An interview with ME SEN Candidate David Costello
“We’ve never been as democratic as we should be.”
Like many progressive Democrats, I haven’t been thrilled with the candidates running in the Maine Democratic primary to challenge Susan Collins for her Senate seat. Last week I interviewed Andrea LaFlamme, progressive write-in candidate with a strong background in public helath and abortion advocacy.
After the interview ran, David Costello reached out to me to see if I’d be willing to interview him as well. Costello was the Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine in 2024, though the party tacitly supported Independent incumbent Angus King (who won.)
Still, many Democrats are familiar with Costello, who has a strong background in government and solid progressive stands on the issues—as well as an aggressive attitude towards procedural change. He’s argued for ending the filibuster, for Supreme Court expansion and term limits, and for multi-member House districts, among other reforms.
Costello is on the ballot this year, and it’s worth noting that Maine has ranked choice voting, so there’s no such thing as a spoiler candidate. The media and the Democratic party itself has so far passed over him, but I think Maine voters would do well to give him a look. His website is here.
The interview below is edited for length and clarity.
—
Everything Is Horrible is entirely reader-supported. If you find this post valuable, please consider becoming a contributor so I can write more such. It’s $50/year, $5/month.
—
Noah Berlatsky: You were the Democratic Senate candidate in 2024 when Angus King won as an Independent. And you’re on the ballot now in 2026. Why do you feel you’d be a good Senator? Why are you running?
David Costello: Well, for the same reason I ran last time. When I ran, it wasn’t so much that I didn’t like King. It’s just that I thought our government was so severely broken. And I certainly don’t think it’s gotten any better over the last few years.
And what I mean by broken is that I think our governing infrastructure is very much outdated. We’ve never been as democratic as we should be. So, in order to address the kind of policy concerns that I think I and most Democrats have had for decades, whether it’s the need for universal health care, child care—we need to fix the structures of government.
Back then, it was mostly about gridlock. And of course, now it’s about how Trump has shown that our checks and balances system is obviously weak—or has been dismantled entirely.
Could you talk about your background? What experience would you bring to the Senate?
I would start by saying that I grew up in in a mill town in Maine called Old Town. So my background is very much working class, at least my upbringing.
And since my late 20s, I’ve worked in senior positions in government at all levels. So for instance, I worked as a top aide to the Maine Secretary of State. I then worked overseas for USAID, ultimately as a country program manager and regional team leader for an office within USAID called the Office of Transition Initiatives.
I then worked as the top aide for the Mayor of Baltimore, who was elected Governor of Maryland. I served as the top aide for him in Annapolis. My last government job was that I helped to run Maryland’s Environmental Department, first as a deputy secretary, and then later as acting secretary of the department.
So I think I bring a lot of governing experience. And with my working-class upbringing tied in too, that lived experiences, I think it brings the right kind of perspective so needed in Washington today.
I wanted to ask you just a little about USAID, because Trump and Musk gutted that program.
They totally dismantled it. It’s a travesty.
And there are estimates that 14 million people are going to die within like, 10 years because of that. Could you talk about why USAID is important? And what do you think can or should be done to restore it? And, it was illegally shuttered. So what kind of consequences can or should there be for that?
Well, the consequences will depend, obviously, on what happens with the next Congress, or even future congresses, right? And even the Justice Department—on what the next administration does to look into what has been done illegally.
And as you’ve said, USAID was created by Congress. Its dismantling was not done legally. So it’s hard to say what the ramifications will be in terms of what the next Congress, the next president, pursues, or the next Justice Department pursues.
But getting back to aid, I think most of the people involved in foreign affairs believes that what we call soft power is extremely important. Not only because it provides humanitarian assistance and development assistance to nations that are struggling, but it works for us economically. If people around the globe prosper that redounds very well to the United States. More than any other country—though China certainly is catching up, if not exceeding us in terms of global trade—we’ve benefited tremendously as the world has prospered since World War Two.
Providing that kind of development aid not only is good morally for us and great for our reputation, but it makes sense from an economic standpoint. When I talk about soft power, it really is about developing relationships that benefit the United States, not only the countries that we’re helping, but which also benefits Americans.
So there is a forum on tribal sovereignty coming up in Maine. Could you talk about your position on that?
When I ran in 2024, I came out early in support of tribal sovereignty. And actually, the Penobscot Nation reservation is in my hometown.
So it was very easy for me to support tribal sovereignty. It certainly makes sense economically. Of the 570 tribes nationally, the four tribes of Maine are the only ones that do not have tribal sovereignty. And what it allows is for automatic assistance to come from the federal government, whether it’s development assistance, healthcare assistance, a range of assistance that would be not only good for the tribes, but certainly the communities in which tehy reside.
So my community of Old Town, where I grew up, that certainly would be a community that would benefit from tribal sovereignty. Again, I was an early supporter, and I continue to support that.
There’s currently an effort to put a referendum on the ballot that would prevent trans athletes from playing sports with people of their gender. What is your position on that amendment?
I oppose the referendum, and I oppose discrimination of any kind, not only against trans women, but certainly trans men, transgender individuals, period. And I will, as I said, I will oppose and do oppose that referendum.
I know it’s being challenged, so we’ll have to see if it actually makes the ballot.
You’ve talked a good bit about affordability in your campaign. What policies would you like to see to reduce costs for people in Maine?
I think there’s two approaches. Not only do we want to address costs we also want to increase incomes, right?
On the cost side, I’ve supported universal health care, Medicare for All, ever since I left college to work for Ted Kennedy years ago. So I certainly think that’s one element of bringing down the costs. I support universal child-care. As you know, health care and child care costs are considerable, and they’ve increased considerably over the last couple of decades.
On the income side, I support increasing the national minimum wage, at least having a living wage of $17 or more an hour. I certainly support efforts to raise the FICA tax cap, which would allow more resources for Social Security so you could increase social security payments. Not only do we need to protect Social Security, I think we need to expand benefits, certainly for those lower income recipients of Social Security.
I’m also very much pro collective bargaining; I’m a strong supporter of labor unions. I think collective bargaining, over the years, obviously, it’s benefitted working families considerably in the United States.
Also, I would look at housing and how the federal government could provide more tax credits but also looking at grants to help first time homebuyers. For renters, low-income energy assistance is another area where you can help, particularly in Maine, where many families rely on heating oil, I’d like to see heating assistance, that kind of energy assistance.
So there are a range of programs that could help both in reducing costs as well as increasing wages and incomes.
In terms of government reforms in Washington, I know one thing you’ve talked about is the Supreme Court. What sort of reforms would you like to see there?
Well, there are two reforms. One would be term limits. I think 20 years is enough. And it wouldn’t just be for the Supreme Court. I think the federal judiciary, we should look at term limits as well as at requiring retirement at a certain age—maybe 75 years of age.
And then, conceivably a reform would be adding more justices to the Supreme Court, if we can’t address the challenges with term limits.
Expanding the court is a lot easier. Term limits are the Constitution, but you just need an act of Congress to expand the court.
Right. I wouldn’t be opposed to adding a few more members to the court. Either way, as you know, it’s going to be a challenge.
Are you interested in abolishing the filibuster?
Yes.
Maine is currently serving as a kind of proxy battle for those in the Senate who support Chuck Schumer and those who don’t. Would you vote for Schumer for Majority Leader?
Well, my preference is—I know Senator Van Hollen, because I spent some time in Maryland, so I’m familiar with him. I think he would conceivably be a good leader. I think there’s Chris Murphy out of Connecticut. So I think there are a number of younger leaders. And I would likely, even though, obviously it’s premature to say what’s going to happen in the next Senate…
You’d be open to voting for someone else.
Yes.
Are there other reforms you’d like to see? I saw you saying you’d like to make it easier to change the Constitution?
Correct.
But before we go to what, one of the things I would say—I think is extremely important with updating our practices and governing practices and institutions that I think we’ve got to use phased strategy. You start with things like eliminating the filibuster, campaign finance reform, for instance, overturning Citizen’s United. Going further, there was public financing for congressional campaigns, ending gerrymandering, HR 1—the For the People Act.
So those, those are a good start at reforming our government. But I would go further, and this is where you get to the stuff that’s more difficult. And this is where you talk about term limits, conceivably, not only for justices, but legislators.
Most of the research on term limits suggests that it actually just gives more power to unelected officials and lobbyists, though. Have you looked at that?
Well, it does. You know Maine’s had term limits. Maine was one of the early states that adopted term limits back in the early 90s. We’ve had it for quite some time. And the argument is that lobbyists would be empowered, which to some degree is true.
But as you know, lobbyists have always had considerable leverage, and until we take money out of politics, they’re going to continue to have considerable leverage. So what I would say is—when I talk about term limits, it’s not just eight years. I think you give a legislator 20 years, that’s enough time for them to get what they thought was important done.
But I do think churn in government is good. And of course, if you’re in the house, you could always run for the Senate. One of the reforms I’ve proposed is a commission, an accountability and performance commission, which would be totally independent of politics, where, conceivably, retiring legislators could be appointed to if they wanted to continue to serve a government beyond the Senate or the House or whatever role they had in the legislature.
Can I just say a little bit about some other reforms that I think are ultimately important?
Of course.
So, the House of Representatives has been the same number since 1910. Our populations has grown considerably. I support a more proportional system.
So, for instance, I would love to see us— we could do this legislatively. I’d love to see us go to maybe 200 multi winner districts where you have about 600 representatives. And in that way, in a multi winner district— in Maine, for instance, when I started voting, my candidate, which was the Democratic candidate, tended to get in the high 40s, 48% or 49%. The Republican would get, in the low 50s, and always win. And we never thought we had a voice in Washington.
Whereas in a multi winner system, multi winner district system, in that situation you’d have a voice in Washington. So that’s one idea to make the Congress more democratic. It would probably also lead to a multi-party system, which I think ultimately is healthier for our democracy.
And another idea is about the Senate. The US Senate is obscenely undemocratic. The fact that Wyoming has the same political leverage and clout as California that is 70 times larger is obscene, and it’s certainly not democratic.
And getting back to your original question about constitutional reform, I do think we need to make the amendment process easier. Right now it requires two thirds of both houses to move forward an amendment, and then three quarters of the states to approve or ratify. We’ve had over 11,000 proposed amendments since the 1780s; only 27 have passed.
So I would suggest that we can make it easier—not make it too easy, because we don’t want to have a run on amending our national charter. But you could do things like, for instance, require 60% of both houses to move forward out of the Congress, and then you could require that States representing at least 60% of the population to ratify.
So again, it would still be difficult to amend the Constitution. But it wouldn’t be impossible, and in doing that, it would make it a lot easier to upgrade our government so that we could eliminate gridlock. We’d have stronger checks and balances, and we’d have a more democratic and responsive government and accountable government.
Do you support statehood for DC?
I do.
Because that’s kind of the easiest first step to rebalancing the Senate.
Right. You look at Puerto Rico and DC.
There’s a war in the Middle East right now. How can we try to hold Trump accountable? Or, how do we stop this sort of thing from happening?
It’s just insane that that this has happened. Our War Powers Act is not sufficient. Congress hasn’t stepped up. We need to reinforce that legislation that was passed after Vietnam. It’s never been sufficient.
Constitutionally, Congress is the only entity that can declare or take us to war. Well, that hasn’t held up. So we need to strengthen Congress’s ability to prevent a president from doing that.
I think we’ve got to take a look at the fact that the President, by himself, could launch nuclear weapons at other countries. I think we’ve got to take a look at how we structure war powers more broadly. Not to say that you’re going to hamstring the President in terms of how they may respond immediately to a threat. But certainly you want to engage legislative leadership as early as you can in a process where we ultimately engage in armed conflict with other countries.
I think we’re smart enough to figure out the appropriate system with the appropriate safeguards, so we don’t have what’s happening now with President Trump, and how he’s, literally gone to war.
I also want to ask about Israel and Gaza. Do you consider Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide?
Well, I would answer that this way. I certainly think in response to that horrific assault by Hamas in October 2023, Israel not only had a right but an obligation to attempt to crush Hamas. However, instead of going about it surgically—and Israel is one of the few countries that could have done it surgically. Instead they responded with the dropping of 2000-pound bombs. It’s indefensible.
So the way I would answer it is, if you look at the UN Inquiry, it said that the Netanyahu government has engaged in crimes against humanity and actbs of genocide. And we’ll see what the what the International Criminal Court, has to say ultimately. But I certainly think it’s indefensible. The killing of possibly up to 70,000 people, the majority of whom are innocent civilians and possibly up to 19,000 children—it’s inhumane and unacceptable. So from what I’ve read, what I believe, and what I’ve seen, particularly as it relates to what theUN Commission of Inquiry found, I would say yes to your question.
Would you condition military aid to Israel?
I would have supported Senator Sanders’ 2023 resolution which said no support for offensive weapons. That would have been my approach. I’d have the same approach today in terms of offensive weapon systems, and using that leverage to discourage or prevent what Israel’s doing. Although the front has expanded over time.
They’re at war in Lebanon and Iran now.
Yes.
I think the solution resides in supporting, progressive Israelis and working towards the solution that almost seems impossible now, which is the two-state solution. We got awfully close in the 90s after the Oslo Accords. And I don’t know how long it’s going to take to get there, but I certainly think the Netanyahu government needs to be held accountable for all of the missteps and all of the crimes they have committed. And I don’t know when that’s going to happen, unfortunately.
But from my perspective, what’s happened in Gaza is not good for Israel’s long term security.
I wanted to talk about your opposition briefly. Could you talk about why you think Susan Collins should be replaced in office?
Well, I think she’s done a wonderful job of portraying herself as this Aroostook County girl who never misses a vote. She’s delivered a lot of congressional earmarks, small projects, whether it’s rehabilitating the port here or a fire station there.
But she’s been wrong on the big stuff. Her 96% support of Trump’s legislative agenda, her support for the Big Beautiful Bill. On the more substantive measures in the Senate over the last 28 to 30 years, when she’s been there, she’s been with Mitch McConnell and the GOP.
And of course, the Kavanaugh decision, the Supreme Court decision, was a monumental mistake.
Why do you think people should choose you over Janet Mills?
I think Governor Mills has been a good governor, but I think given my background—I’m the only one on the ballot who comes from a working-class family. My father was a labor organizer. Grandparents were mill workers. My lived experience is one that I think many Mainers, particularly Mainers who no longer vote for Democrats, can relate to more easily.
And added to that lived experience, I believe my work experience is broader than the governor’s. Not only have I worked in Maine government, but I’ve worked in senior positions for USAID, as well as in the governor’s office in Maryland where I helped to run a fairly large, or at least important state agency. I think my experience is broader than that of the governor.
And I think I’m more electable, which I think is critical if we’re going to beat Senator Collins.
And the same question about Graham Platner; why should people vote for you rather than him?
Graham has proved that lightning can strike—that you can make a lot of progress in politics in a very short period of time, if you have the right kind of support and the right kind of messaging. And he certainly has come across as a change agent. A lot of people are very frustrated with the Trump administration. He’s captured a lot of that energy.
I certainly see myself as very much a change agent, and even a more substantive change agent. One of the things I’d say about Graham is that he doesn’t have a lot of experience in government. And again, I think that’ll be a challenge. And I think he would acknowledge that his electability challenge is a different one in the fall than it is in the primary.
He’s said a lot of pretty heinous things in the past, and he had this Nazi tattoo.
He recognizes that it’s a problem, and that it’s going to be an electability challenge.
I certainly wouldn’t have made the comments he’s made. And he himself is now saying he obviously wished he hadn’t made those comments.
But I think I appeal to both sides. I think the people, the more established Democrats, would appreciate the fact that I’ve got a lot of governing experience. And then I’ve got the kind of background that I think many Mainers would relate to, certainly working-class, middle-class families who’ve sort of drifted away from the Democratic party.
Both Mills and Graham grew up in well-to-do families by comparison, and certainly more well-to-do than most Mainers. And I think most of Graham’s supporters will appreciate that many of the reforms I’m talking about, the policy reforms, are very much in line with what many progressives, if not most progressives, in the Democratic Party, have supported for decades. I would argue, quite frankly, the vast majority of Democrats have supported most of these policy reforms that we just haven’t gotten them through Washington because the way it’s been structured, and because of the influence of the moneyed interests in DC.