Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KQED’s 2022 Voter Guide@KQEDnews
Tuesday June 7, 2016 — California Primary Election
United States

United States SenateCandidate for Senator

Photo of Thomas G. Del Beccaro

Thomas G. Del Beccaro

Business Attorney/Author
323,614 votes (4.3%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter's Edge.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • A Flat Tax that will replace the existing tax code, reduce the power of the IRS, boost the economy and end corporate welfare
  • A comprehensive Water Plan for California
  • Restore clarity to American foreign policy



Profession:Small Business Attorney & Media Contributor
Contributor, (2012–current)
Owner, (2002–current)
Principal, Small Business Attorney, Del Beccaro, Hornsby & Blake (2000–current)
Chairman, California Republican Party — Elected position (2011–2013)


Santa Clara University School of Law J.D. (1987)
University of California at Berkeley B.A., English (1983)

Questions & Answers

Questions from The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and California Counts, a public media collaboration. (6)

Do you support the use of a federal carbon tax on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) as a means to both slow climate change and to reduce the deficit?  Why or why not?
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

I do not favor a federal carbon tax.

I do support the reduction of pollution worldwide in a cooperative manner.  Unfortunately, the result of our regulations has been increased pollution in other countries as manufacturing has moved offshore.  Rather than push even more jobs to countries like China and India that pollute wantonly, we should have more practical regulations at home to allow jobs to stay here and have less global pollution with cleaner manufacturing here in California.

What is your stand on gun control laws at the federal level?  Please explain the reasoning behind your position. 
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

The federal government should encourage state and federal policies that refocus our efforts to reduce gun violence.  The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  So any policy changes must respect our 2nd amendment rights.


The key to reducing gun violence is to reduce criminal activity. It is not to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.  The different approaches of Chicago and New York are telling.  Chicago has focused its efforts on restricting the rights to own and use guns.  That has resulted in increased crime and gun violence.  New York, under the Giuliani administration, focused on reducing crime overall, which necessarily focused on cracking down on criminals.  That resulted in reduced gun violence and a safer New York.


Finally, if someone uses a gun in connection with a crime, they must go to jail.  We must enforce that policy.  Too many prosecutors are plea bargaining away gun charges. That encourages gun violence and puts criminals back on the streets earlier than the law should allow.

Is the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement good for California?  Would you vote to support it?  Please explain why or why not.
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

History demonstrates that the richest nations have been those that have traded internationally. America should stand for free trade and I support free trade efforts.  Unfortunately, our own governments have weakened the ability of American companies to trade. Our excessive taxes and regulations are the cause of that weakness.  Our weak economic growth over the last 7 years (under 2%) has been 40 years in the making and has been made worse by recent policies.  One result of that weak economic growth is the historically low labor force participation in America.

The trade pact likely would increase the number of foreign workers in America at a time when the American economy is not able to produce enough jobs because of those bad government policies.  In other words, if the TPP were instituted tomorrow, our weak labor market would be exposed at the height of its vulnerability. 

I support a flat tax and a reduction in the level of regulation to allow the American private sector to thrive and to boost employment here at home.  That could all happen by March of 2017.  Once that recovery is under way, then the impact of the implementation of TPP would not hit American workers when they are most vulnerable. In short, the trade pact should have been negotiated when America was economically thriving and had maximum leverage and implementation ideally delayed until the implementation of tax and regulatory reform here at home – reforms which should be made in full not later than early next year.

At the federal level, should recreational marijuana be legalized? Why or why not?
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

I am not in favor of relaxing the federal marijuana laws. 

The experiment in Colorado is demonstrating that there are collateral effects to increased marijuana sales and use. For instance, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection port director in San Diego stated one of the collateral effects of increased accessibility to marijuana is that “Hard drugs are the growing trend, and they’re profitable in small amounts.”  Indeed, the use of heroin and methamphetamines is on the rise as well as the importation of those drugs.

Rather than plunge forward here in California, we need to understand the full effects of the amount of legalization we already have.


The Federal Government plays a part in California water allocation and use through a variety of laws.  What, if any, legislation would you support in an effort to handle water shortages caused by the current and any future drought?
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

The impact of California’s water policies is far-reaching. More than just a question of the length of showers, they directly contribute to high unemployment and poverty. The solution to our water crisis can boost employment and reduce poverty – and it’s high time we get practical about it. - See more at:

The resolution of the water crisis can actually be quite simple if we are as practical as Singapore, a world leader in water technology. When I went to summer law school there in 1986, I was impressed by how the tiny nation island went about solving its problems. Only 277 square miles and surrounded by ocean and near the equator, Singapore has severely limited freshwater sources.

It anticipated a population boom and now leads the world in water recycling technology, including capturing rainfall not just on protected land but on buildings and roads, as well as desalination plants and water recycling. Singapore also partnered with neighboring Malaysia (with whom it sometimes had sharp disagreements) and built a dam to increase water supplies for Singapore.

California should be the high-tech water capital of the world. Rather than build high-speed rail, we should allocate funds to retrieve storm water from our roads and have the water pumped to recycling stations. Within 10 years, no lawn in California should be watered with anything but recycled water.

To ease unemployment and the water crisis, our aging municipal water pipes should be replaced. Those older pipes, by many estimates, leak as much water as all of the state’s residential use. Los Angeles alone has more than $1 billion in deferred maintenance. Since we have a plan to measure, monitor and regulate all of California’s groundwater, shouldn’t we fix our pipes? That would create shovel-ready jobs and could be completed within four years.

Our forests can provide a solution as well. They are overgrown and present a fire danger, but a policy that allows thinning of trees would create dramatic increases in runoff – some say enough to feed the Central Valley. Those are shovel-ready jobs as well.

We should also (1) build desalination plants (70 percent of Californians live within 30 miles of the ocean) and more reservoirs, including the long awaited Sites Reservoir, (2) require greater water recycling.  Every blade of muncipal grass should be watered with recycled water within 10 years.

Should immigration laws be changed?  What changes would you support?  Please explain why. 
Answer from Thomas G. Del Beccaro:

Our broken immigration system has been bad for the country and a source of political division for well over a decade. Some want a so-called “comprehensive” solution to the crisis, but the prospects for it actually happening (let alone being a solution) are not good amidst our divisions. I proposes a more practical approach:

I believe we should do the following to address the immigration crisis:

1. National Security.  Immigration should now be viewed as the national security issue it has become.  Whatever we thought about immigration before 9/11 and the San Bernardino terror strike, we must think again.  We can build a consensus on immigration by putting the interests of the entire country first.

2. Comprehensive Legislation Won’t Work. Large, 2,500 page bills – especially on this contentious issue – are unlikely to pass any time soon and have proven to be a pandora’s box of bad provisions and policy.  We don’t have to attempt to solve all problems at once and our national security concerns mean we cannot wait.  Therefore, I believe we need to take a piecemeal approach to solving the crisis.

3.  Immediate Visa Reform.  Up to half of those here illegally have overstayed their visas. We can reduce racial tension in this country by acknowledging that fact instead of implying all illegal immigration is from a single country. Also, remember that the 9/11 conspirators took advantage of our lax visa laws.  The San Bernardino terrorist took advantage of our weak protections by simply giving a false address at the time she applied for a visa.  We have lost track of hundreds of thousands who have overstayed their visas.  Enough is enough.  We must strengthen our visa laws. 

4.  All Ports of Entry.  We must understand that all of our ports of entry represent a danger.  Therefore, we need to bring added resources to protect all of them not some of them. We also must support enforcement of existing laws when it comes to those who come here illegally.

Who gave money to this candidate?


Total money raised: $588,319

Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:

Employees of Thomas Del Beccaro
Employees of Peck Enterprises
Employees of Pacific Meritage
Nelson T. Lewis Construction and employees
Employees of BCCI Construction

More information about contributions

By State:

California 96.08%
Connecticut 1.12%
New Jersey 1.04%
Arizona 0.52%
Other 1.23%

By Size:

Large contributions (81.77%)
Small contributions (18.23%)

By Type:

From organizations (1.56%)
From individuals (98.44%)
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Political Beliefs

Position Papers

Flat Tax and Pro Growth Economics


America must return to economic growth of above 3.5%.  In order to do that, Tom believes we need tax and regulatory reform. 

Tom believes that the last 40 years of growing tax burdens, regulatory burdens and government debt (at the hands of both parties), has slowed our economy and made it hard for people to find and keep good paying jobs.  In order to get the robust economic growth we need to produce good jobs and rising wages, Tom supports the following: 

1. A Flat Tax for the Country and California. Tom is the only U.S. Senate candidate in the country with his own flat tax plan. It is supported by Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer and Steve Moore. Tom’s tax proposal will reduce the 77,00 page tax code to just a few pages, grow the economy for all and reduce the power of the IRS. Please read Tom’s Flat Tax proposal below.

2. Regulatory Reform. The number of regulations in America are at an all time high and cost the economy nearly $2 trillion per year.  We need to be sensible about our level of regulations.  Tom proposes that all existing and new regulations undergo a cost benefit analysis and that any new regulations that cost consumers over $200 million be approved by Congress.  Any existing or new regulations that fail this cost benefit analysis should be scrapped.

3. Trade.  America should be the world leader in trade.  Too much of our trade deficit is due to the fact that our employers are subject to high taxes and regulations that make American businesses uncompetitive in the world markets.  We need to reduce the costs of doing business in America (through tax reform and regulatory reform) so we can reduce our trade deficits.

See More at Tom's page Flat Tax & Pro-Growth Economic Policies

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.