Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Tuesday November 8, 2022 — California General Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

United States

U.S. House of RepresentativesCandidate for District 51

Photo of Stan Caplan

Stan Caplan

Small Business Owner
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter's Edge.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • Current economic policies are hammering everyday citizens and small businesses with high inflation, unaffordable gas, SDGE and food costs. My first priority: reduce excessive spending, lower taxes and reinstitute an all-of-the-above energy approach.
  • My second priority is to ensure parents a choice of schools for their children and a strong voice in school curriculum, so that students have access to practical, impartial education grounded in equality, individual character, and achievement
  • With rising crime, an unsecured border and rampant homelessness, citizens are anxious. I will compel federal prosecution of criminal behavior, help secure the border and work with local officials and private sector on public safety innovations

Experience

Experience

Profession:Small business owner
Owner, Caplan Financial (1986–current)

Education

University of Texas BBA, Accounting (1971)

Questions & Answers

Questions from League of Women Voters of California (4)

What legislation, if any, would you support to reduce American greenhouse gas production?  Please explain the reasons for your position.
Answer from Stan Caplan:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that over the past 15 years CO2 emissions are 32% lower than 2005. They found that over 65% of that reduction was due to the substitution of natural gas for coal, far more consequential than the introduction and use of renewable energy or electric vehicles. We’ve made tremendous progress, but despite this wonderful news, in 2021 the Biden administration suspended new oil and gas leases on federal land, put natural gas rail transport on hold and ended pipeline infrastructure development. This unfortunate policy has severely inhibited the production and distribution of natural gas. Obviously, the Biden policy is not good for the planet, nor is it good for our people. In addition to impairing the key factor in reducing emissions, the current new policy has also resulted in skyrocketing energy costs. This has been disastrous for producers, truckers and other supply chain participants, retailers, small businesses dependent upon energy and especially for everyday citizens.

President Biden’s stated goals are to achieve a 50% reduction from 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 2030 and have a “net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050”. Many of my constituents wonder if this is a bridge too far, too soon. They ask: “Are renewable energy sources reliable 24/7? Can the current technology meet future energy needs? Will the “gas station” infrastructure for electric vehicles be ready? What about tax costs to pay for all this? Will I be forced to buy solar and an electric car?” Commonsense says: don’t rush headlong into an unproven, massive political proposal that reinvents our entire energy system until we are ready. Congress needs to explore these reasonable concerns, do realistic cost/benefit analysis, and seriously weigh the effects on our commerce and national security, in addition to the effect on our planet. In the meantime, I will support legislation for an all-of-the-above energy approach, focused on the use of natural gas, until the alternative renewable energy technology, infrastructure and supply are developed, deliverable and dependable. This way we strike a sensible balance between what is good for the planet and what is good for our people.

Should immigration laws be changed?  What changes would you support?  Please explain why.
Answer from Stan Caplan:

While developing a comprehensive immigration policy is complex, there are two commonsense actions I find most of my constituents would agree on. Let me first say that I am a huge supporter of increasing the number immigrants we allow into the United States through the legal process.

The first action I’d focus on is the border itself. The border must be secured. Most people agree that you cannot have a country without a secure border and that it is nonsense to have an open border. The wall that was started should be finished, patrolled, and monitored. This should be done primarily for national security and to stop cartel drug smuggling and human trafficking. We don’t want another 9/11 and must make sure that terrorists are not entering our country. China is sending raw fentanyl chemical ingredients to Mexican cartels who then manufacture and smuggle the drugs across the border. The cartels stamp “fentanyl” onto the pills so they resemble our prescription drugs. These illicit drugs are killing thousands of Americans and that is unacceptable. According to the FBI, San Diego is hub for underage human trafficking from Mexico and child-prostitution. And, worse, human trafficking has led to an uptick in crime here. A secure border will help law enforcement catch these awful criminals.

The second action I’d focus on is legislation that expels anyone who has entered illegally from anywhere and commits any kind of violent crime. We just don’t need criminals like this in our country.

As Congress Member what, if any, policies or legislation would you support to preserve democracy for all US residents?
Answer from Stan Caplan:

Free speech, the cornerstone of our republic and the key to preserving democracy for all US residents, is being threatened by the current administration, social media companies, many colleges and universities, and even our elementary and high schools.

 

The Biden administration’s new federal Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), per Press Secretary Psaki, is intended “to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities.” Coming soon to our communities? The extremely partisan DGB head, Nina Jankowicz, spread disinformation herself, calling the previously buried Hunter Biden laptop story a mere “tale” and “campaign product” and praising the debunked Steele Dossier as truth that provides “some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo.” On NPR she blanched at Elon Musk’s efforts to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter, saying, “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms. . .”

 

You cannot have free speech unless it is “absolute”, otherwise, it becomes “correct speech” or “acceptable speech” or “limited speech”. When such restrictions on speech are promoted and regulated it’s called “propaganda” and “censorship”.

 

Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook also create non-existent layers of free speech distinctions to limit free speech. Their algorithms have political components that censor speech not considered societally “acceptable” or politically “correct” in the eyes of the social media company data masters.

 

College and university administrators label certain visiting speakers’ views as “hateful speech” or “offensive speech” when those views run counter to theirs or under pressure from student activists. These speakers, who were invited by legitimate student organizations, are either disinvited, forced to pay exorbitant security fees or are subjected to continual interruptions, threats and even physical attacks during their talks.

 

Administrators and teachers in elementary and high schools often talk diversity but indoctrinate and limit dissent. Children are falsely taught our country was founded on racism, told who is racist and who is victim and introduced to sexual content prematurely without parental consent. Parents just want a practical education for their kids, based on values of individual character and personal achievement, not the latest groupthink.

 

The most important kind of legislation for preservation of our democracy starts with free speech.

 

I would do everything in my power to stop the Biden administration’s establishment of a Disinformation Governance Board. DGB is a blatant and unconstitutional attempt to control speech.

 

I think it is important to rethink Section 230 (generally exempting internet companies from liability for what users post) to ensure that social media platforms are not abusing their special protection.

 

I would consider eliminating federal funds to colleges and universities with policies that restrict free speech. It is totally against our democratic principles.

 

Parents should not be labeled as domestic terrorists by the federal government merely for speaking up. Parents should have a choice in schools and a free voice in school curriculum. I will do everything I can at the federal level to help parents exercise their democratic rights.

Water

The Federal Government plays a part in California water allocation and use through a variety of projects and laws.  What, if any, new programs or projects or reforms to existing programs and projects would you support in an effort to handle water shortages caused by the current and any future drought?

No answer provided.

Who gave money to this candidate?

Contributions

Total money raised: $38,910

Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:

1
Stan Caplan
$16,498
2
Employees of Cutlass Energy Partners
$2,094
3
Employees of Pierce Education Properties
$1,800
4
Employees of Bothof Brothers Construction
$1,047
4
Employees of Gear Vendors
$1,047

More information about contributions

By State:

California 76.27%
Texas 16.75%
Alabama 2.68%
Arizona 2.68%
Other 1.61%
76.27%16.75%

By Size:

Large contributions (95.81%)
Small contributions (4.19%)
95.81%

By Type:

From organizations (0.00%)
From individuals (100.00%)
100.00%
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Political Beliefs

Position Papers

See caplanforcongress.com for positions

Summary

caplanforcongress.com

caplanforcongress.com

Who else is running?

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING: SERVER:QA