Cameron Moquin in Providence, Rhode Island

RI Senate District 5  ·  2026 Democratic Primary

Cameron Moquin for RI Senate District 5

Firefighter. EMT. Father.
I bring people together to solve problems.

Primary: September 9, 2026
Providence Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 799 crest

Endorsed by

Providence Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 799

Endorsed by

Rachel Miller, Providence City Council President

13+
Years with Providence Fire
Act. Capt.
Acting Captain,
Providence Fire
EMT-C
RI Cardiac Certification
Pi Sigma Alpha
Pi Sigma Alpha
National Honor Society

The Platform

Where I Stand.

The Platform

Homing the Unhoused.

Chronic homelessness turns every health problem into an emergency, and the public pays for every one. Emergency runs, crisis calls, hospital beds, jail cells. A single stretch of illness for one unhoused person can generate a hospital bill exceeding $2 million. Unpaid hospital bills are absorbed into hospital rates, which are absorbed into premiums and deductibles. Everyone pays.

Permanent supportive housing costs approximately $25,000 per person per year. Rhode Island’s Pay for Success pilot found savings of $15,000 to $20,000 per chronically homeless person annually in reduced emergency, jail, and shelter costs.

Housing First begins with the apartment. A person in constant survival mode cannot rebuild a life.

The money is not new spending. It is a redirection of what the state already spends managing the consequences.

The Platform

Universal Healthcare.

Everyone talks about universal healthcare. Nobody talks about the fact that Rhode Island can’t deliver it yet. We’re short 300 primary care doctors. 343,000 of us have no provider at all. The reason is simple: insurance companies pay our doctors about 30 percent less than Massachusetts pays theirs, then delay and deny the claims they owe, so the doctors leave. You can’t insure a state into having doctors it doesn’t have. Before we can cover everyone, we have to fix the environment that’s driving care out of Rhode Island.

My plan does that in two moves, and the only ones required to do anything are the insurance companies. The Payer Mandate makes them pay doctors first, in full, at a fair rate, so providers stay and come back. The Rhode Island Health Trust guarantees your coverage never lapses, funded by the industry’s own money, not a new tax. If an insurer quits or fails, the Trust catches you with no gap. If they play fair, it simply stands guard. No government takeover. No waiver from Washington. Just a state prepared, finally, for healthcare that covers us all.

Read the full plan →

The Platform

Bodily Autonomy & Women’s Rights.

Full reproductive rights, without qualification.

Rhode Island codified abortion protections in the Reproductive Privacy Act of 2019. That protection must be maintained, funded, and defended against erosion.

This includes coverage. A right that a person cannot afford to exercise is not fully a right.

Judicial appointments matter here. In February 2026 the Senate confirmed a nominee who had voted against the Reproductive Privacy Act to a lifetime seat on the bench. Eight Democrats voted no. Confirmation votes are among the most consequential votes a senator casts, and they deserve the same scrutiny as legislation.

The Platform

Marriage Equality & LGBTQ+ Protections.

Rhode Island passed marriage equality in 2013. It is settled law and it is not open for renegotiation.

The state has since built real protections. The Health Care Provider Shield Act, signed in 2024, protects both patients and providers of gender-affirming and reproductive care from out-of-state civil, criminal, and administrative action, including protection against extradition requests and subpoenas. State law prohibits insurers from refusing to cover transgender health care, and that care is legal for adults and adolescents. The same 2024 package eliminated pre-authorization for HIV prescriptions and simplified the legal name change process at the municipal level.

That work makes Rhode Island one of sixteen states currently identified as most protective for transgender residents. Fifty-six percent of the country’s transgender population lives in a state with no shield protection at all.

The job now is to hold that ground and close the gaps.

Defend the shield law. It has never been tested against a determined out-of-state prosecution or a federal preemption claim. When it is, the state needs the Attorney General’s office resourced and prepared to defend it.

Insurance coverage enforcement. State law bars insurers from denying coverage for transgender care. Whether that is actually happening at the claims level is a different question, and it is the same enforcement gap that runs through every part of my platform.

Provider capacity. A legal right to care is not access to care. Rhode Island is short roughly 300 primary care providers overall. Protections mean less when there is no one available to deliver the service.

Data privacy. Rhode Island’s shield law provides only limited protection for health data related to gender-affirming care. That gap is worth closing before it is exploited.

The Platform

Confronting Plastic Pollution in Narragansett Bay.

Narragansett Bay is carrying a load of plastic we cannot see. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island have found roughly 1,000 tons of microplastic on the floor of the Bay, and despite decades of cleanups, beverage containers remain among the most common debris collected along our shores every year. What washes up is only the visible fraction of a much larger problem, and volunteer cleanups alone will never keep pace with it.

The most effective solution is also the most proven. A modern container deposit system, paired with extended producer responsibility, puts the cost of collection and cleanup on the companies that produce the packaging rather than on taxpayers and municipalities. Ten states already run deposit systems, and they recover roughly 74 percent of their containers, compared to about 26 percent here. A joint legislative commission recommended this approach for Rhode Island in 2025. I support the legislation that already exists, and I will fight to pass it.

The Platform

Fixing the Affordability Crisis.

Rhode Island households are experiencing financial pressure that has no parallel in recent memory. The closest analogue is the Great Depression, and the comparison holds on the measures that matter most.

Concentration

In 1928, the top one percent of American families received 23.9 percent of all pretax income while the bottom ninety percent received 50.7 percent. Today the top one percent receives approximately 21 to 22 percent, and the bottom ninety percent receives a smaller share than it did in 1928. Pew Research identifies current income inequality as the highest since 1928.

Wealth concentration is comparable and may be worse. Research by Gabriel Zucman for the National Bureau of Economic Research finds the top one percent holds approximately 40 percent of total household wealth. The 1929 peak was roughly 44 percent. Zucman notes that no country other than Russia has recorded comparable levels, and that offshore holdings mean official figures likely understate the concentration.

Both periods coincide with a collapse in institutional confidence. Current measures show trust in the federal government at 31 percent, congressional approval at 10 percent, and trust in media at 28 percent.

Where the comparison ends

The differences are real and should be stated plainly. There is no deflationary spiral, no wave of bank failures, and no absence of a social safety net, because the safety net that exists was built in response to the last crisis. Consumer goods remain widely accessible because globalization reduced the cost of tradeable products. That accessibility is why the present situation does not resemble 1932 from the outside, and it obscures how severe the underlying condition has become. The goods that became cheaper are the ones that can be manufactured elsewhere. Housing, healthcare, childcare, and education cannot be imported, and those are the costs that have outpaced wages.

The employment figure is not measuring what people assume

The 1930s produced a crash. What has occurred since the 1970s is a slide, and the headline unemployment rate is poorly suited to measuring it.

Labor force participation fell to 61.6 percent in June 2026, the lowest level since 1976 excluding the pandemic period. The rate peaked at 67.3 percent in January 2000. In a single month, 720,000 people left the workforce, and the measured unemployment rate declined as a result, because a person who stops searching stops being counted. Payrolls added 57,000 jobs that month.

The official U-3 rate stands at approximately 4.1 percent, or 6.9 million people. The broader U-6 measure, which includes discouraged workers and those working part time involuntarily, stands at 7.9 percent, or 13.4 million.

Among prime-age men, labor force participation was 96 percent in 1969 and under 89 percent by 2015. Over the past twenty years, participation has declined more steeply in the United States than in any other OECD country.

In 1932, a person could not find work and the unemployment rate reflected it. Today a person can be out of the workforce entirely while the reported figure indicates a healthy labor market.

What resolved the last crisis

The middle class that followed the Depression was constructed deliberately through policy. Social Security. Federal deposit insurance. The legal right to organize. A federal minimum wage. The GI Bill. Federally guaranteed mortgages. Progressive taxation.

The results were measurable. By 1944 the top one percent’s income share had fallen to 11.3 percent and the bottom ninety percent’s had risen to 67.5 percent. Those levels held for roughly three decades. Between 1948 and 1979, worker productivity and worker compensation rose together.

How it was reversed

Beginning in the mid-to-late 1970s, that structure was disassembled one provision at a time. Union density declined. The minimum wage stopped tracking inflation. Top marginal tax rates fell. Financial regulation loosened. Productivity and wages separated and have not reconverged.

No single event caused this. It occurred over fifty years, which is why it registered as a gradual erosion rather than a crisis.

The pandemic

The erosion remained survivable while households retained some margin. The pandemic eliminated it. Savings were depleted. Costs rose across every input, which was expected and understood. Several of those input costs subsequently fell. Lumber declined. Shipping declined. Wholesale food declined. Consumer prices did not follow, and Rhode Island law contains no mechanism requiring that they do. The state’s price-gouging protection operates only during a declared emergency.

The conclusion

The conditions that produced the Great Depression were addressed by changing the rules that governed the economy. The prosperity that followed was not accidental and it was not permanent. It was built through legislation and dismantled through legislation.

Every price a household cannot afford was set by a party operating under a rule that permits it. Those rules are the appropriate subject of state legislative action.

The Platform

Unions & Collective Bargaining.

Pro-union without qualification.

I am a member of Providence Firefighters Local 799, which endorsed this campaign with 84% of the vote. Collective bargaining built the wage floor, the pension, and the safety standards that define working life in this state.

Priorities: protect collective bargaining rights from erosion, ensure public sector contracts are negotiated in good faith and honored, and oppose any measure that weakens a union’s ability to organize or represent its members.

Between 1948 and 1979, worker productivity and worker compensation rose together. The divergence that followed tracks the decline in union density. The connection is not incidental.

The Platform

Firearms Safety.

Rhode Island already has strong gun-safety laws: secure-storage requirements, trigger-lock requirements, annual safe-storage and suicide-prevention information for families, and an extreme-risk protection order law. I support them.

Passing a law is the first step. Enforcing it is the next task.

Right now, Rhode Islanders have very little public information about whether these laws are actually doing what they were written to do.

That’s the gap I’d close.

Dealer compliance. No licensed dealer in Rhode Island may deliver a firearm without providing a trigger lock or other safety device, and state law provides for monthly inspection of licensed dealers. If the state is conducting those inspections, the results should be public. We should be able to say how many dealers are following the law and where enforcement is falling short.

The storage law. A first unsafe-storage offense carries a $250 civil fine. We should know how often that provision is enforced and what happens when it is. Not because the goal is to punish more people, but because a law we never evaluate is a law we cannot improve.

Education. Every school district is required to send families secure-storage and suicide-prevention information every year. We should verify that every district does it and measure whether the information is actually reaching families.

The red-flag law. Rhode Island has had extreme-risk protection orders since 2018. We should routinely publish how many petitions are filed, granted, and denied, and who is filing them. A prevention tool cannot work as well as it should if people do not know it exists.

Affordability. Other states are making compliance easier. Washington distributed 15,644 safe-storage devices through 39 events in 2024-25, and Michigan now maps 150 locations where residents can obtain free gun locks. If Rhode Island requires secure storage, we should help families meet the requirement and report what we have done.

Transparency is how you find out a law is failing before someone gets hurt.

The Platform

Voting Rights.

Voting should be easy. Same-day registration, early voting that works, mail ballots without a scavenger hunt, polling places where people actually live. None of that is radical. Most states already do it.

I went to the State House on May 21 and signed my name in support of the Rhode Island Voting Rights Act, along with over 100 others.

S3143 and H8334. Filed March 2026.

Drafted with the Campaign Legal Center, on a model built with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Testimony in support came from the ACLU of Rhode Island, the League of Women Voters, RI Kids Count, the Latino Policy Institute, the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities, and Governor McKee.

Ten Democratic sponsors in each chamber.

Filed weeks after the Supreme Court gutted the federal Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais.

Senate Judiciary held it for further study on April 7. House State Government and Elections held it on April 16.

It never reached a floor vote.

The explanation was that it needed more work. It was too complicated.

This bill was drafted by the most qualified and relevant writers of voting rights legislation in the country. In my professional opinion, that answer is too much of a cop out. This was a failure of the legislature to protect voters.

The Plan

It’s Time to End
Delay, Deny, Defend.

When we talk about universal healthcare, two things are in play: the desire to cover everyone, and the environment in Rhode Island that makes it impossible right now.

How do we change that?

This is why Samuel Bell’s universal healthcare bill is dead in the water. RICHIP tries to cover everyone and does nothing about the environment.

It runs on a 10 percent payroll tax.

It can’t start until Washington grants waivers that aren’t coming.

And even fully funded, Rhode Island has neither the doctors nor the facilities to cover everyone at once.

You can’t insure a state into having doctors it doesn’t have.

My bill changes the environment first.

Start with the Payer Mandate. Insurers currently pay our doctors about 30 percent less than Massachusetts does, then delay and deny the claims they owe, so doctors leave. The Payer Mandate ends that. Insurers pay providers first and in full, and carry the burden of any overpayment dispute themselves, instead of clawing it back from the doctor. The rate floor rises to the regional benchmark, so doctors stop leaving, and start coming back. That rebuilds the capacity a universal system needs.

Then guarantee the coverage. The Rhode Island Health Trust isn’t a government plan that shows up to compete for your business. It’s a promise that your coverage never lapses. It’s funded by an assessment on the insurance industry and the premiums you already pay. Not a new tax. It sits in the background and stays there, as long as insurers play fair. If an insurer fails or walks away from the market, the Trust catches your coverage with no gap, pays your providers at the same benchmark, and puts the work of the transition on the state, not on you.

Fix the environment, and covering everyone stops being a slogan and becomes possible.

A machine that works

It is funded by the insurance industry’s own money. No new tax on any worker or business.

It runs on Rhode Island law alone. No waiver, no wait on Washington.

It works the day it passes. Providers paid in full, patients covered, from day one.

No new tax. No waiver. Nobody forced but the companies that caused this. Just a better plan.

Read the Rhode Island Health Trust Act →
Part 1 The Rhode Island Health Trust
01 · The goal

Guarantee that every Rhode Islander can see a doctor and be covered for primary and emergent care. The first requirement is physicians. Everything in this plan begins by bringing them back.

02 · Stage One: the Payer Mandate

The plan opens with a mandate on the insurance companies. Every insurer operating in Rhode Island must pay providers at a benchmark rate, the regional median of what Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut pay, in full and on time. This is the foundation the rest is built on.

03 · This is what brings the doctors

Reliable, competitive payment is what makes Rhode Island a place a physician will practice. The reason to leave for Massachusetts disappears, and the reason to stay appears. This is how the shortage reverses. It does not happen overnight. The exodus stops first, and recruitment follows.

04 · The mandate reshapes the market

A requirement to pay fairly and promptly ends the business model built on underpayment and delay. An insurer may stay and operate under the new rules. An insurer may also decide Rhode Island is no longer worth its while and leave. The plan is built for both outcomes.

05 · The Rhode Island Health Trust: a guarantee, not a takeover

The Trust is not a government plan that competes for your business. It is a promise that coverage never lapses. It sits dormant while insurers play fair. If a carrier fails or walks away, the Trust catches its members with no gap and holds them until they pick a new plan or stay because it delivers. Nobody is moved by mandate. The Trust grows only if it earns it.

06 · The only rules fall on the insurers

Insurers must do two things. Pay providers first and in full. Fund the reserve that catches their members if they fail. That is the whole ask. Play fair and the Trust stays dormant. Don’t, and they lose their customers to it. Their choice, either way.

07 · Your federal help follows you

Members who get the federal premium tax credit keep it. The Trust runs a certified plan on HealthSource RI, so a caught member’s federal dollars follow them automatically. Nobody loses a subsidy because a carrier quit. No waiver needed. Washington State runs this route today.

08 · Portability, finally delivered

Congress promised portable health coverage in 1996. The law has portability in its name, and a Republican and a Democrat wrote it together. It guaranteed a path to new coverage after you lost job-based insurance. It never guaranteed your coverage survives automatically when your insurer quits or fails. Rhode Island’s own guaranty fund doesn’t cover HMO plans or Blue Cross. This act closes that gap. Your coverage outlasts your insurer.

09 · What happens when an insurer leaves or fails

The member does nothing, changes nothing, and misses no care. A member with federal subsidies moves through HealthSource RI into another certified plan, the Trust’s included, with every federal dollar intact. Where no plan remains, or a member would otherwise be uninsured, the Trust becomes the payer automatically. The member keeps the card already in their wallet. The state carries the paperwork. Providers are paid the benchmark rate that keeps them here.

10 · Financed by the insurance industry, not a new tax

The Trust is capitalized by assessments on the insurance industry and by the redirected premiums of the members it takes on, held in a segregated fund. Rhode Island has assessed insurers in this manner since 1985, each time a carrier fails. No worker’s wages are reduced and no new tax is created.

11 · The statutory firewall

Social Security and Medicare have retained public confidence for nearly a century because their trust funds are walled off by law and cannot be diverted to other purposes. The Rhode Island Health Trust rests on the same principle. Its enabling statute confines every dollar to the payment of care.

12 · Why the Trust pays well and costs less

For the members it covers, the Trust carries none of the marketing, broker commissions, prior-authorization machinery, or profit margin that a commercial carrier must. Federal law already caps that overhead at 15 to 20 cents of every premium dollar. The Trust runs well below it, so more of each dollar reaches care and providers are paid competitively.

13 · A transition, not a switch

Nothing is turned off on a single day. As the market rewards fair payment and penalizes the old model, coverage shifts over time. Some insurers adapt and remain. Others leave, and the Trust catches their members. Rhode Island moves toward universal coverage without a day of forced upheaval.

14 · The one constraint that ties it together

A single limit disciplines the entire design. Reimbursement set too low drives physicians out of the state and renders the coverage meaningless. The Trust therefore captures administrative overhead but never reduces provider payment below the benchmark that retains physicians. The case for savings and the case for keeping doctors are the same case.

15 · Governance insulated from the industry

A fund of this significance cannot be administered by the insurers it is meant to hold accountable. The Trust is governed by a small board of qualified experts, selected through a bipartisan nomination process, serving long and staggered terms that extend beyond any single administration, removable only for cause, and prohibited from employment with the carriers they oversee. Vermont’s health board is constituted on these principles. The design places the Trust beyond the reach of the industry it regulates.

16 · The costs and the obstacles

The projected savings are a target, not a guarantee, and an independent actuary will set the precise assessment. Capacity takes time. A state cannot conjure doctors or hospital beds overnight, which is exactly why the payer mandate comes first, to start the recovery now. The insurance industry will oppose the measure, because it ends a model that profits from delay. Yet the present system already absorbs enormous cost through emergency care and through disease detected too late. The Trust does not add that cost. It redirects it.

17 · The commitment

Pay the providers. Bring the doctors back. Guarantee that no Rhode Islander loses care when the market shifts. Begin where success is achievable, and build from there. That is how Rhode Island restores access to a physician, and how it moves, over time, toward covering everyone.

Part 2 How They Fight It
They run ads warning your premiums will spike

A medical-loss-ratio floor is written into the same bill, set between 88 and 90 percent, with mandatory rebates. A premium increase can only reflect real spending on care. Any padding is returned to policyholders.

They threaten to leave the state

A carrier that exits must give eighteen months’ notice and fund transition coverage for its members. Streamlined licensing lets other carriers enter on the same terms, terms Massachusetts and Connecticut carriers already meet. And behind that stands the State Backstop. If a carrier quits and no one assumes its members, the Trust catches them. The member keeps the card already in their wallet, the claim reroutes to the Trust, and it pays at the benchmark. It is funded by carrier reserves, not tax dollars. The last card the industry holds, that leaving takes your coverage with it, is answered before it is played.

They claim the whole law is preempted by ERISA

The law reaches only the fully-insured and individual markets, which states plainly regulate under McCarran-Ferguson and the ACA. Self-funded plans are carved out in the text. Rate regulation of licensed insurers is core state power that OHIC already exercises, and Rhode Island’s prompt-pay statute, Section 27-18-61, has operated for years.

They sue in federal court under ERISA

The Supreme Court decided this in 2020. In Rutledge v. PCMA it unanimously upheld a state law regulating reimbursement rates against an ERISA challenge, holding that rate regulation affects costs without dictating plan design and is therefore not preempted. A reimbursement floor on licensed carriers is the same species of law, and ERISA’s own savings clause preserves state laws that regulate insurance.

They call pay-first an unconstitutional taking

Pay-first does not extinguish any right. It reallocates the timing: pay now, dispute after, through a defined recoupment process. Courts have long upheld pay-first-litigate-later structures, from tax law to Medicare recoupment. The insurer keeps its full remedy. It simply can no longer use delay as the remedy.

They claim the benchmark regulates other states

The benchmark is a reference index, not a regulation of out-of-state conduct. It is the regional median commercial rate as determined annually by OHIC, applied identically to every carrier licensed in Rhode Island. Using regional data as an index is no different from pegging rates to Medicare. There is no extraterritorial regulation and no discrimination.

They shift the cost onto patients

Deductible and out-of-pocket ceilings are indexed to an affordability standard, and any cost-sharing increase above the index requires OHIC approval. The medical-loss-ratio rebate catches padded margin in the aggregate. Every carrier reports its cost-sharing trends, so a shift is visible the year it happens.

They shrink their networks

Network adequacy standards set maximum wait times and travel times for primary care, enforced with the same escalating fines as the payment rules. The rate floor also removes the reason to narrow a network in the first place. With a floor, there is no below-floor discount left to extract.

They fight over what counts as a clean claim

The statute defines a clean claim tightly, by reference to existing federal transaction standards, so a carrier cannot invent new documentation prerequisites. A claim not rejected with specific, valid deficiencies within a short window is deemed clean as a matter of law, and the payment clock runs from original submission. The reject-and-reset game ends.

They abuse the clawback process

Recoupment demands must be filed within a defined window, state specific grounds, and stay confined to the claims disputed. There is no offsetting against unrelated current payments. If a recoupment claim fails at review, the carrier pays the provider’s review costs.

They try to capture the regulator

The benchmark methodology is fixed in statute: a regional median from defined data sources, published annually with the underlying numbers. Penalty interest accrues by operation of law and the deemed-clean provisions execute without an enforcement action, so the law enforces itself where capture would otherwise bite. Annual public reporting lets the legislature and the press see underperformance even if the regulator goes quiet.

They lobby Washington to preempt the law

This is the one move outside the reach of a state bill, and the answer is political rather than legal. By the time any federal preemption effort matures, the law has a constituency: the doctors who stayed and the patients who found care. A working model is the hardest thing to preempt.

The legal foundation

Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn., 592 U.S. 80 (2020), unanimous.
Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans v. Miller, 538 U.S. 329 (2003).
ERISA savings clause, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A).
McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-18-61, the existing prompt-pay statute being strengthened.
R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 27-34.3, the 1985 Guaranty Association, the assessment model behind the backstop.

Cameron Moquin

About Cameron

Built for
This Work.

Joining the fire department changed everything. The work mattered. Who Cameron met doing it mattered more. Shift after shift, call after call: people skipping medications they couldn’t afford. Families delaying care until a manageable condition became a crisis.

Cameron has restarted hearts on kitchen floors, carried people down narrow staircases, revived overdoses. What that work gave him, beyond the rank, was clarity. Patient after patient, the system was failing people who deserved better.

He ran for Congress in 2022. Progressive issues had no voice. This time he’s running to win.

Cameron looked at the record. Coalitions keep falling apart for no strategic reason. He decided to run and fix it.

“Consensus and coalition are core skills, a point of pride, and the way we deliver.”