Independent Political Report conducts candidate interviews to provide insight into those running for office as part of its regular coverage of third party, independent, and nontraditional candidates and movements. The following is a questionnaire completed by Jacob Anders, an independent candidate for Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District. It follows an original phone interview conducted on May 15, 2026, the contents of which were lost due to technical errors. Anders was instead offered a questionnaire based on topics discussed during the original interview.
The views, characterizations, allegations, and claims expressed in Anders’ responses are his own and do not reflect the views of IPR or the Outsider Media Foundation. Links have been added for context. IPR has not independently verified every claim made in the interview or linked materials. IPR contacted the Tennessee Democratic Party and party chair Rachel Campbell with questions regarding Anders’ claims about the party’s handling of his candidacy but received no response by the time of publication.
Candidates who wish to discuss their campaigns with IPR may contact the editorial team for consideration. Publication of a questionnaire or interview does not constitute an endorsement or statement of support.
IPR: Could you briefly introduce yourself to readers of Independent Political Report and explain what led you to run for Congress in Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District?
Anders: My name is Jacob Anders, and I am running not only as an independent candidate for Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District in 2026, but for the Democratic Nomination for President in 2028.
That’s a pretty wild statement on its own, but I’ll explain how things escalated to this point. I am an author, historian, political campaign veteran and former comedian who believes that our political system has fundamentally lost its connection to ordinary citizens.
My path to this race began in February when the Trump administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, a reckless action that threatened to destabilize global security and drag our nation into another endless, unauthorized conflict. That flashpoint shook me out of political retirement. I realized that sitting on the sidelines was no longer an option when the leadership in Washington is so completely disconnected from the realities of war, peace, and the economic survival of working people.
I initially stepped up to challenge the status quo from within the system, but as the events of the last few months have shown, the establishment will do everything in its power to protect its own territory. This campaign is about breaking through those institutional walls and giving the voters a choice that is completely unbought, unbossed, and focused entirely on their rights, economic security, and future prosperity.
IPR: You originally sought the Democratic nomination before being removed from the primary ballot. What happened, and what reasons were you given for your disqualification?
Anders: I originally sought the Tennessee Democratic nomination because I believed the party could serve as a vehicle for real, systemic change, but I was quickly met with the cold reality of party gatekeeping.
The Tennessee Democratic Party chose to summarily remove me from the primary ballot under the guise of their vague and arbitrarily enforced “bona fide” candidate standard. The official rationale they provided was that I did not meet their internal definition of a loyal Democrat because I had not voted in the last 3 of 5 Democratic Primaries. I voted in the 2024 Alabama Democratic Primary because my mother had died, and I had to manage her estate. I’ve been a Democratic voter ever since I could first vote in 2012.
In reality my disqualification was a calculated political move to protect establishment favorites from a competitive primary. They want compliant placeholders who toe the party line, not independent thinkers who challenge their policy stagnation or push for bold ideas like a Universal Basic Income.
Instead of allowing the voters of the Fourth District to decide who should represent them, a small group of party insiders took it upon themselves to narrow the choices down to one before a single ballot could even be cast. They decided the same candidate from 2024 Victoria Broderick should one again run unopposed.
IPR: After receiving notice of disqualification, what appeal process were you offered, what were you asked to provide, and how much time were you given to respond?
Anders: The appeal process I was offered was an absolute joke and a masterclass in bureaucratic hostility.
I was notified of my disqualification in March right as I was preparing to finalize the purchase of my campaign signs, and I was given a grand total of 48 hours to file a formal appeal. To even attempt to salvage my candidacy, I had to immediately drop everything and drive up to Nashville, an emergency trip that cost me a hundred dollar parking ticket just to hand deliver paperwork to a hostile committee. No fax or email allowed.
The state party forced us to begin this appeal process on a Sunday, which is completely bonkers in a deeply religious state where families are supposed to be resting or at church. It was a Zoom meeting organized by an older gentleman that had no idea how to use the app. They demanded that I provide extensive documentation to prove my loyalty, yet they gave no specific guidelines on what would actually satisfy their subjective standards.
The entire timeline was intentionally compressed to induce panic, create logistical hurdles, and force out anyone who did not have an army of establishment lawyers on retainer. I presented proof of my volunteer work for multiple Democratic candidates across this great nation and receipts of my donations to Democratic candidates. I showed them that I was elected as a Democratic Presidential Delegate for my county.
They in turn showed me either AI generated or photoshopped images of my social media account. Afterwards there was an arbitrary determination made behind closed doors that none of the candidates would be allowed back on the ballot.
IPR: You filed a complaint with Elizabeth Stephens, another candidate who was also disqualified from the Democratic primary ballot. How did that challenge come together, and what response have you received from other Democrats?
Anders: The challenge against this blatant disenfranchisement came together out of sheer administrative incompetence by the party leadership.
Rachel Campbell accidentally leaked the personal email addresses of all the disqualified candidates, which inadvertently gave us the perfect tool to organize. Instead of keeping us isolated and defeated, her blunder allowed me to immediately contact Elizabeth Stephens and other candidates who had been similarly cast aside by the party apparatus.
Within a few hours of Elizabeth Stephens sending demands to Rachel Campbell for bylaws, the hidden vote totals, and other receipts, Kevin Lee McCants received a notification that there was a recount, and he was to be put back on the ballot. Kevin wished us luck and decided not to join our lawsuit, so Elizabeth and I joined forces to file a formal lawsuit challenging this capricious process.
The response from rank and file Democrats and everyday voters has been overwhelmingly supportive because people are sick of backroom deals determining their representation. However, the response from the party establishment has been a cowardly strategy of avoidance.
The lawsuit has faced continuous delays due to procedural maneuvers, and Rachel Campbell has repeatedly refused to be properly served, hiding behind legal technicalities to avoid answering for her actions in an open court of law.
IPR: Your complaint says you requested written procedures, bylaws, and evidentiary standards before the hearing, but did not receive them. What response did you get, and how did that affect your ability to challenge the decision?
Anders: When we demanded transparency ahead of our appeal hearings, the Tennessee Democratic Party and Rachel Campbell responded with absolute silence.
Our complaint explicitly details that we requested written copies of their procedures, bylaws, and the specific evidentiary standards that the vetting committee would use to judge us, but we received absolutely nothing prior to the proceedings. Trying to defend your candidacy under those conditions is like being forced to play a game where the referee keeps the rules secret and changes them depending on who is winning.
Without those documents, we had no way to know what evidence to bring, what standard of proof we had to meet, or how to counter the baseless accusations being leveled against us. It stripped us of any meaningful due process and proved that the entire hearing was nothing more than a kangaroo court designed to validate a decision that the party elites had already made weeks prior.
It was during this time in limbo that I began managing Tim Cyr’s 2026 Democratic Governor Campaign. Tim told me that when he met Rachel in person, she told him to fire me from his campaign. He didn’t.
IPR: Your complaint alleges that disputed material, including AI-generated digital imagery, was submitted during the vetting process. What was that material, how do you understand it to have reached the vetting committee, and what opportunity were you given to respond?
Anders: The vetting process was completely corrupted by unverified and fraudulent material.
Our complaint alleges that the committee allowed the submission of disputed digital imagery, including what appeared to be AI generated or photoshopped fabrications, to attack my character and question my credentials. This material was sent into the vetting committee by my primary opponent Victoria Broderick, who also happens to be on the Executive Board that decides the appeals for who can and can’t run.
I was never given a fair opportunity to review the technical metadata, examine the source of the files, or mount a proper defense against these digital fabrications. In an era where deepfakes and generative AI can easily manipulate reality, as we saw with Thomas Massie’s campaign, a legitimate political party should have strict verification protocols.
Instead, the Tennessee Democratic Party accepted unverified digital garbage at face value and used it as a weapon to wipe out an independent voice, showing a complete lack of digital literacy and ethical integrity.
IPR: What do you think your case and Stephens’ case show about Tennessee’s “bona fide” candidate standard and the Democratic Party’s candidate process in the state?
Anders: The handling of my case and Elizabeth Stephens’ case exposes the bona fide candidate standard as nothing more than a tool for partisan voter suppression.
It proves that the candidate selection process in Tennessee is completely broken, lawless, and driven by personal favoritism rather than democratic principles. The state party uses these subjective rules as a blank check to eliminate any candidate who threatens the status quo or refuses to kiss the rings of the party elite.
It reveals a terrifying truth: the establishment would rather lose an election to the opposition than win with an independent minded candidate they cannot control. They have turned a public election into a private club, disenfranchising thousands of primary voters and destroying whatever credibility the party had left as a defender of democracy in the state of Tennessee.
Furthermore they allowed Marie Feagins back in the Democratic Primary despite her not voting in a Democratic Primary since 2016. For me and Elizabeth our last Tennessee Democratic Primary votes were in 2020.
I voted in New Mexico’s 2022 Gubernatorial election for Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham because I was working for her campaign out of a rental! I voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary for Marianne Williamson from my dead mother’s house. How is any of this fair to the candidates or the voters that signed the petitions to put us on the ballot? Make it make sense!
IPR: After your exclusion from the Democratic primary ballot, you decided to continue as an independent candidate and are now expected to appear on the general election ballot as such. What motivated you to keep going instead of ending your campaign there?
Anders: When the establishment closed the primary door in my face, it only stiffened my resolve.
I refused to let a handful of party bureaucrats in Nashville dictate whether the people of Rutherford County and the wider Fourth District get a real choice. My motivation to pivot to an independent write-in campaign, and now a full ballot placement campaign, comes from a deep sense of obligation to the voters who have been left completely unrepresented by both major parties.
The betrayal by the Tennessee Democratic Party made it clear that the traditional two party duopoly is a trap designed to stifle innovation and maintain power for a select few. I kept going because the issues facing this district, from data privacy rights to economic automation, are far too important to be sidelined by partisan circus acts.
In protest of the TNDP refusing me ballot access until 2030 I decided to go over their heads and run for President in the Democratic Primary of 2028. Once again I received a shocking amount of support from hundreds of people, but this time from around the nation.
IPR: Redistricting has become a major topic in states across the country, and you discussed the shape of Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District during our original conversation. From your perspective as a congressional candidate, how has redistricting affected voters and candidates in Tennessee?
Anders: The mid decade redistricting drama we just witnessed is a perfect example of how the political class views voters as mere numbers on a spreadsheet to be manipulated for partisan advantage.
Republicans rushed through a brand new map in a special session earlier this month, splitting communities and creating confusion just to secure their own margins. From a candidate’s perspective, this last minute gerrymandering is designed to disrupt grassroots operations, force candidates to scramble for signatures, and break up cohesive voting blocs.
For the voters, it breeds massive cynicism and confusion, making them feel like their voices do not matter because the lines are drawn to ensure the outcome is predetermined. This chaos is exactly why we need independent representation that answers to the communities themselves rather than national party cartels seeking to maximize their seat counts.
You can’t divide a city into thirds and draw tentacles around the state. That’s what we in the cartography hobby call “border gore”.
IPR: You have been involved in politics going back several presidential election cycles and mentioned figures such as Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Andrew Yang, who each attracted outsider, insurgent, or independent-minded support in different ways. What connects those influences for you, and how have they shaped your personal philosophy and campaign today?
Anders: My political philosophy has been shaped by figures who disrupted the conventional political consensus in their own unique ways, from Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama to Ron Paul and Andrew Yang.
What connects these disparate influences for me is their willingness to challenge establishment orthodoxy, engage directly with independent minded voters, and elevate ideas that the political elite deemed too radical or unconventional.
Whether it was Ron Paul’s critique of foreign intervention, Bernie Sanders’ focus on economic inequality, Andrew Yang’s early warnings about automation, or Barack Obama’s initial message of grassroots hope, each proved that an insurgent movement can break through media blackouts.
My campaign synthesizes these lessons into a fiercely independent, intellectually rigorous platform that combines economic populism, technological foresight, and a blunt refusal to play by the rules of a broken system.
Be First to Comment