League of Women Voters
candidate interview.

Certainly. Thank you, Brianna. My name is Mary Gay Scanlon. I've held this position as congresswoman for Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District since 2018. Before that, for over 30 years, I was a public interest lawyer in the Philadelphia area, but working on cases that continued across the United States. So, working on issues like immigration, voting rights, poverty law issues, gun safety work, and I really got my start as a lawyer representing children in the abuse and neglect system. So I have a long history of working for folks who might not otherwise have a voice in our legal system or a seat at the table when decisions are being made that are going to impact their lives. It was not a lifelong ambition to run for Congress. As one of my colleagues, Jamie Raskin, says, "Sometimes the times find you." And that's really how I ended up in this position. The Fifth District is a really fascinating district. It is one of the most economically diverse districts in the country. We have areas of deep poverty in southwest Philadelphia, in Chester, in Delaware County, in Norristown, but we also have some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country. So it makes it sometimes quite challenging to try to make sure that you're hearing from everyone across the region, from all of your constituents.

But that is what I do when I'm not bound and held in DC for voting time: I get out and spend as much time as I can in the field. I have a particular interest in our young people. I've run a number of civics programs in my pre-congressional life and I continue to do that. We have a congressional youth cabinet for high school juniors and seniors who are interested in politics and policy, and we also have internships in both the DC and the district office, which is located in Chester. So I am someone who's very much a civics geek. If you don't agree with the way government is going, then you contact your representatives or you run for office, and that's what I did in 2018. That's what I've continued to do. I sit on the Rules Committee, which is where all major legislation goes through to get votes on the House floor. And I also sit on the Judiciary Committee, where much of my pre-congressional work lives, whether it's juvenile justice, gun safety, immigration, voting rights, which is a very high priority, and other work that we go and do as well. We pay a lot of attention to hunger, which is an increasing problem across our district, and obviously all of the affordability issues, the rising costs for housing, health care, fuel oil, just the everyday needs of our constituents across PA-05 and what we can do to bring those costs down, whether it's ending illegal wars, whether it's working on addressing out of control health care costs, or one of my big ambitions, which is to get passed an amendment that would end the Citizens United case and get dark money out of our politics, because we see it corrupting everything that has to do with our politics. So that's kind of a big overview of the things I'm working on, but would love to hear the questions that you have.

If elected or reelected, what do you think Congress can do about high prices for food and necessities, gas, diesel, and housing costs? What measures would you support or oppose?

Certainly, and we've had votes on some of these already, but ending this war of choice against Iran has to be at the top of the list. It has driven up fuel oil costs, gasoline, heating oil costs. I hear about that every day from my constituents, and that's why I've voted on all of the war powers resolutions that have come before Congress so far, voting to end that war. We did pass a bipartisan housing bill through the House, but not yet the Senate, right before Congress adjourned. I've introduced a number of bills that would address food costs and making sure that we have sufficient food support. I would immediately repeal the SNAP cuts that were enacted last year. I have a bill to keep private equity out of our hospitals and nursing homes. So there's a lot that Congress could do if we had the majority to do it.

What steps do you think Congress could take to prohibit and prevent corruption at the highest levels in Washington in the future?

There are so many things Congress could do if it would do. We have seen virtually no oversight of this administration in the face of some of the most grotesque corruption our federal government has ever experienced. The very first bill that I introduced is called the Inaugural Fund Integrity Act, and it would put guard rails around presidential inaugural funds. It's something I've introduced every term since I was first elected because it should apply to all presidents. But what we've seen recently under both Trump administrations is huge donations being made to a president who's already elected. And in the wake of those donations, we have seen withdrawal of enforcement actions against those donors. We've seen people make donations and then get pardons. So there's a lot of oversight that we need to do just with respect to the influence of dark money in our politics. We also need to see Congress acting when the administration impounds funds that Congress has authorized to be spent, whether it's for the Department of Education, whether it's for the health care and research that has so impacted our research institutions here across the Philadelphia region. When Congress legislates, that is the law. The administration doesn't get to change the law. And so we've got a number of instances where we need to conduct that kind of oversight. We have things just kind of cropping up every day. I'm afraid it's an embarrassment of issues that Congress really needs to exercise oversight on. Another big one is our immigration detention centers that are being farmed out to these private prison companies, and they are collecting, the one in Pennsylvania is collecting over $5 million a month to detain people with no criminal records. These private prison companies are getting rich and then they're making multi-million dollar donations to the politicians who are letting them get away with it. So there's a lot of oversight we should be doing, and I look forward to doing that in the next Congress if we're given that opportunity.

A lot of people may argue that the health care system is broken, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2.2 million fewer people were enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace as of February 2026 compared to December 2025. Employer sponsored health insurance is skyrocketing with the burden primarily on workers, and millions are still uninsured. Our complex health care funding system is very wasteful and inefficient. If elected or reelected, what short-term and long-term solutions to this crisis would you support? And would you support a Medicare for All style public insurance system?

Thank you for that question. It is one of the biggest issues that we hear from constituents, especially over the last few years as we've seen those health care costs go up. Look, there's a lot of reasons for this. There's the prescription drug costs. There's underfunding of Medicare and Medicaid by the federal government. You asked for short-term versus long-term. Short term, we should immediately rescind those Medicaid cuts that happened in last summer's big ugly bill, because that is imperiling our frontline hospitals. It's causing more people to be uninsured. It's pushing people towards emergency rooms, which has bad outcomes for all of us. We also should be reauthorizing the Affordable Care Act expanded tax credits, because the failure to do that is what has caused so many people to be unable to afford their insurance. The Affordable Care Act had a number of provisions that kept costs low. Our Republican colleagues repealed one of the most important ones, which was having an individual mandate so that you could spread risk. So we should be doing what we can to spread risk. I'm very, very concerned that the trajectory we're on is leading to the administration and our Republican colleagues promoting these junk insurance policies that don't cover people for pre-existing conditions, that don't cover kids under 26 on their parents' policies.

So there's a lot of work we need to do going forward, and that is to get to universal health care that is affordable and accessible to everyone. There's a lot of ways that we get there. I don't think there's universal agreement on how we get there yet, but I'm open to all of them. I have in the past, when there were bills moving on this, sponsored bills that would spread the risk more, that would allow Medicare enrollment for people under 65, so that we start expanding access to that Medicare system. But we do need to be careful as we move into that to make sure that that system is able to handle the influx of new enrollees. But there's a lot we need to do. But right up front, we need to repeal that Medicaid cut and we need to expand again the Affordable Care Act tax credits.

Since Crozer Chester closed, efforts to regulate the purchase of hospitals and health centers in Pennsylvania have stalled in the state legislature. Is Congress considering legislation to rein in private equity hospital owners? If so, do you support or oppose this?

Not only do I support it, I introduced the bill along with Senator Murphy. Yes, we absolutely need to get private equity out of our health care system, but specifically with respect to hospitals. When I came in in 2018, starting in 2019, I partnered with Katie Porter and Rosa DeLauro trying to spearhead investigations against the Prospect system, which purchased the Crozer system and ultimately bankrupted it. We worked with federal agencies. We were demanding answers. It wasn't enough to prevent that. But we do need, moving forward, to prevent private equity from doing this. This is a public service. This is something we all rely upon. It's not a place where we should have shortsighted profit taking. And I'll continue to fight against that.

How can Congress support rural hospitals where small populations cannot support crucial services such as maternity care and cardiovascular departments?

Well, one big way that we can do it is make sure that people have access to Medicaid, Medicare, and health insurance, and that the reimbursement rates are sufficient. But I always have to interject that when we're talking about rural hospitals, it's not just rural hospitals that are suffering from this underfunding and lack of insurance. It's also our frontline hospitals like Hahnemann that went under, like Crozer, which had the private equity problem, but it also was serving an impoverished population and wasn't getting sufficient reimbursement. As part of that big ugly bill, there is a rural hospital fund which attempts to make up some very, very small portion of the cuts that are coming because of the big ugly bill. That fund has been used basically to buy the votes of senators and representatives whose districts would have been harmed by rural hospital closures. But we have the same issues with respect to many of our frontline hospitals in this region. So it is a systemwide problem, and you can't solve it with a pot of money that's just used to buy off votes.

Social Security is projected to exhaust its cash reserves in the fourth quarter of 2032. That's only six years away. That does not mean Social Security will end. It means payments will probably be around 22% less. What steps should Congress take to address Social Security? What do you propose we do to ensure the compact we have between those who paid in and the government is kept intact?

So, this is a compact. This is a promise from our government that when people pay into this system over their working life, it will be there for them so they can retire with dignity. There's a lot of things we can do. There's a bill called Social Security 2100 that would implement a number of reforms. The first one being to raise the cap on who has to contribute. The Social Security system was last reformed in the 80s, at a time when we did not have the extreme wealth gap that we do now. If our tax system had not been so warped that people at the very top were paying in less and less and less, then we would still have solvency. Also, just a few months ago in its annual report, the Social Security Administration said that they'd had to move up the date at which it would run out of money for two big reasons, having to do with the tax cuts that just came through in the big ugly bill and because of this administration's deportation agenda. People who are in this country as immigrants pay taxes, but they don't get to collect Social Security. So the fact that we're kicking out people who previously were paying taxes into our system is actually harming our Social Security system. So there's a lot that we need to do. There's more that we need to do generally to address the widening income inequality in our country. But probably the first place we're seeing the real hard impacts is on our Social Security system. We've also seen a number of attempts to so-called reform Social Security, which involves a lot of DOGE aspects and switching up systems, which have not increased productivity or responsiveness in the way that we would like to see.

Members of Congress are not required to recuse themselves from legislation affecting industries tied to their family's income, including spouses, employer, and its clients. Should members of Congress recuse themselves from voting on legislation impacting industries that their spouses are employed by?

I mean, historically there's a law that says no, because we need people to vote on everything. But I do think that we have a problem when you're voting on things that impact you directly, your interests. And of course, there's no bigger example of this than members of Congress and their spouses owning stock. And that is why I've never bought or sold stock myself. After I came into Congress, my husband has gotten rid of his, and I have voted several times for passage of a real stock trading ban. There's something that passed through Congress this year. It in fact did not ban trading of stocks either by members of Congress or the president or vice president. I think we need a full ban on stock trading by members of Congress, by the president, by the vice president, by members of the cabinet, so that people can have confidence that their elected officials, that their high-ranking officials are not making decisions based on their own personal financial interests.

Should members of Congress and their families be barred from investing in stocks, cryptocurrency, and similar investments, especially when they may have inside information relating to those investments?

I think absolutely. And it should also extend to a ban on these prediction markets, because we've already seen some really, really bad behavior by people close to the government, close to people working in government, betting on things that they actually have inside information on. So I think yes, we should have a ban on that kind of ownership, direct ownership, and the ability to profit off government decisions.

Israel is now being widely condemned by countries around the world for allegedly committing genocide in Gaza and supporting increased violence in the West Bank. Do you support continuing military aid to Israel, or should US weapons transfers to Israel be suspended until it complies with US law and UN laws governing genocide?

I was one of the first members of Congress to call for a ceasefire after the, I mean obviously, horrific attacks of October 7th, but the response that we've seen which has caused such horrific injury in Gaza and now the incursions in the West Bank. We do need to hold Israel to the same standards that we do all of our allies and not allow unauthorized use of any weaponry. It's obviously a truly horrific conflict in the region. There has to be a better path forward. I'm trying, you know, whatever Congress can do to promote a two-state solution. But clearly, the recent attacks on Iran, the support for the things that the Netanyahu government is doing with respect to expanding conflict, with respect to attacks by settlers in the West Bank. These are all things that the US should be weighing in on in a way that promotes peace rather than expands conflict and killing.

Can you please share your concerns and ideas for current and future risks of artificial intelligence? In particular, warning regarding the risk of cyber bioterrorism, bad actors using AI, the lack of safeguards to prevent AI agents from going rogue, predicted job market upheavals, and other social and psychological implications for humans. What role do you think Congress should play in regul[ating]?

That question takes longer than 90 seconds to answer. Certainly I think we have seen now that the current system of allowing the developers of AI to self-regulate is insufficient. We are seeing too many of these rogue instances. Just recently we learned that one of these groups, I think it was Anthropic, filed a false police report in Philadelphia. So there do need to be guidelines. There need to be guard rails around AI, and that's something that Congress unfortunately slowly but does need to get on top of, and get on top of quickly. Obviously there are great benefits that can occur with AI, you know, advances in research, etc. But these really existential risks that it seems to be posing have to be reined in. So I am in favor of that kind of regulation, and hopefully we'll be able to start working on that sooner rather than later.

We're about at our time. We're going to do one more question before we head to our closing statement and wrap up. Can you please share and explain your views on current immigration policies, particularly ICE immigration enforcement?

Certainly. Before coming to Congress I did work in the immigration sector, and because of that I know how broken our immigration system is. There are no rules that are hard and fast. There are no lines that people can get in. But I also know that the vast majority of people who come to our country are people with the grit and determination and resilience to try to make a better life for themselves and their families. And so this characterization of immigrants as being overwhelmingly criminals is a criminal mischaracterization. It's a lie. Just this morning I was with a family where the mother has been in this country since she was a child. Her family fled religious persecution. She has been a lawful resident of this country for 20 years. She's a nurse practicing in our hospitals. And nevertheless, ICE picked her up at an airport when she was taking her three-year-old to Disneyland. This is not someone who is the worst of the worst. This is someone who is a contributing, valuable member of our community. And the lie that this administration is pursuing, with some really unlawful tactics using masked and armed federal agents, has to stop. You asked at the outset, or you mentioned, that one of Congress's obligations is to conduct oversight. What ICE is doing demands oversight and it hasn't received it in this Congress, and I hope that we'll be able to do it next Congress.

For your closing statement, can you please sum up by elaborating on a previous question or a discussion issue that we may have failed to ask you about? And can you also tell voters why they should vote for you?

Okay. Well, I obviously appreciate the opportunity to come on with the League of Women Voters. I've enjoyed collaborating with them on a lot of the civics engagement that my office and I have tried to do both before and while I'm in Congress. Look, I am greatly honored by the opportunity to serve. I work every day trying to make sure that our government is responsive to the needs of the people in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, and that takes a variety of forms. One is trying to bring as many federal resources to this area as possible. I'm very proud of the success that we've had bringing life back to the Philadelphia shipyard. It was empty when I came into office in 2018. There's now thousands of employees there and it's growing further. Just yesterday or two days ago, we announced massive investments, over 800 million in federal, state, and local investment in the port, to expand the Port of Philadelphia. That's going to add another 6 to 8,000 jobs. You know, we need good jobs that can sustain a family, union jobs in this region. And I'm very proud of the work I've done on a bipartisan basis with folks in federal, state, and local government to bring those jobs here.

It also means that we're defending people's civil liberties. We have seen massive attempts to undermine our elections, both with innuendo and with really misguided voter suppression efforts like the SAVE Act. And so I'm always going to keep fighting against that and trying to make sure that all eligible voters are able to vote. And then the other piece is just to really address the backsliding in democracy that we're seeing. We're seeing an administration that is trying to usurp the powers of Congress. We need a muscular Congress that does its job, that passes bills, that doesn't knuckle under when the administration misbehaves. And I'm looking forward to being able to be more active in that area if we are able to take a Democratic majority in the fall.