U. S. Senate Incumbent Chris Murphy

Both sides of Chris’s family go back generations in Connecticut. His great-grandfather and grandfather climbed into the middle class through manufacturing jobs in New Britain, and his mother was a public school teacher. Growing up in Wethersfield, Chris first became interested in public service after spending weekends helping clean up the Connecticut River. He attended Williams College in Massachusetts before enrolling in UConn Law School where he met his wife, Cathy.

Before coming to Congress, Chris served for eight years in the Connecticut General Assembly and the State Senate. During his time in Hartford, Chris authored Connecticut’s Stem Cell Investment Act and the state’s landmark ban on smoking in the workplace.

In 2006, Chris was elected to the House of Representatives serving Connecticut’s 5th district. During his time in the House, Chris began his work to grow manufacturing jobs in Connecticut and strengthen our Buy American laws. As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he helped draft the Affordable Care Act, providing health care coverage for millions of Americans.

Chris Murphy has dedicated his career to serving the people of Connecticut. Elected to the Senate in 2012, Chris is a leading voice in the fight to create jobs, make sure all Americans have good health care they can afford, and keep our kids safe from gun violence. Chris has earned a reputation as a serious legislator who is willing to stand up for his principles and reach across the aisle. On issues ranging from transportation and manufacturing to fixing our broken mental health system and combating the opioid crisis, Chris listens to his constituents and works hard with both Democrats and Republicans to get things done.

Foreign affairs: We'd like to talk about the conflict in the Gaza.

Well, the events of October 7th are horrific and unconscionable, and we should never, ever stand for the kind of atrocities that were committed that day. Those attacks were confirmation of the fact that Israel is besieged by enemies of non-state actors and national states who want Israel wiped off the map. And that's the reason that we have always had a strong security partnership with Israel and the reason why we will continue to support Israel's right to defend itself. I want Hamas's ability to attack Israel eliminated. I want Israel to be secure. I supported Israel's right to strike Hamas in the days and weeks following the events of October 7th.

But I have come to truly worry that this military operation in Gaza is ultimately going to make Israel less safe, not more safe. And seems at times to be much more connected to political objectives of the prime minister than actual security objectives. The number of civilian lives that have been lost in Gaza are too high, and ultimately I worry, will provide permanent bulletin board recruiting material for terrorist groups. I also worry that there's not a plan for what comes next. The reality is you need Palestinians in charge of Palestinian territory, you need a Palestinian state, and the Netanyahu government doesn't seem committed to either of those two things.

Obviously, Hamas is not going to be a partner in settling these long, simmering, and deep wounds between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But I think the conventional wisdom is that Prime Minister Netanyahu was never really interested in trying to put in place a plan whereby ultimately there would be more responsible leadership in charge of Gaza.

What is your understanding about the war between Russia and Ukraine?

Well, I think Russia has already lost. Russia thought that it was going to take over the entirety of Ukraine within weeks. They control a fraction of the country. Russia thought it was going to split Europe. Europe is more united than ever. Russia thought it was going to strike a blow to NATO. NATO is expanding right up to Russia’s borders. I think this is a war that Ukraine has to win. This is the post-World War II order being litigated in real time.

If the United States and our allies don't stand up to this kind of old school 18th century aggression, … the lid comes off the rules based order in which for the last 70 years big nations largely agreed not to expand their borders by invasion. Now I understand this war has dragged on for a long time, but this is a relatively affordable investment given the fact that Ukraine is not asking for troops, is not asking for our soldiers to die for Ukrainian sovereignty. They're simply asking us to help them pay for the cost of defending the country. So I think we have to be in this with Ukraine. I think it serves our interests to support Ukraine's independence and I think most of the people that I represent feel the same thing.

In November of last year, the Supreme Court adopted a code of ethics for its justices. What should Congress do if they violate those standards?

Well, those are the Supreme Court standards. So Congress doesn't have any jurisdiction over enforcing a set of standards established by the courts. You know, our recourse is impeachment. I think it's something that Congress will have to consider so long as it continues to accept gifts and trips and financial support of right-wing donors who clearly have interests before the courts. I'm glad the court adopted a code of conduct. I think it's far too late. I think the code is likely too weak. I introduced legislation dating back a decade to a congressionally mandated code of conduct, but I still think that's the right path moving forward. As the Supreme Court has exhibited political influence, they're using political ideology to guide them at this point, I think.

Do you or do you think Congress should support term limits for the Supreme Court?

I'm certainly open to that idea. I haven't yet endorsed any particular Supreme Court reform plan, but I'm deeply worried about the politicization of this court. I think it's clear that these right-wing justices are politicians in robes, and I remain open to a variety of different reform plans.

In the last term, Roe v. Wade was struck down by the Supreme Court, eliminating the national right to obtain an abortion. Recognizing that there are deeply held views on both sides of this issue, what do you think the practical and political implications are of that decision?

Well, there are very deeply held views all across the country on the morality of abortion. I believe in my heart that that is a decision for a woman to make with her physician, not a decision for government to make. I don't understand why Republicans who claim to be for small government think that when it comes to women's bodies and when it comes to who we love and get to marry, the government is going to micromanage our private lives. So I think the government should stay out of this question, that abortion should be legal and it should be up to each individual, not politicians to decide whether an abortion is a right or wrong choice for you and your family.

In the economy, the most recent numbers on inflation show that inflation has now dropped below 3%. What do you think caused the 2022 spike?

Well, I think it's the global economy contracted at an unprecedented, cataclysmic rate because of a global pandemic that killed millions of people and could not scale back up fast enough when the pandemic passed. The inflation epidemic was not a domestic problem, it was international.

Why do you think inflation has slowed?

Well, I think inflation has slowed because we gradually built back up inventories and supply chain capacity and manufacturing capacity, but it all came very quickly offline during the pandemic. So, whether you like it or not, in a non-state run economy, the private sector gets to decide how fast that capacity comes back online. And they were very careful bringing capacity back online, which meant we weren't producing at the level to meet demand and prices spiked. I do think the president deserves some credit. They used some really innovative techniques to keep some of the most important costs low. The most important cost that drives inflation is the cost of of oil and the cost of gasoline, the cost of transportation. When transportation costs are high, every good you buy is high. And the Biden administration used its ability to be a buyer and a seller of oil in order to move the market in a way that kept oil and gasoline prices at relatively manageable levels. So the Biden administration took some steps here to bring down inflation faster than it came down in other countries.

So what does that mean in terms of the overall direction in which the economy is headed?

Well, obviously, no other president has created more jobs than Joe Biden did. Unemployment is at a structural low. Anybody that wants a job can find one. Factory construction is moving. There is tons of good news in the economy. The problem is the quality of jobs. People might have a job, but its wages are too low. The benefits aren't good enough. It might be part-time or temporary. Our focus has to be on creating jobs that pay a living wage. I want a world in which one income is enough to support a family of four so that if one parent wants to stay home with the children for a period of years, that doesn't bankrupt them. So our economy by traditional metrics is as strong as it's ever been, but I do think we have got to focus on making jobs ultimately support the full family.

In five presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has not won the electoral vote. Do you support efforts to replace the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote?

I do. I mean, I would, if it was up to me, I'd substitute the popular vote for the Electoral College tomorrow. The primary means by which we do that is the National Popular Vote Movement, which I've been a big supporter of and continue to support.