Brian Bengs, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, framed his campaign around structural political reform, opposition to corporate influence, and frustration with both major parties. In an interview with Intellectual Dissatisfaction, Bengs said he is running to give South Dakota voters an alternative to what he described as a “stupendously broken” political system.
Bengs described himself as a lifelong independent, aside from a roughly 13-month period when he registered as a Democrat in order to run against Sen. John Thune in 2022. He said he initially sought to run under the Democratic banner because the party did not have a candidate, but that state law required him to register with the party to become its nominee. After running from inside the party system, Bengs said his concerns about political dysfunction only deepened.
Bengs grew up in a small farming community in North Iowa in a blue-collar family. His father worked a union factory job, and Bengs said he delivered newspapers and worked in farm fields during the summers. After high school, he joined the Navy, later used the GI Bill to attend college, and then went to law school. He eventually entered the Air Force JAG Corps, expecting to serve four years, but remained for two decades after 9/11. During his military career, he earned advanced degrees in international law and history, taught at the Air Force Academy, and ran a legal education program at the NATO School in Germany. After retiring, he moved to Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he taught criminal justice, homeland security and government before later relocating to Hot Springs.
A central focus of Bengs’ campaign is campaign finance reform. He argued that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to excessive corporate and dark money influence in elections. Bengs said the country needs a constitutional amendment to restore stronger limits on campaign spending and corporate influence, pointing to early 20th-century federal campaign finance laws as an example of stricter rules that once existed. He also said election spending has grown to the point where government reflects “the people with the biggest checkbooks” rather than regular voters.
Bengs said that if elected, he would not automatically caucus with either major party. He said doing so would defeat the purpose of running as an independent. Instead, he described a strategy in which a small group of independent senators could deny either party outright control of the Senate and force major legislation to go through an independent caucus. Bengs said he has been in contact with other independent Senate candidates and that their shared goal is to use that leverage to pursue structural reforms rather than simply negotiate over partisan policy priorities.
Asked what his non-negotiables would be in such a scenario, Bengs pointed to reforms such as campaign finance changes, anti-gerrymandering legislation and broader efforts to restore the value of individual votes. He also floated the idea of sending constitutional amendments directly to voters in the states rather than relying only on state legislatures, arguing that the people are the source of governmental power.
On taxes, Bengs said he supports returning to the tax code that existed in 1998, when the federal government was running budget surpluses and paying down debt. He argued that subsequent tax cuts helped create today’s debt problem and allowed extreme wealth to accumulate. Bengs also supports a wealth tax on billionaires, describing it as similar in principle to property taxes paid by homeowners. He said wealthy individuals often hold assets such as stock rather than traditional taxable income, and argued that those assets should be taxed directly once they exceed very high thresholds.
Bengs said his healthcare plan centers on allowing the government to use its buying power to lower costs. He argued that Medicare, or another government entity, should be allowed to negotiate drug prices in the same way large retailers use bulk purchasing power to demand lower prices. He also supports creating a public option on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Bengs said a government-run plan would not need to build in a private profit margin and could pressure private insurers to lower their prices through competition.
On rural healthcare, Bengs said rural hospitals are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts because many rural residents rely on Medicaid coverage. He criticized Sen. Mike Rounds’ support for recent Medicaid cuts, saying those cuts would disproportionately hurt rural hospitals and could lead to closures or reduced services. Bengs said he views rural hospitals as a public good and believes the federal government has a role in helping keep them open.
Veterans’ issues were another major theme of the interview. Bengs, who receives his own healthcare through the VA, said he opposes privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. He argued that some private healthcare interests see VA patients as a reliable source of government-backed payments, but said his goal is a strong and well-functioning VA system. Bengs said the VA needs adequate funding, stable staffing and modern facilities. He cited the Hot Springs VA, where he said the facility lost its only doctor, as an example of the staffing problems facing veterans’ healthcare.
On veteran mental health and suicide prevention, Bengs said the VA should expand and support programs that already exist, including PTSD support programs, service dog programs and alternative therapeutic programs such as “Bees for Veterans,” which teaches veterans beekeeping as a way to focus their energy and attention.
Bengs also called for stronger antitrust enforcement in agriculture, especially against meatpacking consolidation. He said the Department of Justice has been “asleep at the wheel” for decades and argued that existing antitrust laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, should be used more aggressively. Bengs noted that four major meatpacking companies now control a large share of the market, which he said allows them to pay cattle producers less while charging consumers more. He also said Congress should strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act to better protect farmers and ranchers.
On immigration, Bengs said the United States needs both border security and reform of the legal immigration system. He noted that the last comprehensive immigration reform was in 1986 and argued that both parties tend to emphasize only one side of the issue. Bengs said Republicans focus on border security while Democrats focus more on legal immigration pathways, but that a serious solution requires both. For border security, he said physical barriers make sense in densely populated urban border areas, but argued that remote areas would be better served by sensors, technology and roving Border Patrol response teams rather than expensive fencing in the middle of nowhere.
Bengs criticized both parties for using immigration as a campaign issue rather than solving it. He pointed to bipartisan immigration efforts in 2013 and 2024, saying the 2024 Senate bill included significant border security provisions but was ultimately derailed because immigration is politically useful during elections. He said lawmakers need to enter negotiations knowing their priorities, their non-negotiables and the areas where they can compromise.
The interview also addressed hyperpartisanship and social media. Bengs said the incentive structure in politics rewards politicians for refusing to work together and punishes compromise. He supports open primaries and ranked-choice or consensus-choice voting as ways to increase competition and reduce partisan extremes. He said all registered voters should be able to participate in primaries regardless of party affiliation, with the top candidates advancing to a general election where voters can rank their choices.
On social media regulation, Bengs said he does not support limiting speech as long as the First Amendment remains in place. Drawing on his experience teaching homeland security, he said harmful ideas cannot be defeated by suppression but must be defeated by better ideas. He also criticized modern political debates for emphasizing short soundbites rather than sustained exchanges on a few substantive topics.
On social issues, Bengs described himself as “50 percent libertarian,” saying people should generally be free to live as they choose unless their actions harm others. On abortion, he said he believes Roe v. Wade had the framework right: before viability, the decision should be between a woman and her physician; after viability, he said the state has a valid interest, with exceptions for the health and well-being of the woman. He said he does not believe the federal government should prohibit abortion.
On guns, Bengs said he grew up with firearms and owns guns himself. He said his concern is not with hunting rifles or shotguns, but with weapons that combine rapid fire and high ammunition capacity. Rather than calling for a ban, Bengs said he supports treating assault-style rifles more like cars: requiring registration, insurance and licensing. He also said owners should be held responsible if they fail to secure such weapons and those weapons are later used by someone else.
On LGBTQ+ rights, Bengs said the federal government should not interfere with people’s private lives if they are not harming others. He said opposition to LGBTQ+ rights is often justified through religious arguments, and criticized what he sees as selective religious enforcement.
Asked how voters should measure whether his independent campaign was more than a protest vote, Bengs said success would mean measurable progress on structural reforms. He specifically named campaign finance reform, anti-gerrymandering efforts and protecting the voting power of regular citizens from the influence of big money. For Bengs, the central goal of his campaign is making sure “your vote mattered.”
