Daniel Levy

United States Representative Congressional District 2

Headshot of Daniel Levy for Idaho United States Senate

Biography & Background

Born and raised in Idaho. Family has lived here in Idaho several generations.

I scored in the top 1% of all students in the USA on the Math SAT. (I slacked off on the verbal section and only scored in the top 6%.) As a student, I attended Yale University as an undergraduate and majored in Film Studies. I also participated in a special course Yale has called Directed Studies, which studies the classic ideas of western civilization. After that I attended the MFA program at USC’s Cinema & Television School as a graduate student.

I am one of the only people in my family who did not serve in the military. My mother is from a Navy family — both my uncle and grandfather on her side were sailors and she grew up on the Navy base in Hawaii before moving to Idaho. My father served in the Army and most of my relatives on his side of my family also served in either the Army or Marines.

I homeschool my kids. I have been with my wife for 21 years. We have 4 kids, ages 2, 8, 9, and 11. I have been running my own clothing line for almost 20 years now. I have been an entrepreneur since I was a kid. I love coming up with business ideas. I also love creating things as an artist. Being a homeschool parent is both a blessing and a full-time job for me, and it is the most important thing to know about me, or at least the thing I am the most proud of.

Top 3 Issues:

1. Improve the education system.
2. Reduce wokeness.
3. Concentrate America's energy on America instead of foreign affairs

Integrity in Affiliation

Submission: Yes

“I have read the Idaho Constitution and the Idaho Republican Party Platform. Except for the provisions specifically noted below, I support the Idaho Republican Party Platform and accept it as the standard by which my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated. I certify that I am not a candidate, officer, delegate or position holder in any party other than the Republican Party.”

Exception 1:

The 13th paragraph of the Platform’s Preamble says Idahoans “should preserve national strength and pride while working to promote peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.”

I disagree.

Almost every time the United States has promoted these noble sounding concepts “throughout the world,” the US has actually interfered with other sovereign nations — usually with horrible outcomes, including many lost lives.

America’s efforts to promote ideas globally have actually damaged America’s own national strength and pride.

So I disagree with the claim that Idahoans “should” promote anything “throughout the world” — no matter how noble it may sound.

Exception 2:

The Republican Platform, Article I, Sec. 1, Paragraph A says, “all government is financed by taxing its citizens.”

This is not true—

Saudi Arabia doesn’t tax its people.

And Idaho receives school money from lottery ticket sales. Lottery profits are not taxes…

So I disagree.

Taxes are not the only financial tool that exists.

I believe a government should actually make an effort to avoid taxing its people.

Exception 3:

Section 20 of the Idaho Constitution declares “Gambling is contrary to public policy” and then the very next sentence legally authorizes “a state lottery.”

This is basically the state government rewarding itself with a monopoly on the gambling industry.

This is totally hypocritical and a conflict of interests.

I disagree with most monopolies and legal interference on competition.

I also don’t like hypocrisy.

If the State of Idaho wants to engage in gambling, then it should be legal for other entities and individuals to do the same thing.

Exception 4:

The Republican Platform, Article III on Education, in Sec. 3 states, “We believe all public school students are entitled to our support, and to fair and equitable funding.”

But it does not define “support” or “fair and equitable funding.”

So I disagree because of this vague language.

Exception 5:

The Republican Platform, Article III on Education, Sec. 10 says “Tax credits for non-use of public schools […] should be encouraged as competitive options for educating children.”

I think “tax credits” do not go far enough…

So I disagree.

To encourage competitive options in education, publically raised money for education should follow the student, no matter where the student chooses to be educated.

If a student’s family chooses to use a public school then that school should receive that student’s portion of publicly raised education funding.

But if a student’s family chooses to use a different option, including homeschooling — then that student’s family should receive a payment check equal to the student’s portion of publicly raised education funding.

Contact Info: