Sameena Mustafa in one of three challengers to incumbent Congressman Mike Quigley in the March 20 Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District of Illinois.
Mustafa—who was born in Evanston, Illinois, to Indian-Muslim immigrant parents and grew up in the Edgebrook neighborhood of Chicago—is the only challenger in the race who earned a 100-percent rating from Windy City Times and has received endorsements from several progressive groups. A former Planned Parenthood manager and current commercial real-estate broker ( on leave ), she has done advocacy work with groups such as Chicago Women's Health Center and Upwardly Global.
Windy City Times: What do you feel the incumbent is not doing, or is doing wrong?
Sameena Mustafa: I feel that we differ on economics and issues of national security, and I feel that he doesn't go far enough on social issues. I'll give you a good example: He's good on reproductive choice, but does not support on Medicare for all, which would provide healthcare for all, regarding of income. To me, you can't be truly pro-choice if you don't take into account people who can't afford a choice.
WCT: I was wondering what you meant by not socially progressive enough, because, for example, [Quigley] is known as a staunch ally of LGBT individuals. But you're saying in other areas he's been more moderate.
SM: Oh—agreed [that he's been an ally]. But with other things, he's been moderate to conservative. There have been areas where he's voted pretty consistently with Republicans, like financial regulations; one of his first votes was voting against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. [Editor's note: Quigley did not vote against Dodd-Frank; he voted to pass this legislation.] And when it comes to opposing a military budget and endless wars—he's conservative and hawkish, by his own admission.
[He's] sort of a baseline social progressive, but there are pro-choice and pro-LGBT people who still want to have an equitable healthcare system and consumer protection. These aren't in poopsition to each other—[but] we can do better and do more.
WCT: And how would you say you differ from the other two candidates in the primary, Benjamin Thomas Wolf and Steven Schwartzberg?
SM: Steven and I are actually very similar in policy; where we differ is in our operational approach to the race. Because I've been in the district for so long—over 30 years—I have a deep bench of resources, including nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups. Steven has Native American issues as one of his hallmarks, which is important; howeverm after talking with thousands of voters, their top issues are Medicare for all, Social Security or college for all.
And then, relative to Benjamin thomas Wolf, he's been accused of domestic violence and fabricating his credentials. I'm running a campaign of integrity—but, on the issues, we're a bit similar, although he doesn't seem to go very deep into policy. Again, though, I have a deeper bench of resources; Benjamin is relatively new to Chicago.
I tell voters how things could affect them in addition to [stating my positions], and they have responded to that. This is the most educated district in the state, so I've had a very lively interaction with voters.
WCT: What do you feel is your biggest advantage in this race, and your biggest disadvantage?
SM: My biggest advantage is that I've been so vigilant and disciplined about my message. I've been so focused on being clear about the issues that matter most to the people in this district. That was an easy one: I've been in this district a long time, and I know what these people want. It wasn't a head-scratcher.
As for my biggest disadvantage, I have to overcome the name recognition of an incumbent. That being said, we've had such a great impact with voters, and we've been running a completely grassroots campaign with no corporate tax dollars—and in January and February, we outraised Quigley. We've gotten momentum from folks in the district and, frankly, from people across the country.
There's a shift for Democrats who are more progressive, and Quigley is more centrist. The Democratic Party wants to move toward what's basically a new New Deal—that's where the energy is going, and that's where the movement is going. So many people were activated by Bernie Sanders.
WCT: Let's witch to LGBT topics. What do you feel is the biggest obstacle for the LGBT demographic?
SM: I spoke to this in the [Windy City Times] questionnaire; I feel the biggest issue involves the transgender community. Transgender people have to deal with restrictions in many areas, regarding accommodations as well as service in the military. Also, there's increasing violence against transgender women—specifically, women of color. That's where leadership is needed, and I would be a staunch advocate [for LGBT rights]. That's something I would be committed to.
[Im part of] the Chciago Women's Health Center, which was one of the first [local] orgnizations to provide transgender health services, so I'm committed to it.
WCT: And, in your survey, you said that you traveled to Indiana once with members of ACT UP and Queer Nation?
SM: Yes. This was in college, when I was at Northwestern. If you recall, there was this powerful organization—ACT UP, or the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power—that took a lot of lessons from the civil-rights movement and LGBT-right movement, and brought them to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They said, "There are people dying. You cannot ignore us anymore." I mean,i t took Ronald Reagan years to even acknowledge that there was an HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Queer Nation took up a lot of the same tactics that ACT UP had, but with the LGBT community, not just those [impacted by] HIV/AIDS. Right around that time [late '80s/early '90s], the Chicago chapter met at Ann Sather.
The Cracker Barrel case was a national case, but not many people know about it. They actively fired or wouldn't hire gay workers—which sounds outrageous today. [Editor's note: In 2004, the U.S. Justice Department also found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customers by race.] Patrons had no idea, and didn't care. And Windy City Times came and took some pictures and there were a few names in the article—one of which was of my fellow classmate at Northwestern. Cracker Barrel filed suit against us, and named her in the suit. We found a paralegal who found someone to dismiss the lawsuit—but that was scary. We didn't get arrested, but they were trying to intimidate us.
WCT: Now let's talk a bit about gun violence. What do you think should be done to cut down on it?
SM: I think this is a two-part question. I think there's been enough polling done on both sides—Democratic and Republican—that we know we need to do background checks, have a gun registry, need to ban assault weapons and bump stocks. If someone has been convicted of domestic biolence, that person shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun. These are things that would cut down on senseless violence. These aren't hunting machines; these are killing machines.
The next piece involves money from the NRA. Our incumbent doesn't take it, but there's so much money that's given to legislators on all levels to influence votes. The NRA is essentially holding our legislative process hostage.
Mike Quigley has accepted more than $2 million from corporate PACs and special-interest [groups]. He's gotten money from places like the Sierra Club, but he's also gotten money from Altria, formerly Philip Morris, which is part of ALEC [the American Legislative Exchange Council], which has written the most horrible, conservative legislation from the last 40 years. To give money to someone like Quigley is a good investment for them.
This is a problem with our legislative process, and I'm pushing for a free and fair election amendment. We need to keep money out of politics.
And going back to LGBTs and representation, there isn't [proper] representatio, especially for the LGBT community and people of color, because people who are in office have the advantage of money.
WCT: If you had five minutes with our current president, what would you ask him or say to him?
SM: First, I would say, "Fix this DREAMer [situation]. You created this mess—now fix it. Give them a path toward citizenship. Make sure they're protected and can stay her and get work."
The most vulnerable people in this country are those who need our voices the most. That, to me, is what a representative should do. A DREAMer can't give to a candidate and can't vote. We have to remember—when we're representing people of all backgrounds—that there are people who are disenfranchised and aren't able to be counted, whether they're incarcerated or homeless.
To Donald Trump, who only thinks about himself, the very first thing I would say to him is, "Let's protect the people who are the best of our country, and let's make sure they are safe and can stay here."
See www.sameenaforcongress.com .
