Support for Democratic candidates in pivotal CD-22 race takes shape
Randy Villegas had already announced he was running for the seat held by Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), but on Monday, Villegas got the endorsement of a progressive Democratic organization.
Villegas claims he's collected over 4,000 individual donations amounting to over $250,000 of campaign cash.
The Working Families Party, or WFP, officially endorsed Villegas on Monday. They held a press conference outside David Valadao's Bakersfield office.
'I am the only candidate in this race that is corporate free that is not accountable to any corporate special interests,' Villegas said. 'And I think that matters, Democrat or Republican.'
Villegas says the current representation for District 22 is inadequate for the needs of Central Valley residents.
'To say you are working on behalf of our farmworkers, our teachers, our police officers, our firefighters here in the district, and not billionaires in Washington, D.C,' he said.
Villegas is facing Assemblywoman Dr. Jasmeet Bains in next June's congressional primary. Bains is considered the front runner in the race.
Neel Sannappa, an organizer for the Working Families Party, says Villegas is the candidate with the most grassroots values to compete with the incumbent Republican Congressman.
'We are a third party in the United States, but we are very strategic. A lot of the times, we will endorse Democrats or Independents, most of our endorsees here in California are Democrats. But, they are different. They are Democrats that don't take corporate money, that really advocate to bring politics back to the people, and that's why WFP endorsed Randy here today,' he said.
For voters, Villegas says his platform will offer more progressive solutions to Central Valley's problems, such as housing and the cost of power.
Voters like Johnny Olaguez say those issues and Villegas' lived experience in the Central Valley are what would make Villegas the best choice.
'What drew my attention was he said he was the son of a mechanic. My dad has a trucking company, right, so that's how I grew up as a mechanic as well. So, it's very personal to me,' Olaguez said.
'We need real people. People that represent our values, and the Valley as a whole, not interests of big corporations.'
While the Democrats are shaping up their options, Republicans must weigh who, if anyone, they want to run against fellow GOP incumbent Rep. David Valadao.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Ro Khanna Says Mike Johnson's Decision To Shut Down The House Early Speaks Volumes
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on Tuesday said House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) call to abruptly shut down the lower chamber ahead of schedule was a calculated decision to block a vote on the release of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was likely made at the direction of President Donald Trump. Johnson on Tuesday canceled upcoming votes, announcing he would send lawmakers home for a five-week recess on Wednesday evening, while calling the controversy around the Epstein files a 'Democrat sideshow.' In an interview with CNN's 'AC360,' Khanna, one of the Democrats leading the bipartisan effort to release the documents, said Johnson took action because he knew their resolution had the votes to pass and he didn't 'want to embarrass the members of his own caucus.' Khanna added that their resolution has secured the approval of several GOP members, including Thomas Massie (Ky.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Nancy Mace (S.C.) and Tim Burchett (Tenn.). 'I don't think they've ever in my entire nine years in Congress, sponsored any legislation that I've introduced,' Khanna said. 'So this is something that he knows his base wants. It would overwhelmingly pass, and so he's literally closing Congress because he doesn't want to vote on our bill, or any bill or any amendment related to the release of the Epstein files,' Khanna told CNN's John Berman of Johnson. Asked if he believed Trump pushed Johnson to call for an early recess, Khanna said the president was most likely involved in the decision, citing Johnson's reluctance to put up a nonbinding resolution calling on the White House to release the files up for a vote. 'The president simply does not want [Johnson] to have any vote on any bill or any amendment regarding Epstein,' Khanna said. 'But this issue is not going away.' Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee agreed in a voice vote to ask Epstein collaborator Ghislaine Maxwell to provide a deposition. Separately, the Justice Department also wants to speak to Maxwell. The president's relationship to Epstein is getting fresh scrutiny after CNN on Wednesday released images of him attending Trump's wedding to Marla Maples in 1993 as well as video of the two men attending a Victoria's Secret event in 1999. When CNN approached Trump for comment on the unearthed wedding photos, Trump replied: 'You've got to be kidding me,' before blasting the network as 'fake news' and ending the call. The network's reporting follows a Wall Street Journal report last week stating that the newspaper reviewed a 'bawdy' birthday message Trump wrote to Epstein in 2003 as part of a surprise put together by Maxwell. Trump blasted the report as fake and sued the paper and its owner Rupert Murdoch over its contents. Related... Trump Continues Evading Questions About His Child Sex Trafficking Friends 'Now Do Epstein': Martin Luther King Jr.'s Daughter Takes Aim At Trump Over Released MLK Files Mike Johnson Shuts Down House Early To Block Vote On Jeffrey Epstein Files
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The little-known 'pension scandal' that has been going on for 30 years
What would you do if your wage hadn't increased since 1997? Hundreds of thousands of pensioners across the UK are facing a similar problem. They have been fighting for nearly 30 years to have their pension savings increased in line with inflation - which their ex-employers are not legally required to do. In the last year, Patricia Kennedy and her fellow campaigners have written to 195 MPs, hoping to finally end their 30-year battle for what they claim to be a pension scandal. Kennedy is part of the HPPA & Alliance Pension Justice campaign, representing thousands of pensioners in their seventies and eighties who worked for companies owned by the Hewlett Packard Enterprise and have not seen their pension increase since 1997. Estimates place the number of people directly affected by the indexation at between 500,000 and 800,000 pensioners, but Kennedy thinks the figure could be even higher. 'We believe that there are between 750,000 and 1.8m pensioners in the UK whose pension values have significantly eroded and face an increasingly bleak future of zero increases," Kennedy, a former manager at Hewlett Packard Enterprise in Scotland and campaigner from the group, told Yahoo News. It has been close to 30 years since the group first received notice that their pension funds would plummet, but Kennedy is still dogged in her determination, writing to over 100 MPs this year alone and meeting with pensions minister Torsten Bell to move the group's case forward. For a number of workers she represents, the average annual pension for a UK retiree from this time is approximately £9,700. Meanwhile, the profits at her former company stood at $500m in 2024. Kennedy said: 'It's given that it was mandated by our employers at the time that we or I as an employee must contribute to the pension fund. 'Is it not reasonable that I or pensioners should also have the statutory right to share in the distribution of any surplus almost three decades later. 'It's been like a forced loan. They've had our money for all of this time and we have never been able to share in any yield.' What is happened pre-1997 pensions? Before 1997, there was no legal requirement in the UK for defined benefit (DB) occupational pension schemes to increase pensions in payment each year in line with inflation. After the brazen theft of pension fund assets by media tycoon Robert Maxwell in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government introduced The Pensions Act 1995, with the aim of protecting pension savers. But as the scheme only protected mandated statutory indexation of pensions from April 1997 onward, increasing pensions earlier than this date was at the discretion of a savers' employer. While many employers opted to increase pensions pre-1997 inline with inflation, a significant number didn't – and still haven't to this day. Anyone drawing a defined benefit pension since before 1997 is likely at least 70, and often considerably older, especially given the rapid closures to new entrants and accrual since the mid-2000s. By doing some quick maths, it's worth noting that someone aged 55 in 1997 is now 83 in 2025. It also means that for many workers affected, their average pension is now worth just £9,700. 'It's very distressing' Caroline Emery joined the team at American Express in 1985. Emery won multiple awards during her time at the organisation, becoming a VP in marketing for the company before she moved to new pastures in 2012. Now, she is working alongside former colleagues under the name Amex UK Pensioners Justice. The campaign group estimates 5000 Amex employees are affected by the pre-1997 indexation. Emery told Yahoo News: 'American Express has not provided discretionary increases for over 11 years. When I began my pension, there was a documented pattern of such increases until 2014. However, following that, all increases stopped altogether. "The lack of clear communication regarding the cessation of discretionary increases from 2015 has contributed to pensioners confusion and financial distress surrounding their pension entitlements.' While Emery's pension is divided over a number of pots, she is one of the lucky ones. She told Yahoo News: 'It's very distressing when you hear about the dire straits some of these people are now in financially. 'One man we have supported, who lives in Brighton, posted on the group asking if people could donate so he could afford to buy himself a mobility scooter. 'We were all more than happy to contribute, but he was promised a secure pension. He shouldn't be in a position where he's had to ask for that.' 'It's been like a forced loan' There is no precise, published figure for the exact number of companies which have opted not to increase pre-1997 pensions in line with inflation, but available evidence shows that the problem is widespread across the UK corporate sector, involving dozens – if not hundreds – of medium and large employers. According to the latest data and parliamentary reports, two-thirds of DB schemes are permitted by their rules to provide discretionary benefit increases for pre-1997 service. Of these, just under a third – 32% – have provided an increase in the past three years, and just 15% of those increases applied to pre-1997 benefits. A lack of understanding of the UK pensions system could also put these workers at predominantly American companies at a disadvantage. "The American pensions system is very different to ours," Emery said. "There's this idea that if the company doesn't pay to top up the pensions, the pension is just going to get paid by the state." High hopes Campaigners like Kennedy and Emery had high hopes for this year's Pension Schemes Bill. After meeting with pensions minister Torsten Bell in March, the group were told 'we have not forgotten you, and your situation is very much being discussed at the highest levels.' But when the Pension Schemes Bill was first submitted to parliament, this issue had not made the bill – and if anything, the campaigners believe the legislation could make things worse. Schemes with substantial surpluses may now see it as easier to return funds to sponsoring employers rather than address the long-standing claimed unfairness affecting older pensioners. Kennedy told Yahoo News: 'The new legislation does not give us the power or there is no requirement to share any of the surplus with us. 'There is simply no requirement to share it with the people whose money it was.' The government has launched a new Pensions Commission on 21 July, but there is no explicit mention that it will specifically examine the issue of pre-1997 indexation for defined benefit pensions. While the government may be burying its head in the sand, just last week, the work and pensions committee issued a stark warning that pensioners are dying in poverty and without justice. Speaking to Liz Kendall on 16 July, the group grilled the secretary of state on the government's delay in rolling out compensation. While Kendall insisted the pensions minister was working to identify the pensioners, she also added compensating those affected 'would have wider implications for the public finances'. 'How can we justify this to them? They're in their late 70s and 80s now,' committee chair Debbie Abrahams said. 'They are dying by the day. The decency of humanity means we need to stand by them. 'It will cost the government £133m over the next ten years, against £14bn in reserves to fulfil the role of the pension protection fund. I'll just leave it at that.' An Amex spokesperson told Yahoo News: "American Express fully complies with all its pension obligations to current and former colleagues and will continue to do so in the future. The Company annually reviews whether a discretionary increase will be awarded in respect of pre-1997 defined benefit pensions." A HPE spokesperson told Yahoo News: 'HPE is committed to satisfying all of its responsibilities to both current and former team members. The decision on whether to grant discretionary increases to relevant pensioners is given careful consideration and is made based on a number of factors. It is reviewed on an annual basis.' A DWP spokesperson said: 'We understand the impact this is having on members of these schemes, which is why we are continuing to work to find a solution. 'Any changes in this area would have significant implications on public finances, which is why we need to consider it thoroughly.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Tennessee's special congressional election: candidates, election dates
Middle Tennesseans living in the state's 7th Congressional District can soon expect a special election for the seat vacated by Republican Mark Green, who resigned July 20. Although it has not been officially announced yet, Gov. Bill Lee's office said in a July 10 statement that party primaries are anticipated to be held on Oct. 7, while the general election is expected to occur on Dec. 2. According to voter registration, be it online, by mail, or in person, will close 30 days prior to election day in Tennessee. Voters in the Volunteer State seeking to vote in the primaries can anticipate registration deadlines on Sept. 7. For the general election, Nov. 2 will likely be the deadline. The district stretches as far north as Clarksville and as far south as the Tennessee-Alabama border, fully encompassing Stewart, Montgomery, Robertson, Houston, Dickson, Cheatham, Hickman, Humphreys, Decatur, Perry and Wayne counties while also covering parts of Davidson, Williamson and Benton counties. In 2024, Green won the seat comfortably over Democratic nominee and former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry, cruising to victory by a 21 point margin and earning 69,000 more votes than his opponent. Less than a year later, Tennessee's 7th Congressional District could shape out to be more competitive. Historically, Democrats tend to outperform Republicans in off-year elections. Furthermore, visits to Music City by prominent Democratic party officials have been more frequent in recent months, indicating the party could be paying more attention to the region. In April, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) drew a crowd of more than 1,500 people in North Nashville, while more recently Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) hosted a town hall in Antioch on July 12 and California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke at an East Nashtivists community meeting on July 9. Still, the district leans strongly toward the Republican party. According to the 2025 Cook Partisan Voting Index, it scores as R+10, meaning that voters in the area during the 2024 election voted 10 percentage points more for Republicans than the national average. As of July 22, nine candidates had registered as candidates in the race. Republicans running in Tennessee's 7th Congressional District to replace Mark Green Jody Barrett (R-Dickson): Representing District 69 in the state House, Barrett describes himself as 'the most conservative politician in Tennessee.' He cites his perfect score on the John Birch Society's Freedom Index as proof of his right-wing bonafides. Jason Knight (R-Clarksville): Montgomery County Commissioner Knight is an established name in the county along the Tennessee-Kentucky border. He is a U.S. Army reservist holding the rank of major and has previously served on the Clarksville City Council. Stewart Parks (R-Nashville): Parks pleaded guilty in 2022 to disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. He was subsequently pardoned by President Donald Trump when he started his second term earlier this year. Lee Reeves (R-Franklin): Reeves represents District 65 in the Tennessee House of Representatives and has garnered significant support in Williamson County. He has been endorsed by the mayors of all seven cities in the county, and according to a post to his campaign's X account, has raised more than $100,000 so far. Jon Thorp (R-Springfield): Thorp like some of his fellow candidates is a U.S. Army veteran and has also been a pilot for the Metro Nashville Police Department. In his announcement that he is running for Congress posted to LinkedIn, Thorp said he hasn't voted in 24 years. Matt Van Epps (R-Nashville): Epps formerly served as the commissioner of the Tennessee Department of General Services and is a U.S. Army veteran. Given he has been endorsed by both Gov. Bill Lee and Green, Van Epps may be the frontrunner. Democrats running in Tennessee's 7th Congressional District to replace Mark Green Aftyn Behn (D-Nashville): Behn represents District 51 in the state House. Growing up in East Tennessee, she made a name for herself with her surprise election win in 2023 as well as for her protests in the State Capitol following the Covenant School shooting. Vincent Dixie (D-Nashville): Dixie represents District 54 in the state House and has been endorsed by members of the Metro Nashville Council as well as state Rep. Justin J. Pearson, a member of the 'Tennessee Three.' From 2020 through 2022, Dixie was the chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Bo Mitchell (D-Nashville): Born and raised in Dixon County, Mitchell has long been a player in the Volunteer State's Democratic party. He represents District 50 in the Tennessee House of Representatives and has previously served on the Metro Nashville Council. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: What to know about Tennessee special election to replace Mark Green Solve the daily Crossword
