“Closest to the Pain:” A Conversation with Congressional Candidate Ruth Fortune

Kashmala Khan ’29

Managing Editor

At a recent “Lunch and Learn” event hosted by Solidarity Across Borders at Trinity College, students gathered for a thought-provoking conversation with congressional candidate for Connecticut’s First Congressional District, Ruth Fortune. The session provided not only a glimpse into her campaign but also her personal narrative that underscored her political motivation and policy suggestions. 

Fortune began by situating her campaign within a broader critique of political incumbency. She is currently one of a myriad of candidates challenging fifteen term incumbent Congressman John Larson. She highlighted the absence of competitive primaries, noting that her opponent “has never faced a primary challenge” after winning office in 1998. Fortune presented this as a critical democratic concern: “I think incumbents should be challenged as a matter of course…that’s healthy for democracy.”

However, what distinguished the discussion was not merely electoral critique but Fortune’s lived experience. Born in Haiti, she immigrated to the United States at the age of twelve and initially lived as an undocumented immigrant. She recounted the psychological and structural barriers she faced during that period, such as restricted access to employment, education and mobility, alongside “a constant fear of deportation.” These experiences during her formative years, she postulated, moulded her perception of systemic inequality and exclusion.

A turning point came in 2010, when she received Temporary Protected Status (TPS). She described this moment as transformative, both materially and psychologically: “I had internalized the shame of being undocumented…I thought it was my own personal failure.” However, government intervention shifted that perspective for her: “To see that it was literally government intervention that changed my personal circumstances…it planted the seed that at some point…I too want to serve in public office.”

This experience informs her broader political philosophy. Fortune argued that policymaking must be rooted in lived realities, asserting, “If we want to close the gap between what our laws are and what we say our American values [are], we need people closer to power who have been closest to the pain.” In her view, contemporary political leadership often lacks a tangible connection to consequences of policies, which results in inequities. 

Fortune’s policy proposals reflect this. She advocates for raising the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour and tying it to inflation, along with expanding access to universal healthcare. She also emphasized education reform, particularly the need for equitable funding across school districts, since she argues that major disparities exist even within relatively affluent states like Connecticut.

Immigration remains central to her campaign. Drawing from her own past and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding TPS, she warned against complacency: “You can’t take your rights for granted…if you don’t speak up now…when those rights are taken away, you won’t be able to fight for them.”

Fortune also addressed systemic inequality through her work as a trust and estate attorney. She described witnessing stark variation: clients with “$500 million” alongside families who “didn’t have enough money to bury” a loved one. These experiences, she argued, underscore the need for structural reform against wealth inequality.

Fortune also emphasized how her identity as a mother shapes her political perspective. She pointed out that “about 7% of our Congress members are mothers of young children,” linking this to gaps in policies like healthcare, education and paid leave, which she argued remain underprioritized because they are “immaterial” to many in power.

Beyond policy, the conversation touched on the structural barriers to political participation itself. Fortune described the complexities of gaining ballot access in Connecticut, noting that the process is often prohibitive for newcomers without institutional backing. To appear on the ballot, she explained, candidates must either secure 15% of delegate support at the party convention or gather approximately 4,000 valid signatures; this process is complicated by strict technicalities, such as organizing signatures by town and submitting them separately. Even then, success is uncertain; therefore, the time, financial strain and organizational demands of navigating ballot access may constrain her ability to build broader voter outreach and momentum. Fortune is also lagging behind in existing polling, her support not registering on a recent internal poll released by the Larson Campaign. 

In closing, Fortune offered grounded advice to students. Emphasizing resilience and self-awareness, she noted, “There’s going to be people…projecting their own fears onto you. Just know what your core values are.” Ultimately, her message was clear, such that meaningful change requires both personal conviction and a willingness to challenge entrenched systems.

The event provided more than a campaign overview; it served as a compelling case study of how personal history, structural inequality, and political ambition intersect in contemporary American politics.