presents
Voter’s Edge California
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
California Common Cause@CommonCauseCA
June 5, 2018 — Elecciones Primarias de California
Estados Unidos

Cámara de Representantes del los Estados UnidosCandidato para Distrito 52

Photo de Michael Allman

Michael Allman

Republicana
Direct Democracy Advocate
6,561 votos (3.9%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Experiencia

Experiencia

Direct Democracy Advocate, Croydon LLC (2017–2018)
President, COO and CFO, Bit Stew Systems (2015–2016)
Chairman and CEO, SoCalGas (2010–2012)
President and CEO, Sempra Generation (2006–2010)
International Management Consultant and Partner, LEK Consulting (1987–1998)

Educación

University of Chicago Booth School of Business Graduate, MBA with a Finance Specialization (1985)
Michigan State University B.S., Chemical Engineering (1982)

Biografía

Michael Allman, a long-time San Diego County resident, is an experienced businessman with a distinguished career spanning technology, energy, and international businesses.

From 2014 to 2016, Mike was with Bit Stew Systems, a software company operating in the “Industrial Internet of Things” industry that links computers with machines. Mike’s roles at Bit Stew included President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. Mike led the sale of Bit Stew to General Electric in 2016, in a deal that was awarded “Deal of the Year” by the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.

From 1998 to 2012, Mike held leadership positions with Sempra Energy, a Fortune 300 energy holding company based in San Diego.  During this period, Mike was the Chairman, President, and CEO of Southern California Gas Company, the largest natural gas distribution company in the United States.  Prior to leading the Gas Company, Mike was the President and CEO of Sempra Generation, a pioneering electric generation company, where he launched the large-scale solar power industry, and built one of the largest renewable energy businesses in the country.

Additional prior roles with Sempra include being the Chief Financial Officer of Sempra’s non-utility energy businesses, Vice President of Internal Audit, President of Sempra Communications, and Vice President of Strategic Planning and Business Development.

Before joining Sempra Energy, Mike was a Partner with The LEK Consulting Group and held postings in Los Angeles, London, Johannesburg, and Chicago.

Mike was raised in Michigan, and attended Michigan State University, where he earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering. In 1995 he received an MBA with a Finance Specialization from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

 

Mike currently resides in North San Diego with his wife, Lee Ann Allman, where he advocates for direct citizen engagement to hold elected officials accountable to the voters. Mike and Lee Ann have two adult children.

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de League of Women Voters of North County San Diego (5)

Family reunification is a process that allows immigrants already residing in the U.S. to bring in additional family members. Do you support limiting this process? Why or why not?
Respuesta de Michael Allman:

I support limiting family-based immigration to the immediate family only.  That is, only to spouses and minor children. We should encourage the core family to remain intact, but should not automatically extend this to aunts and uncles and other relatives.

As we secure the border, we need to address the issue of illegal immigrants that currently live in the US.  For those that are productive members of society, we should provide a simple and straightforward path to legal permanent residency.  This path would be open to those who have been here for some period of time, have a job or are going to school, have served in the military or with volunteer organizations, and most importantly those who are not criminals or associated with criminal activity.  Those who are not contributing to society or who are criminals should be deported when they are found.

Once we have a secure border and a path to permanent residency for upstanding people who are already here, I am generally in favor of a relatively lenient immigration policy.  Of course, we should conduct background checks and only let in those who are law abiding and are not associated with terrorist or other undesirable groups. We should also favor those who we think can assimilate into American culture. In addition, we should base our immigration decisions on individual merit, and do away with the current lottery system and quotas.  We should not provide welfare support to new immigrants for a number of years. We should not let people immigrate under the assumption that if they can’t make ends meet, our government to support them. We should not become a welfare state to the rest of the world.

Do you support expanding the current border wall between U.S. and Mexico? Why or why not?
Respuesta de Michael Allman:

It is important that we secure and protect our border, so that we can regain control of who comes into our country.  Without a secure border, immigrants, drug dealers, and other criminals would be free to enter the US illegally. For areas of the border where illegal crossings are easy, then we need to secure the border by building a wall.  

However, we don’t need to build a wall the entire length of the US / Mexico border.  We have natural barriers such as mountains and deserts where it is not practical and not economic to build an actual physical wall.  Instead, it is much more efficient to secure the border through other means, such as electronic surveillance.

Experts estimate that out of the entire length of border, which is 1,984 miles, it be practical and effective to build a wall across approximately 500 miles, with the remaining miles to be monitored with electronic technology and border patrols.

Do you support creating additional regulations on gun ownership? Why or why not?
Respuesta de Michael Allman:

I support the Second Amendment and I am an advocate for sensible gun regulations. Law-abiding citizens who pass a background check should be able to purchase guns, including hand guns, and should be able to carry them on their person.  

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides an individual right for people to own a firearm. However, the court ruled that this does not mean someone can carry any type of gun, anywhere, and at any time.

We should continue to ban fully-automatic weapons, but I am against banning all semi-automatic weapons.  Most handguns today are semi-automatic, and attempting to ban them will make criminals out of millions of law-abiding people.

I am not in favor of arming teachers in schools, although individual school districts may decide to have armed guards at schools.  That decision is up to the local school board and local government.

The terrible mass shootings that have happened in our country are conducted by people with mental illness.  We should address the problem of mental illness in our country to minimize the occurrence of these senseless tragedies.  

Finally, I would allow the individual states to determine their own gun laws consistent with the will of their citizens.  The people of California may decided to have different gun laws that the people of Texas. That decision is up to the individual states.  The role of the federal government should be limited to ensuring that our constitutional right to bear arms is protected and upheld.

Should the U.S. remain in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? Why or why not?
Respuesta de Michael Allman:

Free and fair trade is a benefit to the American economy and to American consumers.  Our trade policy should encourage the removal of tariffs that inhibit the free flow of goods and services across our border.  For these reasons, we should remain in NAFTA while working with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors to even further reduce destructive tariffs and other barriers to trade.

International trade is one of the most misunderstood areas of our economy.  Even the language that is used often presents international trade as a “zero-sum game”, suggesting that any “gain” realized by a trading partner (such as China or Mexico) must be associated with a “loss” to America.  Phrases such as “trade deficit” and “trade war” further this misunderstanding, when in fact, international trade makes America and Americans wealthier. This is especially true when a foreign country decides to subsidize one of its industries to sell more goods in America.

As a simple example, consider what happens when the Japanese government decides to tax its citizens so that Japanese car makers such as Honda and Toyota can reduce the cost of cars that they export to America by, say as an example, an average of $1,000 per car.  Americans win in this deal because they get access to these cars at a lower cost, with the savings provided by the Japanese taxpayer. To make this easier to understand, imagine if the Japanese government provided a subsidy of even more than $1,000 per car. Imagine if they cut the cost of new cars in half, or even offered them free to Americans!  Does anyone really believe that if the Japanese were to offer us cars for free that we, as Americans, are actually worse off? We should be thanking the citizens of other countries for giving us money in the form of lower prices when their governments decide to subsidize an industry in order to help them export goods to America.

The opposite is true when America creates tariffs on imported goods.  Tariffs are a tax on American consumers that is used to support a politically-favored industry.  The net effect is a lower standard of living in America. That is why I am against President Trump’s tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.  The effect of this is that every American will pay a few hundred dollars more for a car. That may get lost when we are paying $20,000 or more for a new car, but it exists in any case.  Some of this extra tax will help the US Steel industry, but the rest is just a loss born by consumers. The fact that the costs of tariffs are dispersed (we all pay a bit more for our cars) but the benefits are concentrated (the steel companies get the benefit) is what makes tariffs so attractive for politicians.  They can take credit for saving jobs in the steel industry, when in fact is it us as consumers and customers who are subsidizing these companies.

 

What programs or legislation, if any, would you support to help Americans of all ages secure affordable health care?
Respuesta de Michael Allman:

The United States has some of the best health care in the world, but due to a bad market design for both health insurance and medical care we spend too much money on healthcare and receive poor overall service.

To begin, we need to separate health insurance from health care services.  Health insurance is designed to spread the risk of poor health before anyone gets sick.  Each of us spends a smaller amount of money on insurance when we are healthy, so that if some of us get sick we can afford the appropriate medical treatment.  We are familiar with this in other insurance markets, such as fire insurance on our home, or car insurance in case of an accident.

However, people with pre-existing medical conditions are already sick and their care needs to be paid for.  This is not an insurance issue anymore, it is simply a question of who pays for the necessary medical care. Just like you can’t buy fire insurance after your house has burned down, you can’t buy medical insurance after you get sick.

The only realistic solution is to take people with pre-existing medical conditions out of the insurance pool altogether and pay for their care directly.  There are different ways we can do that, but it will surely require some funding from the government.

By removing pre-existing conditions from the insurance market, medical insurance will become much more affordable.  In addition, if we make medical insurance more of an individual market than a corporate market, then individuals will be able to retain their health insurance even when they change employers or lose their job.  We can use the tax laws to encourage the purchase of individual insurance policies that are portable.

Look at changes to retirement savings as an analogy.  Most of our country has moved from pensions that were tied to remaining with a company until retirement, to today where we have portable retirement plans like 401(k) accounts that are owned by the individual.  In a similar way we need to make health insurance portable. No one should lose their insurance coverage because they change jobs.

We also need to fix medicare.  Medicare is broken for a number of reasons, but the main issue is that it is unsustainable.  The average couple pays about $150,000 in their lifetime in Medicare premiums and taxes, but collects about $450,000 in lifetime benefits.  “Medicare for All” means bankruptcy for all.

We have largely removed the consumer from the health care purchasing decision.  Even before Obamacare, consumers only paid for 13% of total healthcare costs, with the government directly paying for more than 50%.  When consumers are insulated from price, prices will rise. That is the problem with all third-party payment systems such as government payments.  

The solution lies in recognizing these truths and moving to a system with true market-based reforms.  A number of ideas are out there; we just need to do what is right and make them happen.

¿Quién proporcionó dinero a este candidato?

Contribuciones

Dinero total recaudado: $415,109

Principales contribuyentes que dieron dinero para apoyar al candidato, por organización:

1
Michael Allman
$300,076
2
Employees of Mcloud
$5,900
3
Employees of Western National Group
$5,400
4
Employees of Wellhead
$5,000
5
Employees of Ascribe Capital Llc
$2,700
5
Employees of Cooley LLP
$2,700
5
Employees of Craig Realty Group
$2,700
5
Employees of Hanna Capital Management Inc.
$2,700
5
Employees of Hanna Ventures
$2,700
5
Employees of Jas. D. Easton, Inc.
$2,700
5
Employees of Kaleidoscope, Inc.
$2,700
5
Employees of L.e.k. Consulting
$2,700
5
Employees of Stem
$2,700
5
Employees of Tiodize Co. Inc
$2,700

Más información acerca de contribuciones

Por estado:

Virginia 75.81%
California 18.55%
Pennsylvania 0.87%
Texas 0.75%
Other 4.03%
75.81%18.55%

Por tamaño:

Contribuciones grandes (98.52%)
Contribuciones pequeñas (1.48%)
98.52%

Por tipo:

De organizaciones (0.51%)
De individuos (99.49%)
99.49%
Fuente: Análisis de datos de la Comisión Federal Electoral de MapLight.

Creencias poliza

Filosofía política

My political philosophy is rooted in four important principles that go back to the founding of our country: individual liberty and personal responsibility, limited and efficient government, free market capitalism, and a strong military to promote peace.

I believe in upholding the US Constitution as it is written, and believe in many areas we have forgotten the true meaning of our founding document.  Although I support the entire US Constitution, I would particularly point out three Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

I support the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Individuals should be able to speak their minds and engage in civil debate, something we often don’t see in today’s hyper-partisan environment.  People should be free to practice religion according to their own individual beliefs, and should not be compelled by the government to act against their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

I support the Second Amendment and I am an advocate for sensible gun regulations. Law-abiding citizens who pass a background check should be able to purchase guns, including hand guns, and should be able to carry them on their person.

I support the Tenth Amendment, which says that the powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the the individual States and the people.  Our Federal Government has taken power that was never granted to it by the people, and has grown to be too large and often unaccountable. We need to shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government.  A good government is one that is closest to the people.

In addition to these key Constitutional provisions, I have specific positions on other key issues facing our Country, State, and District.

I believe in securing our borders in the most effective way possible. I’m for good, strong border protection that’s effective and targeted. That includes a crackdown on extended visas, getting rid of the lottery system, and tightening controls on our physical border.

I don’t believe California should be a sanctuary state. Immigration is an issue solely for the federal government.  State and local governments should not be involved in immigration policy, it is a national issue.  I support the lawsuit brought by the federal government against the state of California for its so-called Sanctuary Law – the California Values Act of 2017.  The State of California should not be allowed obstruct the federal government when enforcing immigration law.

I believe in tax reform. The recent tax law is a great start, especially with regard to corporate taxes. Trillions of dollars that has effectively been trapped overseas is no able to coming back to the United States to fund new investment, improve the economy, and reward shareholders and employees. But more has to be done to lower personal taxes and simplify our tax code.  Real tax reform would remove all tax deductions driven by special interests and go back to a simple tax form with just a few tax brackets.

We need to stop the Gas Tax Hike in California. The Gas Tax Hike bill was passed in the state legislature last year without the vote of the people, and we need to repeal the Gas Tax Hike this November.  This is a great example of the people flexing their power to act as a check on the government. I will bring this same power to the people when it comes to the federal government.

 

I urge you to send someone to Congress with solid business experience, instead of a professional politician. With your support, we can change Washington, and get back to our roots as a nation with good old American values – “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Documentos sobre determinadas posturas

Second Amendment Position Paper

Summary

I support the Second Amendment and I am an advocate for sensible gun regulations. Law-abiding citizens who pass a background check should be able to purchase guns, including hand guns, and should be able to carry them on their person.  

Position Paper

 

Upgrade and Incentivize NICS Reporting

 

The federal NICS system (National Criminal Background Check System) is a United States system for determining if prospective firearms buyer's name and birth year match those of a person who is ineligible to purchase a firearm. It is this system that states run background checks against in the instance someone is trying to purchase a firearm.

 

Currently it is not required by law to report state and local crimes and mental illness issues to the NICS system, so criminals like the Fort Hood Shooter and the Florida Shooter slipped through the cracks and were able to purchase a firearm in another state. It is this failure to update the NICS system that allowed many of these shootings, and I believe if we can strengthen this system and incentivize states to upload their crime and mental health statistics to this system, we could prevent many of these terrible tragedies. I believe you should not be able to simply cross the state line in order to use this loophole. An increase in state reporting could prevent a criminal from legally obtaining a firearm in another state as well as their own state.

States Rights

 

Over the years, the US Federal Government has become a larger force in many people’s lives, and has taken more power than it was granted by our constitution.  Whenever possible, we should push the power of government down to the states and away from Washington. Gun control is one such area, and gun laws should be determined by the legislators in each state as they see fit without undue interference by Washington.  There is nothing wrong with the state of California having stricter gun laws than Texas, if that is what their people, through their legislators, decide is proper. However, per the Constitution, guns cannot be banned outright.

Concealed and Open Carry The issue on concealed carry and open carry is a difficult one and something that should be left to the states to decide. Each state has independent autonomy to create and enforce laws of their own aside from federal law. If some states want stricter gun control, they should be allowed to do so, as such a state that may want less gun control also has that freedom as long as it does not violate federal law.

 

Legal and Illegal Firearms

 

Whichever level of government is regulating firearms, they can certainly determine that certain types of firearms can be illegal.  For example, I support the continued ban on machine guns or other weapons that can operate in “fully automatic” mode. The purchase of fully-automatic weapons (machine guns) has been illegal in the US since 1934.

 

There has been much discussion about banning Assault Rifles.  An Assault Rifle is a specific kind of rifle with certain characteristics, the most important being able to switch from “semi-automatic” mode (one bullet for each pull of the trigger) to fully-automatic.  I am in favor of the continued ban on firearms that can operate in fully-automatic mode, and thus I am in favor of a ban on Assault Rifles or any instruments (such as bump-stocks) that are used to turn a semi-automatic weapon into a nearly fully-automatic weapon.

 

I am not in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons.  Nearly every modern pistol is a semi-automatic. It is both impractical and unnecessary to ban semi-automatic weapons.

 

Who Can Own a Firearm

 

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees an individual right to have and use firearms for self defense in the home.  The court ruled that the Constitution allows for restricting ownership in circumstances such as convicted felons or the mentally ill.  I support these restrictions, and also support denying gun ownership to other criminals, not just convicted felons. However, law-abiding citizens aged 21-years or older, who are without any known mental issues, should be allowed to own a legal firearm after an appropriate review, background check, and licensing process.

 

Mass Shootings

 

Large-scale mass shootings, like we have seen recently in Parkland, Orlando, and Las Vegas are tragic, and the loss of life senseless.  In a vast majority of cases, the perpetrators suffer from mental illness. Our nation’s ability to properly care for the mentally ill has deteriorated over time, and more resources need to be provided to identify and treat people with mental illness.  In many cases today, the largest treatment centers for our mentally ill is our jail system. (statistics.) This is not effective nor is it the right thing to do. We should and must do more to serve our mentally ill, and should do whatever is necessary to prevent them from accessing firearms.  Increased gun regulation is not the answer. Treating the mentally ill and preventing them from obtaining weapons should be our priority.

Mental Illness

 

The issue with mental illness is nothing new to us. This has been a discussion we should have been having for the last two decades, but for whatever reason we have not. Well, now is the time to do so while we have momentum on the topic of firearms. Since the 1950’s funding for mental health services and institutions has been dramatically reduced -- causing the shutdown of hundreds of mental institutions all over the country. Over time, through defunding, stigmatization, and reported abuses, our country has had a reduced capability to handle mental health problems. With increased attention and funding to mental health institutions, there could finally be a buffer zone for potentially unstable people. Since you cannot arrest someone for just being disturbed, we could have them evaluated by a mental health professional to determine if that individual is truly a public safety threat. This process could help save the lives of innocent people.

 

Return the Money for Mental Health Services to the State

 

Proposition 63 created in 2004 created a 1% tax on California residents who make more than $1 Million per year. This money was intended to fund mental health services, but California state auditor Elaine Howle found that counties are hoarding the money instead. County mental health programs helped around 231 million form the tax that should have been returned to the state by years end 2016. According to her audit, local governments in California have collected as much as $2.5 billion for mental health programs, but that money is not being used for mental health. This money should be released to the state government immediately and used to help with our mental health issues statewide. We need to hold our state and local leaders accountable on this, and I am ready to change that system.

 

Other Restrictions

 

Extended waiting periods, enhanced background checks, minimum training requirements, and reasonable magazine restrictions are sensible regulations, and should be considered by the individual states.  Should a state decide to enact these or similar restrictions, care must be taken to avoid restricting ordinary citizens from obtaining a gun permit. What is important is that sane and law-abiding citizens be allowed to own and carry a gun.

Summary and Policy Conclusions
  1. Decisions on how to regulate firearms should be left to the individual states.  The Federal Government’s role should be limited to requiring that ordinary citizens have access to firearms for self defense, as protected by the second amendment.  

 

  1. Whoever regulates guns should ensure that ordinary citizens who are not criminals and are not mentally ill can own and operate a firearm.  States should be prohibited from outright banning gun possession and/or use.

 

  1. Background checks should be expanded and more comprehensive, and include a full mental-health review.  Individuals should be required to authorize release of mental-health records to facilitate a mental-health review.

 

  1. Firearms that can operate in fully-automatic mode should be outlawed.  

 

  1. Assault Rifles should be restricted because they can operate in fully-automatic mode.  Semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns should should remain legal.

 

  1. States should not be able to outlaw both open-carry and concealed-carry of weapons.

 

  1. States should prohibit the carrying of weapons in schools, government buildings, and other sensitive areas.

 

  1. Mental-health issues need to be addressed to help reduce gun violence.

Videos (4)

— April 24, 2018 NBC San Diego

Michael Allman joins Politcally Speaking to talk about his campaign. 

— April 24, 2018 Fox Business

Michael Allman joins Neil Cavuto to talk about the Economy 

— April 24, 2018 Fox and Friends

Michael Allman joins Fox and Friends to discuss his unique camapign. 

— April 24, 2018 Fox and Friends

Michael Allman joins Fox and Friends to discuss his unique camapign. 

Información de contacto del candidato

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION