christian tradition. When later generations begin to reinterpret it according to their own values, they risk unmooring themselves from the very foundation that fosters true freedom and holds that system together.

The problem is that the government takes too much money in the first place. Spending has increased by 300% while Montana’s population has only grown by 18%. That’s ridiculous. Some politicians think we can fix this by shifting taxes. Absolutely not. We fix it by shrinking the size and scope of government and cutting spending in a way that permanently reduces its need for extravagant revenue.

Starting with income taxes: rates should be driven down as low as possible, with the long-term goal of a flat system, or eliminating it altogether when we get spending under control. Taxing income is taxing productivity, and you don’t grow a state by punishing work.

Next, property taxes: They are dangerous because they keep going up over time, even if nothing changes, and they make it so you never truly own your home. If we can’t eliminate them, then they should be tightly capped so they can’t keep rising automatically, and the government should have to clearly explain and justify any increase.

Then business taxes, especially things like equipment taxes: those should be eliminated. You should never tax the tools people use to create jobs. 

And finally, all the smaller, targeted taxes that are buried in the code and hit certain industries or activities should be systematically reviewed and repealed wherever possible.

It's a house that you can afford on one person's income. And when that isn't present in a society, society will start to deteriorate because now two people have to work. Nobody's at home. Everybody's eating out. Nobody has time to cook. Kids have to go to daycare. Daycare is expensive. I had employees that were spending 80 percent of one of their salaries just to put the kids in daycare.

Affordability is a moral issue. It tears the fabric of society apart.

And so we have to deal with unaffordability as if it's a threat, like an enemy threat, because it is. And it's not something that's easily fixed on the Montana level, because the federal government, big corporations, big banking systems are working overtime to monetize debt, to devalue money as fast as they can, and it's putting pressure on states like Montana to somehow be ingenious enough to overcome all of that and still make things affordable for our people.

But that's where we have to get, and that's why it's not only this election that's important, but it's the congressional elections—it's the presidential elections, right? It's the bureaucrats that get put in place. It's the banking system.

And there needs to be a bit of restraint put on corporate America as well, because we have seen from 2008, forward how the banking system in America no longer is serving the interest of the common citizen."

I completely support the Second Amendment.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people retain the ultimate ability to defend their freedom. History shows that when governments become tyrannical, one of the first steps they take is disarming the population. It is a safeguard for all other rights. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment should be interpreted broadly and as originally intended. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be limited by excessive regulation that undermines its purpose. 

I also know most gun owners in places like Montana already understand firearms better than many of the people trying to regulate them from afar. Hunting, ranch life, sport shooting, and protecting your home are normal parts of life here, not extremism.

Ideally, we need to move away from property taxes altogether. Property taxes are fundamentally different from most other forms of taxation because they function as a tax on unrealized gains. A family can live in the same home for decades, earn no additional income, and still face rising tax bills simply because the government declares their property is worth more on paper. That creates a system where people can be taxed out of property they already own, which is neither sustainable, fair, or just.

At the very least, property taxes need established restraints and structural reform so they stop being punitive. At the same time, I do not support a statewide sales tax either. Too often government responds to a broken tax system by stacking new taxes on top of old ones instead of fixing the underlying problem.

I favor the simplicity and fairness of a properly structured flat tax. A flat tax treats citizens equally under the law, avoids punishing productivity, and can be structured to replace burdensome property taxes without creating a statewide sales tax.

Talking about a preferred form of taxation is a little like talking about a preferred way to get sunburned. No one enjoys paying taxes. The goal is to create a system that is fair, restrained, predictable, and economically sound. Government does need revenue to fund legitimate and necessary functions. The question is how to raise that revenue in the least punitive and most rational way possible. Right now, Montana’s property tax system is failing that test for far too many people.

I wish more people knew this, but the phrase “separation of Church and State” is not found anywhere in the Constitution. It comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where he was assuring them that the government would not interfere with or control the church. The intent was to protect the church from the state, not to remove faith from the public square.

What is interesting is that during the time of our founding, many state constitutions specifically referenced God and Jesus Christ, proving the founders clearly did not envision a society where faith was pushed out of public life. They recognized that a free and moral society depends on a moral people, and that such a foundation is rooted in Christianity. 

Now with regards to the First Amendment, it prevents the establishment of a national religion and protects the free exercise of religion. It does not require the removal of religious influence or expression from public life or government.

In my view, the modern interpretation is solely used to suppress religion (specifically Christianity) making it something that must be kept entirely private. That is not consistent with our history or our founding principles.

Montana is unique because we are rich in natural resources. We should be able to rely more heavily on revenues from energy development, mining, timber, and responsible land use in funding the state government. That allows us to keep taxes lower on working families and small businesses.

The state should never rely heavily on systems that penalize productivity, like high income taxes or constantly rising property taxes, which make it harder for local Montana families to stay in Montana, buy homes, and build a life here.

Life begins at conception. Every human life is bestowed by God and is intrinsically valuable.

First, we need to take a hard look at bureaucratic growth. For a state our size, Montana has too many layers of administration. Over time, agencies - like DPHHS - expand and administrative costs grow beyond what’s necessary, often in ways that do not translate into better services. The same concern applies to how we fund our schools. We need to make sure teachers are being paid well and that funding is reaching the classroom, not being absorbed by excessive administrative overhead. We should be auditing agencies regularly and asking whether those positions and programs are still necessary.

Following from the above, we must target waste, fraud, and abuse especially in large areas like healthcare spending and state contracts. Even small inefficiencies, when scaled across the entire budget, add up quickly.

Third, we should do away with trust funds and take a look at our long-term spending commitments that function without clear need or oversight. Too often, money gets set aside and continues to grow without accountability or reevaluation.

The proper role of government is a limited one. It exists not to rule over the people, but to secure their God-given rights of life, liberty, and the ability to pursue a virtuous and productive life. Government is simply there to establish order, administer justice, and provide for the common defense, while leaving the day-to-day lives, decisions, and responsibilities of the people to themselves, their families, and their local communities.

I do not believe the government is fully fulfilling that proper role. It has grown beyond its intended bounds, regulating what it should not, spending what it does not have, and inserting itself into areas that should be left to individuals, families, and the states. This overreach weakens all institutions that sustain a free and moral society.

If given the opportunity to serve, I will limit the scope of government by reducing unnecessary regulation (especially on our natural resources), lowering our taxes and supporting a tax plan that is simple, transparent and does not merely shift the tax burden without reducing spending. 

I love how it esteems the family and upholds the value of life from conception. 

I also want to note this from the platform: 

“Taxes should be minimized, broad-based, fair, and easily understood. Taxes shall not be used to redistribute wealth. In the event of revenue surplus, excess funds shall be returned to Montana resident taxpayers in order to restrain government growth and allow for reduction of government. ● We support a property tax system that is not based solely on appraisals that result in taxation of unrealized capital gains. We believe that tax shifts are unnecessary in a wellbalanced tax system. “ 

This was NOT adhered to last session due to the moderate Republicans siding with Democrats. One of the most important ways we support families is by ensuring they have an economy in which they can actually thrive. This includes being able to save money, purchase a home, and have financial stability. That starts with a tax system that doesn’t drain their resources through taxing property, income, tools, etc.

We should be doing everything in our power as legislators to keep taxpayers’ money in their hands so they can succeed, by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in government. This includes not creating unnecessary trust funds or writing tax plans so complex that only one person can understand them. Our tax system must be simple and transparent, one where any surplus is returned to the people who earned it.

As Grover Norquist has long argued, we should be lowering taxes across the board, keeping them transparent, and never looking for new ways to tax people.

No, Montana should not accept federal funding when it comes with conditions that require us to surrender control over how we regulate our state or use our natural resources. First off, accepting funding under those conditions sets a precedent that Montana’s policies can be shaped by outside interests rather than Montana citizens. It also basically sells our land to the federal government. If the cost of federal dollars is giving up control over our land, our resources, and our laws then it is not a good deal for Montana.

One of my biggest critiques of the Montana State Constitution is the “clean and healthful environment” clause. In practice it has been used to justify broad, activist rulings that go far beyond reasonable environmental protection (for example, the HELD decision). It has opened the door to litigation and policy decisions that restrict good resource development and harm Montana businesses and workers. At this point, I believe that clause should be removed or fundamentally reworked so it cannot continue to be used to block economic growth under vague and expansive interpretations.

Our judiciary. It is the last holdout for radical, woke Democrat policies like allowing permanent gender mutilation surgeries on children or forcing taxpayer dollars to go toward things like drag story hours for elementary students. We also need to raise the threshold for passing ballot initiatives. It cannot be 50–51 percent. It should require a two-thirds majority in Montana, just as it does in the Montana Legislature. Our judiciary has become a final backstop for policies that do not reflect the will of the people. It is something that needs to be addressed immediately. 

I approach the Constitution with respect, and I don’t take lightly the idea of calling any amendment a “mistake.” The amendment process itself reflects the wisdom of a self-governing people. That said, there are amendments that, in practice, have had unintended consequences or expanded federal power beyond what many of the founders envisioned.

I believe the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which authorized a federal income tax, was not a positive benefit to our nation. Thomas Jefferson said, “A wise and frugal Government… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Is that not what the federal income tax does? I understand the need for specific infrastructure, but this amendment has enabled an ever-expanding federal government by reducing economic freedom for individuals and families.

I would add the following amendments (not in order of importance, though I believe they all are). I would support a balanced budget amendment, making it the duty of Congress to pass a balanced budget and never overspend, protecting future generations from unsustainable debt.

Second, from a Christian conservative perspective, I believe it is important to affirm the inherent dignity and value of every human life. While the Constitution already protects fundamental rights, I would support an amendment that clearly recognizes the right to life as foundational, ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected under the law.

The above may also tie into this - I would seek clearer definition and proper limitation of both the so-called right to privacy and the General Welfare Clause. Over time, both have been interpreted in ways that extend far beyond their original meaning, often used to justify decisions or policies that were never explicitly granted in the Constitution.

Fourth, I would work to give more power back to the states by putting stronger limits on the federal government, making sure that anything not clearly given to the federal government is left up to the states and the people.