This transcript was created with help from Ai. Please report errors to us and always refer to the video as your primary source.

Justin Brady: From the Jethro's BBQ studio, I'm Justin Brady. Iowa's 4th District is pretty red. I think we'd all agree with that, and maybe someone can disrupt that red and turn it into a blue ocean. Today, Dave Dawson, former legislator of course, and running for Congress in District 4 of Iowa, joins us today. Thanks for coming in the studio.

Dave Dawson: Uh, thanks for having me today, Justin. I appreciate the opportunity to, uh, talk to your

Justin Brady: Yeah, absolutely. And, um, before we get started everybody, you know the drill. Scroll to the top of Iowapodcast.com, click the Jethro logo. If you buy a $100 gift card, they will give you a $30 gift card. It's pretty cool. Chicken wings, love chicken wings. So it is a red district. You've answered this question a few times. I've heard how you answer it, but, um, what is the, what is the, the message? Because you're gonna have to win some red votes, right, in District 4. Um, I, I don't, I'm not a historian by any means. I'm kind of a podcasting hack, but I did do some loose research. Is it, like, the last person… We've had redistricting in the state obviously, but the last person in the northwest Iowa area to hold office, is it, it may have been Neil Smith in '94. There may be someone else, but I think, is it Neil Smith or is it someone else?

Dave Dawson: No, Neil Smith was, uh, old fourth district, which used to be n- not in Northwest Iowa. So the last person from Northwest Iowa that represented, uh, the corner that includes, uh, you know, uh, from Sioux City to, um, basically Okoboji area, that would've been Berkeley Bedell, who was from Spirit Lake, uh, in 1986.

Justin Brady: 1986. So I was like dude, it's been since '94. but it's actually further back. Yeah. So what… J.D. Scholten came close, three percentage points, right? So it theoretically is winnable, but what are those big messages you're just hitting on over and over and over again that Democrats and Republicans are like, "Yeah, we could vote for you"?

Dave Dawson: Um, I think the biggest issue that people are concerned about, um, is affordability. Uh, whether it's gas prices, healthcare, or the, uh, you know, gas prices, uh, all of those things are hitting people's, uh, pocketbooks really hard, and I think, uh, that is something that everybody can agree on. The policies that are in place now are not helping the everyday average, uh, working Iowan, and we need to do better. Uh, and the other thing that I've been focusing on that is, uh, broad bipartisan support, uh, regardless of their party background, is making sure we're focusing on bringing accountability and balance back to Congress, uh, by addressing corruption, um, and getting, uh, corporate PAC money out of our politics, putting term limits in place, and actually, uh, banning members of Congress from, uh, trading stocks because they shouldn't be going there to profit off of their votes

Justin Brady: Yeah, I've been hearing actually a lot of this on both sides of the aisle, a lot of people running on this issue. So it's more of kind of the you're taking that middle of the road approach to try to win votes. Um, what, so which one of those is kind of the big- I mean, it's, it's a lot of them, right? Which one's kind of the big one? Or, or maybe they're all big ones, I don't-

Dave Dawson: I really think it's the affordability is the top issue in the economy and, and, you know, Iowa's ranked near the bottom in economic growth. Um, our wages have been stagnant for a long time here in Iowa. All the other states that surround Iowa have a higher minimum wage, and Iowa has been stuck at the federal minimum wage of 7.25 for 17 years. It's the longest time in American history that wages have been stuck at that low of a level, and we haven't caught up with inflation. Uh, so it's really past time for the federal government to raise wages and work to supplement people's incomes, because without higher incomes, it's also harder to afford, uh, food and gas and those other necessities of life

Justin Brady: So it's obviously you can raise the income. You meant supplement, you said supplementing income. So you can raise the incomes supplementing, um, or you can cut costs. Do we do both or I, y- you know, some people might say that, "Okay, we can supplement incomes, we can raise minimum wage," but at the end of the day, that's just gonna kick the can, right?

Dave Dawson: Uh, I really don't think so. Uh, I- Iowa's costs have gone up even though we've had minimum wage stuck for 17 years at the same rate. Um, uh, costs have gone up, so we need to figure out ways to increase competition. At the federal level, I think it's important that we enforce anti-monopoly laws to make sure that there isn't price fixing and price gouging when it comes to gas or when it comes to, uh, meat prices and consumer prices at the grocery store. We need to make sure that we're doing better addressing those, um, issues, because if, uh, you know, big corporations are gouging consumers, um, we need to make sure that there's an investigation and people are held accountable, uh, for breaking the law

Justin Brady: Who's gouging? Like, what do, what do you see the biggest problems right now in price gouging?

Dave Dawson: Uh, th-the cost of gas. Uh, we, we have had, um, prices almost double, uh, since the war in Iran started in February. Um, i-is that necessary? Um, I, I've heard a lot about, well, there's, you know, some of the oil is stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, and we need to make sure that prices are going up to address the con-continued demand. But we have a lot of oil production going on here in the United States. Is it necessary that we raise prices by almost double, um, and hurting consumers? Uh, and is there an investigation going on? I don't think so. Um, and those are things that I think are important, 'cause it's gone up almost 20 cents just in the last week in Iowa

Justin Brady: Hmm, so do we increase production here in the United States? Is that something you'd advocate

Dave Dawson: Yeah, absolutely. If we have, uh, ways to, uh, improve our, uh, economy and our energy systems by producing more oil or making sure that we have better wind production or solar production, I'm all in favor of having homegrown solutions to our energy costs in the United States

Justin Brady: Yeah, I mean, it's a tough one, right? Because sometimes I think people, I would- maybe Democrats are kinda like, "Ho- hold up." Th- this is just the, the misnomer, I don't think this is entirely true, but the, the myth is the Republicans are about drill, baby, drill, and the Democrats are like, "Hold up," you know? So is this a middle message or are you saying, "No, actually the Democrat message is we want more oil"?

Dave Dawson: I, I am a member of the Democratic Party, but I don't speak for the Democratic Party. Yeah. There's a lot of people that, uh… It's a big tent. I don't agree with everything that the Democratic Party has done. I used to be an independent, in fact, until, uh, the first Iraq War in 2003, and I decided I needed to choose a side and advocate for the party that was actually in agreement with me that we shouldn't have gone into the Middle East in 2003. And, uh, I, I was actually in agreement with Donald Trump when he first campaigned. He was against Middle East wars and forever wars and, and not getting involved in the Middle East, and I'm very surprised that that's where we are now, again, with Donald Trump actually engaging and starting a war in Iran. Um, it's really surprised me

Justin Brady: Yeah. Uh, I think it surprised a lot of people. So if you're elected to Congress, are you gonna roll that back and say, "Dude, war is over"?

Dave Dawson: Yes, the

Justin Brady: what circumstances would cause you to say, "Actually, let's keep this going for a little bit longer"?

Dave Dawson: Um, the, the war that has been going on far longer than necessary. There wasn't an imminent threat. Um, even under the War Powers Act, the president is supposed to get congressional authorization after 60 days of a con- armed conflict, and we're now almost at six months. So really, we're engaged in an unconstitutional war because only Congress has the power to declare war. So at this point in time, I would not vote to further fund, uh, hostilities in the Middle East because it's broadening into further countries that have been drawn into this, uh, battle, and we've, you know, lost too many American lives, and what are we gaining? I don't think we have actually sound objectives what our military hopes to a- achieve. Um, at this point in time, we were told last year when they bombed Iran, uh, that their nuclear capa- capacity had been denigrated, and we didn't need to do anything further. So why are we back now for six months? What are we really accomplishing? I can't see anything, uh, in the public reporting that actually it's helping America and addressing, um, our, uh, safety

Justin Brady: So the position, uh, is at this point, you mentioned 60 days, at this point it needs to go to Congress. And if Congress sees the briefings and, and thinks there's no imminent threat, that's it. We're done. That's c- that's basically what you're arguing for. 'Cause y- at least maybe, I don't have access to, uh, top secret clearance. You don't either, I

Dave Dawson: No, that is

Justin Brady: But you're basically saying at this point it needs to go to Congress. We're, we're past that point. This is what has to happen

Dave Dawson: The Congress should be voting to authorize whether or not we continue to use military force. You know, in the first Iraq War, I was also opposed to, but at least Congress had authorized, uh, George W. Bush to take action if he deemed it a- appropriate

Justin Brady: Sure. Yeah, yeah. Um, I wanna talk about children's rights. This is something that you care a lot about. It's on your website, and it's something you, uh, won a case to safeguard, um, wi- with the Iowa Supreme Court to safeguard kids and protect them from abuse. This is another one of those issues that within the last 10 years has really been heated, which is gender issues, right? Like, the p- I think Republicans would say, uh, under 18, gender surgeries, therapies, that kind of stuff, pushing this on kids, we consider that child abuse. And then the Democrats recently would have said, "This is, uh, important healthcare for children." What side do you fall on that?

Dave Dawson: Um, I am not a medical doctor, so I d- haven't gotten deeply involved in the issue of whether or not there are times that are appropriate medically for somebody to have surgery to address, um, issues that are biologically, uh, created in nature. Because there are some people who are born, um, with, uh, gender identity, uh, differences because they have, um, uh, parts of their body that are not working correctly because they have both parts, or they have only one part, or they're– it's not completely developed or it's an underdeveloped. And so there's sometimes genetic differences between people that medically things need to happen, but that really should be a decision that doctors make with parents to address a child's actual medical needs. Um, I would never say we should force any child, uh, to have a medical procedure that's unnecessary. Um, you know, I, I wouldn't say it's abuse, uh, but I would say that if a doctor isn't medically recommending something, we shouldn't be authorizing it. Um, so it's probably more of a position of, uh, let families decide what's best for their children. Um, I've been a prosecutor for nearly 20 years on– and advocated on behalf of victims of child abuse, and, uh, this isn't the type of cases that we see. Uh, medical neglect, uh, would be some t-time where a doctor is recommending something that a child absolutely needs, some medication or surgery to help save their life, and a parent is refusing it, uh, not based upon some religious preference or their beliefs, but just because they're refusing and don't think it's necessary. Those are the types of situations where the state should be taking action and intervening to try and, you know, protect the child.

Justin Brady: you think there are scenarios, and this isn't to like, I don't have a list of, "So well actually Dave, I have…" But do you think there is a scenario or are scenarios happening where parents are pushing something on a child? Because you've seen parents push things on children. This was your job. And so do you see that maybe happening right now or being a possibility of happening right now?

Dave Dawson: I've never seen cases like that. I imagine anything is possible in my line of work as a prosecutor. You can never say that you might not see something occur in the future because strange things happen in my line of work. You see a lot of, uh, the evil of this world where people do bad things to one another, not just to their own children, uh, but to their own neighbor, uh, to their own partner, uh, i- in cases of domestic violence. So there are bad people out there that do bad things, but I would hope no parent, uh, would take steps to try and force a change of gender on their

Justin Brady: Yeah, I mean, I would, I would hope no parent would abuse a child, but we know that it happens. And so I guess the important question is where's the line from a legal standpoint? Because I think a lot of people agree with you that doctors shouldn't, shouldn't be consulting or, or we, we shouldn't be telling doctors and families how to do medical stuff. Like I think a lot of people agree with that. But I think a lot of people also would agree with parents can do some pretty dark stuff, and you probably more than most know what that looks like. So is there some nuance on this view with you? Um, or is it, yeah, I think we should ban that kind of thing, but we really need to look at it and there needs to be nuance? Or is your position we just gotta stay out of it?

Dave Dawson: Really, without knowing the details of the specific case, it's hard in a medical, uh, case to know what, what is being recommended. So it's really should be left to doctors to make these types of decision because you don't know all of the medical history that led to this decision, uh, by a family in support, uh, you know, of a recommendation from a doctor. So I really think the government interfering in, in medical decisions, uh, makes life more, more complicated for families than we need to. But there's obviously cases if doctors are finding out that parents are forcing children into doing things, doctors are mandatory reporters. They're gonna report instances of children being forced, uh, to have surgeries unnecessarily as something that would not be good for kids and probably would cross over into line of child abuse

Justin Brady: I know one thing, another thing you care a lot about is Medicaid, and on the website you mentioned fighting any cuts to Medicaid. Um, I think, uh, Senator, uh, Trone Garriott was just in here. She mentioned 40% now of Iowa births are covered by Medicaid, and I think you mentioned at the soapbox, uh, the Des Moines Register Political Soapbox, of course, at the fair, um, up to 25, almo- up to 25% of rural patients depend on Medicaid. And so obviously it's a heated issue whether you should cut it or not. Obvi- you know, if you're cutting Medicaid, some people are gonna get screwed. That's just reality. But why are we at a point in Iowa where, I don't know if you disagree with this, but 25% of rural patients depending on it and 40% of births, uh, I know that in your first time in the legislature, you helped expand Medicaid to cover more patients. But does it seem to you that maybe this is a program that we're becoming over-reliant on as Iowans?

Dave Dawson: Really, this goes back to the suppression of wages over the last 17 years. More people qualify because they're low income, uh, because you have to be below 138% of the federal poverty line to actually qualify for Medicaid. And most people who do qualify are pregnant women, children, people with disabilities where they've been determined to have a disability, and senior citizens who are in long-term care facilities who have no other way to pay for their care, uh, in a nursing home. So it's not a lot of working-age people who have access to jobs that might have an employer-based income. And the disproportionate rate, because statewide it's about 20% of Iowans are on the system, and it's around 24 or 25% of rural Iowans are on the system, 'cause they oftentimes work in the agricultural industry where there is not usually a typically an employer-based healthcare system. So if they have a low-wage job and they don't h-have access to employer-based healthcare, their only way to access, uh, you know, care for their, um, medical needs is through the Medicaid system, which I was proud to help, uh, expand in 2013 to over 150,000 Iowans who were not previously covered. So, um, although it's maybe growing, um, as to who's covered, if people had higher wages and access to better health insurance through their employers, we wouldn't may-maybe need, need to be so reliant upon that program.

Justin Brady: Yeah, I mean, also if costs were lower too, right? Even people who make pretty good money that I know, if they're hit with certain medical bills, it's crushing for them. People who have a full-time job, they have pretty good benefits, even– it's even hard for them. And so would this be something else that you would focus on in Congress, is understanding the mechanics and the levers that are keeping costs really, really, really high? And the reason I ask this is, uh, f- the list- the listeners know that I'm in tech, I do PR comms in tech, and there are clients in healthcare that have incredible life-saving devices, and they can't get them to market because of the FDA wall and regulatory capture from larger organizations. So if you're in Congress, would there be something you would do to address those cost structures and maybe introduce more competition in healthcare to allow innovation and bring costs down?

Dave Dawson: Yeah, I don't think we should be presenting, uh, preventing private industry from bringing, uh, life-saving measures forward. Um, so if there are barriers at the FDA that are preventing life-saving, um, surgeries or life sa-saving medications or life-saving, um, instruments from being put on the market, we should be figuring out why are those barriers in place that we have greater access to things that might save people's lives and actually bring costs down. We shouldn't be banning private insurance, uh, and if there wants to be more competition in the, in the, the insurance, uh, market, that would be great. Um, I would love to have more options for people. Um, and I also support, uh, the public healthcare option. It was part of the original Affordable Care Act back in 2010. It passed the US House, did not pass the US Senate, and it would have been a, a government option for anybody who wanted to, wouldn't have been mandatory. But by having that option, it could have covered everybody else who doesn't currently have insurance based upon their ability to pay, and it wouldn't have been hopefully, uh, a program that people would have disliked but would have liked, and hopefully it would have competed with, uh, the private insurance and helped, you know, keep costs down when it comes to continued rising deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket expenses for a lot of people

Justin Brady: Yeah, one of the stories, I can think of two, and one is that some, one of my clients had a life-saving device and really amazing technology. I'm gonna… I don't wanna loop them into politics, I'm not gonna say who it is. But, uh, I said, "Why don't you guys get this to market? This could help a lot of people." CEO said, "Justin, I don't have two and a half million dollars to go back and do research and funding through the FDA." And, uh, another one in amputee technology had something similar. They wanted to get it costed, covered by insurance to make it low cost, and they said, "Well, if you do that, you can't make it free then. Can't give it to free to some people. You have…" So there are a lot, there's a lot of red tape that's, um, I would argue some of the larger companies are putting in place, uh, in the, in the guise of safety to try to keep innovators out. Uh, we can move on to other things, but, uh, I think a lot of people would like to see, uh, more competition introduced in healthcare, which is a scary thing,

Dave Dawson: Yeah, and I'm, I'm in favor of policies that actually expand healthcare options and make it more affordable. So if there's a good idea out there that I haven't heard of, I'm more than willing to listen and find out how to best accomplish those goals of making it more accessible and affordable to

Justin Brady: potential fast track for like technologies that are solving problems. Hmm. No, appreciate that. Um, another thing that you've been talking, this y- this was three times I think on your website. Um, the website's very simple. You don't have like, you know, billions of pages of copy on there, was ethics for the Supreme Court of the United States. And I was like, okay, you're a lawyer, prosecutor, and I was like, "What, what am I reading?" I kept looking into this. So you mentioned that the Supreme Court should be held to the same standard as federal judges. Tell people why that matters and why that's so important to you.

Dave Dawson: So I've– I– Like I said, I've been a prosecutor for nearly 20 years. I've been practicing law for 27 years. Every judge that I have appeared in front of, whether it was in federal court when I used to work for a law firm or whether it's been in state court as a prosecutor, they have ethical standards that they have to follow so that they don't have conflicts of interest and that nobody in their family might be involved or have a conflict of interest related to the case. And currently, the US Supreme Court does not have to follow those same standards, and we've heard about cases recently with some on the Supreme Court where they had had cases that they heard that they had some private connection in their family to them. And is that undue influencing their decision to rule in the favor of people that they have those connections to? So we need to way– a way to enforce, uh, judicial standards on the Supreme Court. So I'm in favor of supporting an ethics c-code that's enforceable, uh, against the US Supreme Court, just like every other judge in the country has to follow.

Justin Brady: See, this is, this is a challenging issue, as you know, because we have three branches of government. And so one might argue, we have an ethics board that's technically over the Supreme Court. Do we have four branches of government? And so that, I think, would probably be the challenge with something like that is who, who… Okay, so if someone oversees the Supreme Court, who oversees the overseers, and are they elected or appointed? How does that work?

Dave Dawson: Um, but if there are rules that have to be followed, uh, there have to be, uh, investigators. So there would be, you know, the Congress passes laws, uh, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether laws are enforceable or not or constitutional or not, but the executive branch has a role in carrying out, uh, enforcing the law. So there could be some part of the executive branch in the parts of checks and balances that would make sure that if there was a reported ethics violation by a Supreme Court judge, there could be an investigation. We have that today, uh, in the state of Iowa. It's actually a voluntary process, uh, through the– an ethics board that oversees, uh, the Iowa attorneys. Um, but they also have an ethics board that oversees Iowa judges. And it's not a controversial issue. It's something that's just part of practicing law and being a good, uh, you know, attorney. You should be following ethical standards and be held to higher ethical standards than other people, um, have to because you are making important decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, so you should have to follow those ethics.

Justin Brady: Are there specific cases you're seeing come out of the Supreme Court where you're like, "Okay, I understand the, why we don't have, uh, oversight over the Supreme Court, but in the last 10 years, I think that's a mistake," or in the last 20 years or whatever, or, "Based on these cases, I think it's time to consider that." Are, are there specifics in mind or an overall trend line?

Dave Dawson: Well, I just really think over the last, uh, 20 years, the Supreme Court has taken a, uh, swing, uh, in its direction, uh, which tends to side and favor, uh, big business and corporations, especially with the decision of Citizens United, uh, that determined that corporations are people and that money is speech. Uh, because I've been an attorney and somebody who studied the Constitution in law school, and I would disagree with both those principles. Corporations are not people. They don't have the right to vote. Um, and they– uh, your speech, uh, should not be determined by how much money you have. So if you're a millionaire, you get a million times more speech than somebody who is poor or indigent. Um, your voice and your, your right to speak shouldn't be dependent on how much money you have. So I think those basic principles that have flooded corporate PAC money into our politics have really done a disservice to the country, and I don't know why the Supreme Court made that decision when it wasn't necessary under our Constitution and our system of government.

Justin Brady: Yeah, it's been hotly debated. I'm sure it will continue, continue to be hotly debated. Uh, I don't want to push this to the end 'cause I wanna make sure to get it in here, but one of the things in the past, honestly, to be honest with you, Dave, the reason I started this show is because I was getting a little bit sick and tired of the extreme left and extreme right fighting all the time, and I wanted to give the audience just, "Here, here's the person, here's what they say when they're asked questions." And 'cause no one gives a crap about what my bias is. So what I really respect about you and your opponent is the stories both of you are sharing. Both of you have been in here at this point. You both talked on the soapbox, and you've both spoken well of each other. Now, you haven't endorsed each other's views, but you, you even yesterday were saying, "No, I don't wanna talk bad about him 'cause he's not here." And I'm like, "What is…" I mean, it's refreshing to hear this. So if there's… You know, I don't know who wins in this thing, but if there's one overall winner, I hope it's Iowans seeing both of you leave a civil example. So if you're elected. I asked, uh, your opponent the same thing, but I'll ask you this. If you're elected, is this one of the things you hope you do, is that set a civil example for our other lawmakers?

Dave Dawson: Absolutely. There has been too much, um, anger and hostility, uh, between the two parties. It's gotten worse over the last 30 years, really, uh, where there's been nothing but d- divisiveness and, uh, negative attack ads that only say bad things about your opponent and never like, "What do you want to accomplish for the country if you're elected to this position?" Or, "What do you want to accomplish for your state or your district if you're running for a local office?" And so I think it's important that people who are running for office actually bring some level of decency with them so that they're not always on the attack and always trying to put down their opponents. Because political rhetoric can have violent consequences, as we have seen on both the left and the right. Uh, there have been far too many acts of violence towards political figures, and I think because of the harsh negative discourse between the parties, uh, we need to set examples as elected officials and actually agree that while we might not dis- agree on every policy issue, we don't have to be disagreeable with one another, and we don't have to be, uh, putting your opponent down, uh, just to try and convince somebody to vote for you. You should be talking about what you think is most important and what your priorities are and how you would work to help your constituents. That's what I did for four years in the Iowa State Legislature, and I think I would try my best to bring that level of decency to Washington, D.C., and actually stand up for my constituents first and not my party and not, uh, putting down the other side.

Justin Brady: You're just, I appreciate all that, and, uh, your opponent agrees with it. I, of course, agree with it. Most, based on data we get and emails, most of our audience agrees with that, so I, I, I appreciate it a lot. Um, your area's kind of a hotbed for hot issues. You, um, are kind of a hot area for pipeline. You're a hot area for data centers. And so I think maybe we'll tackle data centers first. Uh, I'm hearing across the spectrum, as, as far as data centers, some people are like, " Ban them. We don't want them. They eat all the water. They pollute the environment." Of course, not true. Um, could be true in certain circumstances. And then on the other side, it's like, "No, no, no, let them all, tax subsidies, you know, this is gonna be economic growth." Al- so two very extremes. Both of the extremes aren't quite correct. Where do you fall on data centers? What is the proper way to approach data centers in Iowa? We have lots of land. We have cheap energy. We, we have cheap land. How do we do this the right way?

Dave Dawson: Uh, well, I was really surprised that, uh, the city of Salix, which is in Woodbury County, which is the county I live in, um, um, had annexed nine hundred acres of land into their city. It's, you know, it's, it's some– took, took me by surprise, and I've been trying to pay attention to politics pretty heavily this past year as I've been campaigning. Um, and then I was also equally surprised that, uh, the Republican Board of Supervisor in Woodbury County, and there's five members that are all Republicans currently, and they all voted to, uh, put a moratorium in place. But that only affects, uh, the rural part of the county. It doesn't affect the city of Salix, so it's not really gonna have any effect on whether Salix decides to move forward.

Justin Brady: a moratorium deposit,

Dave Dawson: Get a moratorium. Right. A moratorium for a year. So I-I'm very surprised that that occurred because really economic development is important, and you should be always looking for opportunities to bring in good-paying jobs to your community. But really siting a business within a local jurisdiction, whether it's a city, a county, or a state, should be a local decision. I don't think the federal government should be putting its nose into making decisions about where businesses are located. I think the role that the government could p- uh, the federal government could play is making sure that environmental standards are met and that water quality is not hampered by any businesses, uh, that are, uh, you know, locating in any community. But, uh, there shouldn't be, you know, a hard and fast federal rule about no data centers, um, because artificial intelligence is growing. Uh, we, we need to have expanded opportunities to improve, uh, technologies. But we also, at the federal level, need more rules of the road about how and when artificial intelligence should be used. Should it be used at all in our military? Should it be used at all in schools around children? Uh, these decisions have been punted at the federal level, and we need to actually sit down and be thoughtful and actually put rules in place about where and when and how artificial intelligence can be used, um, moving forward.

Justin Brady: I'm glad you brought that up because that's another thing that people are concerned about now, uh, is AI. And it's new and it's scary, so you have two sides to anything, which is more of the Luddite side, which is just don't do it at all. We don't need AI. Uh, but then the other side, which is Terminator right? And so, um, one of the cons- we gotta get this right because if we get it wrong, AI is one of the things that could dramatically lower healthcare costs. I, I think it was Moderna that just announced that AI kinda helped them create some cancer medication that they're working on right now. That's the tip of the iceberg just based on what I'm seeing in AI. Uh, it could dramatically lower healthcare costs, so we need to get it right. So where do you sit on AI regulations? Have you thought about that? And what would that look like if you were in Congress proposing bills?

Dave Dawson: I'm not an expert. Um, I think it's important that we listen to people, uh, who have ideas about what are the appropriate uses. Uh, when it comes to the military, I think AI should not be the primary driver of how we make decisions about when, where, and how to strike. Uh, there should be a human factor that makes decisions like that. It shouldn't be automatically determined by AI. But there are some level of computer improvements and te- technology that may form the basis of some of the things that we improve our military capabilities. So we don't wanna stop it completely, but ultimately, those decisions to strike, that's what it comes down to. When it comes to, you know, bringing down healthcare costs, uh, making improvements in technology or research and developments, I don't wanna be a hindrance, uh, but there should be some rules of the road, especially when it impacts children, you know, with online social media technology. Uh, those, those are my concerns is like, are we driving each other further apart as a country by having algorithms on our social media apps that only give us information that we already are predisposed to believe and follow and read, and then we don't actually listen to one another, we only listen to a predisposed set of ideas?

Justin Brady: It's almost like, correct me if I'm wrong, but almost to summarize is that you're saying we- there always needs to be a human bottleneck in the whole AI

Dave Dawson: Absolutely. Always. Humans, w- we are, uh, a world that should be working together to improve the world. We're all humans, you know, right? So we, we shouldn't, you know, l- leave everything else to technology 'cause we don't want to replace, uh, workers. Uh, everybody needs a purpose in their life. Everybody needs a job. We can't replace every job that's out there with some robot or AI technology. We need to have purpose, so human factors continue to be primary, uh, factor in, in any decision that we should make moving forward with the regulation of AI

Justin Brady: Dave Dawson running for Congress in Iowa's 4th District. If people like what you're saying, they like what they hear, how do they reach out to you? How do they learn more information about your campaign?

Dave Dawson: I, I really hope people will, uh, log onto my website, davedawsonforiowa.com. You can learn a lot more about me on my website, and you can learn how to follow along on social media through my website. But, uh, the election's coming up. Uh, it's only about, uh, 75 days away, I think, is the election. It's coming soon, and so I hope you'll all remember to go vote on November the 3rd. And, uh, if you're in the fourth district, consider voting for Dave Dawson

Justin Brady: Dave, thank you so much for coming on the IO podcast. Really appreciate it

Dave Dawson: Thanks for your time