On August 4, voters in Wichita and south-central Kansas will participate in primary elections. Democratic voters will choose between Chris Carmichael, an aerospace executive and retired military officer, and Katy Tyndell, an attorney and business manager. Republican voters will decide between incumbent U.S. Rep. Ron Estes, who has served nine years in Congress, and challenger Frank McCollum, a farmer whose campaign focuses on prices, tariffs, national debt, and presidential power. The Libertarian Party of Kansas has already nominated Wichita software entrepreneur Drew Cranmer for the November 3 general election.

Each primary election effectively asks what form of representation the district should send to Washington. Estes emphasizes his committee seniority, extensive voting record, and a campaign organization developed over five election cycles. McCollum argues that experience is insufficient if Congress fails to restrain presidential power or lower costs. Carmichael highlights his military command and aerospace manufacturing background as practical qualifications. Tyndell offers experience in law, tribal policy, and business management, supported by a rapidly established network of individual donors. Cranmer, by contrast, advocates for a significant reduction in federal authority.

Although Cole Epley and Ryan Gilbert remain on the certified Democratic ballot, both concluded their active campaigns after the ballot was finalized. Epley has endorsed Carmichael, and Gilbert has endorsed Tyndell. Consequently, we do not profile them here as active candidates. The anticipated November general election field will comprise the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee, and Cranmer. Qualified independent candidates have until noon on August 3 to file, so this field is not yet legally final.

District Snapshot

Kansas’ 4th congressional district makes federal policy local. Defense appropriations impact McConnell Air Force Base and aerospace suppliers. Tariffs affect aircraft plants, farms, and construction. Medicaid changes influence Wichita clinics and rural hospitals.

Wichita anchors the district’s population and economy, but the seat also includes smaller towns, farms, and rural communities across south-central Kansas. Wichita State University, McConnell Air Force Base, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, and a dense network of aerospace suppliers make higher education, defense, aviation, and manufacturing central federal issues. Agriculture, rural hospitals, transportation, and access to services carry greater weight outside the metropolitan core.

The current map, Ad Astra 2, took effect for the 2022 election. Lawmakers drew it using a 2020 population of 734,470 and a voting-age population of 552,525. Pawnee County divides congressional districts, making county-level registration totals unreliable as a substitute for district totals (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2022).

The Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey estimated the district’s population and major economic indicators as follows (Census Reporter, 2024a):

• Population: 745,885

• Median household income: Approximately $70,700

• Residents below the poverty line: Approximately 11.7%

• Adults with at least a bachelor’s degree: Roughly one-third

• Occupied homes that were owner-occupied: Close to two-thirds

• Veterans: Approximately 36,000

These figures describe a district on paper, not a uniform experience. They combine neighborhoods and communities with substantially different housing costs, wages, educational opportunities, and access to health care.

The district has a non-Hispanic white majority alongside Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native American, and multiracial communities. The 2020 to 2024 American Community Survey estimated that 66,882 voting-age residents, or about 12%, were Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic or Latino origin is an ethnicity that can overlap racial categories, so it cannot simply add to race totals. The same tables count more than half a million adult citizens, but that estimate comes from a different Census product than the redistricting figures, and readers should not treat it as a measurement from the same year (Census Reporter, 2024b).

Employment data explain why campaigns frequently address trade, tariffs, health care, and federal spending. The 2020 to 2024 American Community Survey counted 360,972 employed civilians age 16 or older (Census Reporter, 2024c):

• Education, health care, and social assistance: 89,658 people, or 24.8%

• Manufacturing: 65,828 people, or 18.2%, including about 31,300 in transportation-equipment manufacturing

• Retail: 36,528 people

• Professional, management, and administrative services: 30,093 people

• Construction: 23,971 people

• Transportation, warehousing, and utilities: 21,161 people

• Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining: Approximately 7,080 people

The agricultural figure does not capture every job tied to farm equipment, food processing, transportation, or rural commerce. The available evidence still defines the stakes: the winner will represent a district where aircraft production, military policy, and university research sit beside farm markets, rural infrastructure, and small-town services.

Election History

The 4th District has been Republican territory for three decades, progressively strengthening its hold since Dan Glickman’s Democratic representation from 1977 to 1995. Ron Estes won a 2017 special election to replace Mike Pompeo, who became CIA director (U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, 2026).

District boundaries changed before the 2022 election, making results from 2017-2020 not directly comparable to the present district.

• In the 2017 special election, Estes received 64,044 votes (52.2%), defeating Democrat James Thompson (46%) and Libertarian Chris Rockhold (1.7%). Estes’ 6.2 percentage point margin remains his closest congressional election (Kansas Secretary of State, 2017).

• The 2018 Republican primary featured two candidates named Ron Estes. The incumbent, “Rep. Ron Estes,” defeated Ron M. Estes 81.38% to 18.62%. Thompson won the Democratic primary with 65.24%. In the general election, Estes defeated Thompson by 18.68 points (Kansas Secretary of State, 2018a, 2018b).

• Estes and Democrat Laura Lombard ran unopposed in their 2020 primaries. Estes won the general election with 63.65% to Lombard’s 36.35%, a margin of 27.3 percentage points (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020a, 2020b).

• In the first election under the current map, Estes and Democrat Bob Hernandez ran unopposed in the 2022 primaries. Estes secured 63.34% to Hernandez’s 36.66%, a margin of 26.68 percentage points (Kansas Secretary of State, 2022a, 2022b).

• Estes and Democrat Esau Freeman again faced no primary opposition in 2024. Estes won the general election with 65.05% to Freeman’s 34.95%. His margin reached 30.1 percentage points (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024a, 2024b).

The 2026 election breaks two recent patterns. Democrats have an active primary between two candidates with established professional records, and Estes faces his first conventional Republican congressional challenger, as his only previous Republican primary was the unusual same-name contest of 2018. For the first time in years, both parties must decide what kind of nominee they want rather than simply ratifying one.

Democratic Candidates

The Democratic contest is not primarily an argument over a long list of policy differences. It is an argument over preparation. Carmichael asks voters to value military command, logistics and aerospace manufacturing. Tyndell asks them to value law, business management, tribal policy and violence prevention.

Both candidates center affordability, oppose recent tariffs and support abortion rights and broader health coverage. Their clearest differences involve experience, emphasis, endorsements, donor networks, financial resources and how each would manage private business interests.

Chris Carmichael

Background and Experience

Carmichael’s campaign emphasizes his military and aerospace background, asserting it provides a deep understanding of institutions, budgets, and supply chains crucial to the district’s economy.

Carmichael, 53, of Andover, is vice president for commercial and government services at D-J Engineering in Augusta. While a defense-industry event page lists a similar title, earlier research identified him as director of government programs. His government-facing management role is consistent. No evidence indicates he owns D-J Engineering or serves on its board.

He reported earning an associate degree from St. Petersburg College, a theater degree from Florida State University, a master’s degree in human relations from the University of Oklahoma, and a master’s degree in logistics and supply chain management from the Air Force Institute of Technology (Hill Industry Partner Exchange, 2026; KMUW, 2026; KWCH, 2026b).

His campaign states he served over 31 years in the Army and Air Force, including more than two years in Afghanistan, retired as a colonel, and received a Bronze Star. These are campaign claims; service records and the award citation were not independently confirmed. His “Building Common Ground” campaign frames his military and aerospace experience as ideal preparation for addressing defense, manufacturing, and federal budgeting issues (Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026).

Carmichael publicly represented D-J Engineering at the 2024 U.S. Air Force Contracting Summit, showcasing the company’s capabilities to Air Force personnel. In 2026, he also spoke for the company regarding its work on components for the Artemis II rocket. These appearances demonstrate his role directly connects to government customers and programs, distinguishing it from a generic private-sector executive position (Carmichael, 2024; KWCH, 2026b).

Carmichael advocates for the principle that “basics shouldn’t break the bank.” He supports rolling back tariffs, strengthening domestic supply chains, increasing competition, and challenging concentrated corporate power. His agricultural platform links tariffs, fuel, and input costs to pressures on family farms. He also supports tariff relief for building materials, incentives for affordable construction, and tax relief aimed at helping people remain in their homes (Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026; KMUW, 2026).

Regarding healthcare, Carmichael supports a universal system, continued Medicare drug-price negotiations, regulation of pharmacy benefit managers, and protections for rural hospitals. He opposes cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, raising the retirement age to 70, or privatizing Social Security. He proposes closing tax loopholes for corporations and high-income households, reducing government waste, and avoiding open-ended wars (Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026).

Carmichael supports federal protection for abortion rights, contraception, and in vitro fertilization. He advocates for stronger firearm background checks and safe-storage rules while affirming lawful gun ownership. On immigration, he combines border security with an earned legal-status process for long-term residents, protection for Dreamers, expanded legal immigration, and due process for asylum applicants (Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026; KMUW, 2026).

His technology proposal calls for consumer and worker protections concerning artificial intelligence. He also seeks to apply water, power, and electrical-grid standards before data centers receive public assistance. On climate and energy, he supports clean-energy development, grid upgrades, agricultural conservation, and more resilient infrastructure (Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026).

Endorsements

Epley endorsed Carmichael on July 1 when he ended his own campaign, citing shared views on healthcare and Carmichael’s military experience. Carmichael’s campaign also identifies him as a Moms Demand Action “Gun Sense Candidate.” This is a designation and not a formal organizational endorsement (Kansas Reflector, 2026a; Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground, 2026).

Possible Conflict of Interest

D-J Engineering is an aerospace manufacturer with over 300 employees. Its AS9100 certification covers structural components and assemblies for missile, military, and commercial aircraft, placing the company within military and missile supply chains (D-J Engineering, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c).Federal records specify D-J’s involvement in Defense Department awards for airframe structural components and guided-missile launchers. A 2019 contract awarded D-J $26.17 million for A-10 aircraft elevators. These records characterize D-J as a component supplier, not a prime manufacturer of complete weapons (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019; USAspending.gov, 2026).

Rezaul Chowdhury is identified as D-J’s president, chief executive, and owner (D-J Engineering, 2026a; Office of U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, 2015, 2022). Chowdhury’s political contributions consistently favor Republican candidates. Federal campaign-finance records show he contributed $5,000 to Ron Estes for Congress and $1,000 to Derek Schmidt for Congress in March 2025. Mann campaign records for the current cycle list another $7,000 from Chowdhury, identified with D-J Engineering. Other contributions went to Team Estes, former Republican senators Pat Roberts and Todd Tiahrt, and the Kansas Republican Party (Federal Election Commission, 2026; Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, 2018, 2022).

U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran has a long-standing public relationship with Chowdhury and D-J. Moran has visited and promoted the company, and D-J named one of its facilities the “Senator Moran Manufacturing Center.” Moran’s office has linked D-J’s work to the Space Launch System, KC-46 tanker, and B-1B bomber programs (Office of U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, 2015, 2022).

The contribution record establishes Chowdhury’s financial support for specific candidates and organizations. It does not establish his voter registration, all his political beliefs, or D-J Engineering’s official political position. It also does not establish that Carmichael shares Chowdhury’s politics. This distinction is particularly relevant because Carmichael, a Democratic candidate, seeks to defeat Estes, while Carmichael’s employer’s owner and chief executive contributed $5,000 to Estes during the current election cycle.

Carmichael’s private-sector work raises a structural disclosure question. Congress votes on defense budgets, procurement rules, aerospace policy, and federal programs that can affect D-J and its customers. No evidence reviewed established misconduct, self-dealing, an existing ethics violation, or an attempt by Chowdhury or D-J to influence Carmichael’s campaign or positions.

D-J’s military work extends to international defense supply chains, manufacturing components for the KC-46 refueling boom and Harpoon missiles for Taiwan. Its A-10 and B-1B work has no identified Israeli end-user, nor do reviewed records connect D-J’s F-15 structural-spar work to Israeli aircraft. D-J is not the sole manufacturer for these programs. D-J, Boeing, and Magellan Aerospace all manufacture the same F-15 structural spar. D-J’s A-10 elevator contract attracted another bidder, and its Harpoon work was part of a larger Boeing subcontracting network.

These distinctions limit, but do not eliminate, Carmichael’s potential conflict. As a D-J executive, he works for a company involved in defense-related business and supply chains affected by congressional appropriations, procurement rules, and foreign military sales. If elected, he could vote on policies affecting his employer, even if D-J is one of several suppliers. The public record does not establish misconduct or show Carmichael influenced any contract. Unresolved questions remain regarding his equity, bonuses, or deferred compensation tied to D-J’s performance, and whether he would leave the company, divest financial interests, or recuse himself from decisions directly affecting it.

Katy Tyndell

Background and Experience

Tyndell’s campaign emphasizes that her legal training and experience in public policy and business would help Congress reclaim authority from presidents and agencies.

Tyndell, 43, is a Wichita attorney and manager of Tallgrass Management LLC. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University in 2004 and a law degree from the University of Maryland in 2009.

Tyndell grew up in rural northeast Oregon. Her campaign describes her as a fifth-generation Kansan, referring to family roots rather than her upbringing. Her documented timeline places her in Washington, D.C., before she moved to Wichita in 2013, providing a more complete account than the campaign label alone.

Her background includes a well-documented record outside elective office. In 2022 Kansas legislative testimony, Tyndell stated she moved to Wichita in 2013 after working as a National Congress of American Indians staff attorney, focusing on law enforcement in Indian Country and violence against Native women. She also served on a national domestic and sexual violence policy committee.

In that testimony, Tyndell supported requiring individuals legally barred from possessing firearms due to domestic abuse to relinquish those weapons.

Tyndell also co-founded Leading Kansas. Its founders page identifies Chris Jantz, Tyndell, Noah Taylor, and Jess Frieze as founders and initial board members. Tyndell’s federal financial disclosure later listed her as the organization’s co-president. Leading Kansas is a Wichita-based 501(c)(4) that accepts donations online and by mail, but its public pages do not identify its donors.

Leading Kansas also identifies Tyndell as chair of a Sedgwick County Fire District steering committee and a school advisory-board member. Her campaign states she helps manage family businesses, including an independent oil-and-gas company.

The campaign also credits Tyndell with helping pass the Tribal Law and Order Act and the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Her National Congress of American Indians employment and policy specialization are supported, but the precise extent of her role in passing these laws remains a campaign characterization.

Tyndell argues that tariffs have raised costs for households, farms, and small businesses. She supports ending Trump administration tariffs and revisiting tariff refunds to benefit consumers and smaller employers. Her agricultural platform addresses fertilizer and diesel costs, pesticide regulation, and industrial encroachment on farmland.

She supports affordable universal access to health care, with an emphasis on mental-health treatment. She favors federal legislation protecting abortion rights. On immigration, she would use the bipartisan Senate proposal negotiated in 2024 as a starting point.

Tyndell’s campaign emphasizes congressional power, arguing that Congress has surrendered too much authority over tariffs and military action. She has called for ending the war involving Iran, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and restoring Congress’ constitutional role over military force. She also proposes line-by-line review of appropriations and a return to the regular federal budget process.

On energy, Tyndell supports major investment in clean power, the electrical grid, and new technology, while acknowledging that oil and natural gas will remain part of the near-term energy mix. She backs worker protections around artificial intelligence, federal limits on commercial collection of personal data, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and action against partisan gerrymandering.

Endorsements

Tyndell’s verified endorsements include former lieutenant governor and state treasurer Lynn Rogers and Laura Lombard, the district’s Democratic nominee in 2018 and 2020. Gilbert endorsed Tyndell when he suspended his campaign in July, citing her understanding of working Kansans’ concerns.

Possible Conflict of Interest

Tyndell’s federal financial disclosure, filed May 4, details her management and ownership of family businesses from January 1, 2025, through April 15, 2026. She reported a 6.25% ownership in Tallgrass Management, a 5.75% limited-partnership interest in Flint Hills Properties, and an 11.525% interest in Valley Bronze of Oregon. Tallgrass is Flint Hills Properties’ general partner. Tyndell valued her Tallgrass interest at $1,001-$15,000, with a 2025 member distribution of $5,001-$15,000. Her Flint Hills Properties and Valley Bronze interests were listed as undetermined.

The report also showed a $15,001-$50,000 debt to Flint Hills Properties. Tyndell’s active roles include manager of Tallgrass Management and Blue Stem Oil & Gas, manager of Flint Hills Properties’ general partner, secretary of Turkey Beard Petroleum, executive-committee member of Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas, vice president of Valley Bronze, and co-president of Leading Kansas. In a Kansas Farm Bureau questionnaire, Tyndell described managing daily operations and serving as legal adviser for several affiliated companies, including strategic planning, executive decisions, contract review, accounting, regulatory compliance, and work with tenants. One affiliated company owns half of Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas, an independent oil-and-gas operator with over 380 wells in Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Her compensation reflects this: $114,000 in manager draws from Tallgrass Management in 2025 and $38,000 from January 1 through April 15, 2026. She also reported $12,500 in 2025 consulting or executive compensation from Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas. The disclosure confirms her ties to oil, natural gas, farmland, commercial property, and manufacturing. Valley Bronze, an Oregon company, produces bronze castings and ornamental metalwork. Tyndell’s affiliated companies do not appear to include wind, solar, renewable-fuel, energy-storage, or other clean-energy operations. Her direct private-sector energy experience is in conventional oil and natural-gas production, contrasting with her campaign’s support for clean energy investment.

No evidence suggests a legal or ethical violation. Ownership of private businesses does not automatically disqualify a congressional candidate, and House rules generally don’t require members to sell private assets. House precedents typically allow votes on broad industry legislation, even with a financial interest. Rules become stricter when official action uniquely or directly benefits a member’s company.

The more immediate conflict-of-interest concern is Tyndell’s continued management and compensation. House rules limit members’ outside earned income and restrict compensation from certain professional, consulting, advisory, and fiduciary work, distinguishing it from passive investment returns. Since Tyndell’s payments were identified as manager draws and consulting/executive compensation, she would need to determine which payments and duties could continue after taking office. While managing a family investment isn’t prohibited, the current arrangement would need modification.

The conflict-of-interest question is specific: which management and executive positions would she relinquish, would she continue legal or consulting services, which investments would she retain, and how would family businesses be managed? She could also discuss divestment, independent management, or a qualified blind trust, and when she would seek House Ethics Committee guidance on legislation directly affecting her businesses.

These questions are relevant to congressional decisions on drilling policy, oil-and-gas tax provisions, environmental regulations, agricultural policy, commercial real estate, tariffs, manufacturing incentives, and federal subsidies. Tyndell’s experience offers practical knowledge but also creates financial interests voters are entitled to examine.

Her Leading Kansas position presents a separate transparency issue. The organization’s fundraising page identifies it as a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization, providing its federal tax-identification number. Federal tax rules do not require such organizations to publicly reveal donor names, making the absence of a donor list legally permissible.

However, this prevents voters from knowing if Leading Kansas donors overlap with Tyndell’s campaign contributors, business partners, or companies affected by her policies. The public record also doesn’t clarify if the organization and campaign share contractors, contact lists, fundraising relationships, or other resources. No evidence suggests improper funding or coordination. Nevertheless, Tyndell and Leading Kansas could resolve this uncertainty through voluntary donor disclosure and a clear explanation of how the organization is kept separate from her congressional campaign.

Republican Candidates

The Republican primary turns incumbency itself into the issue. Estes says seniority and committee work give south-central Kansas influence. McCollum says Washington’s established leadership—including Estes—has failed to control prices, debt, tariffs and undeclared military action.

Ron Estes

Background and Experience

Estes’ case for reelection rests on accumulated influence. He asks voters to see nine years of committee work as leverage for the district; his critics see the same period as a record that should now be judged vote by vote.

Estes, 70, lives in Wichita. Before entering politics, he worked for Koch Oil, Koch Refined Products and Bombardier Learjet. He earned degrees in civil engineering and business administration from Tennessee Technological University.

Estes served as Sedgwick County treasurer from 2005 through 2011 and Kansas state treasurer from 2011 until he entered Congress in April 2017 (KMUW, 2026; Ron Estes for Congress, 2026).

He serves on the House Budget Committee, House Ways and Means Committee and Joint Economic Committee. His Ways and Means assignments include the Tax and Social Security subcommittees, and he chairs the Social Security Subcommittee. He does not chair the full Ways and Means Committee and does not hold a listed House or party leadership position. He also became a co-chair of the Congressional Musicians’ Caucus in 2025 (U.S. House Clerk, 2026a; U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, 2025).

His campaign supports the 2025 reconciliation tax law, lower individual and business taxes, deregulation and incentives for domestic manufacturing. Estes backs a balanced-budget amendment, tighter fraud controls and program reviews.

His health-care platform calls for replacing the Affordable Care Act with state-based, market-oriented systems. The campaign does not publish a full legislative replacement with coverage and cost estimates (Ron Estes for Congress, 2026).

Estes says life begins at conception and should be protected. He opposes additional firearm restrictions. He supports stronger border enforcement and a more navigable legal immigration system. On elections, he supports identification and documentary citizenship requirements for federal voter registration. On climate policy, he favors voluntary practices and action against overseas polluters instead of additional regulation on American farms and businesses (Ron Estes for Congress, 2026; KMUW, 2026).

Legislative and Government Record

Estes was an original cosponsor of the PAWS for Veterans Therapy Act, which became law in 2021. The law established a Department of Veterans Affairs pilot program involving service-dog training for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (Congress.gov, 2021).

In 2025, Estes co-led the HITS Act, which proposed allowing certain sound-recording production costs to be deducted immediately. His office says the provision was incorporated into the 2025 reconciliation law.

He also sponsored a proposal responding to foreign digital and extraterritorial taxes and joined a bipartisan bill extending certain partnership tax treatment to renewable and other energy projects. The stand-alone bills did not themselves become law (Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c).

Estes introduced bipartisan legislation in February 2026 to delay a Medicare physician-fee adjustment. That bill remained pending rather than enacted. He also joined a bipartisan resolution opposing discriminatory digital-services taxes and questioned health-insurance executives about why claimed efficiencies had not produced more affordable care (Congress.gov, 2026; Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes, 2026).

This record shows participation in tax, health and energy legislation, but the distinctions matter. Introducing a bill is not the same as passing it, and House approval is not the same as enactment.

Selected Federal Voting History

Large bills may contain hundreds of provisions, and a final-passage vote does not prove that a member supported or opposed every provision. These selected votes show how Estes used his power on major questions:

• January 6, 2021 — Arizona electoral-vote objection: Estes voted to sustain the objection to Arizona’s presidential electors. The House rejected the objection 121–303, and the electoral votes were counted (U.S. House Clerk, 2021a).

• March 9, 2021 — H.R. 842, the PRO Act: Estes voted against broad changes to federal labor law. The House passed the bill 225–206, but it did not become law (U.S. House Clerk, 2021b).

• November 5, 2021 — H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Estes voted against the bill. The House passed it 228–206, and it became Public Law 117-58 (U.S. House Clerk, 2021c).

• July 28, 2022 — H.R. 4346, the CHIPS and Science Act: Estes voted against the bill. The House passed it 243–187, and it became Public Law 117-167 (U.S. House Clerk, 2022a).

• August 12, 2022 — H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act: Estes voted against the bill. The House passed it 220–207, and it became Public Law 117-169 (U.S. House Clerk, 2022b).

• December 8, 2022 — H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act: Estes voted against the bill. The House passed it 258–169, and it became Public Law 117-228 (U.S. House Clerk, 2022c).

• April 20, 2024 — Ukraine and Israel security supplementals: Estes voted against the Ukraine security supplemental, which passed 311–112. He voted for the Israel security supplemental, which passed 366–58. Comparable language from both measures later became law through a separate bill (U.S. House Clerk, 2024a, 2024b).

• January 22, 2025 — the Laken Riley Act: Estes voted for the measure. The House passed it 263–156, and it became Public Law 119-1. The law requires federal detention of certain noncitizens accused or convicted of specified offenses (U.S. House Clerk, 2025a).

• April 10, 2025 — H.R. 22, the SAVE Act: Estes voted for the bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. The House passed it 220–208. It had not become law at the research cutoff (U.S. House Clerk, 2025b).

• July 3, 2025 — H.R. 1, the reconciliation measure: Estes voted for the Senate-amended bill. The House passed it 218–214, and it became Public Law 119-21 (U.S. House Clerk, 2025c).

The pattern shows that Estes generally opposed major Democratic domestic legislation, supported Republican tax, immigration and election measures, and divided foreign military assistance by country. His Arizona objection also gives voters a concrete action to compare with his current election-integrity message.

Endorsements and Public Assessments

Kansas Farm Bureau’s VOTE FBF committee endorsed Estes on June 22, citing his work on agriculture and his position on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. That is a formal endorsement, distinct from the many organizations whose political committees contributed to his campaign (Kansas Farm Bureau, 2026).

Heritage Action gave Estes a 90% score for the 119th Congress and an 87% lifetime score. Club for Growth’s accessible page listed an 87% score for 2024 and an 81% lifetime score.

Both are conservative advocacy organizations that select and weigh votes according to their own priorities. Their ratings indicate substantial alignment with those organizations, not a neutral measurement of effectiveness or district representation (Club for Growth, 2026; Heritage Action, 2026).

Criticism and Accountability

Criticism of Estes falls into four areas: his 2021 electoral objection, his accessibility to constituents, the effects of major legislation he supported, and his alignment with President Donald Trump.

On January 3, 2021, Estes and two Kansas colleagues announced their intention to object to presidential electoral votes, citing alleged fraud and state-law violations. Following the January 6 attack on the Capitol, he voted to sustain the Arizona objection, which the House subsequently rejected 121–303. Critics view this vote as participation in an effort to overturn a certified election, while Estes framed his action as a response to unresolved election-law concerns (Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes, 2021; U.S. House Clerk, 2021a).

Local critics also argue that Estes is insufficiently accessible in open public forums. In June 2025, Leading Kansas organized an alternative town hall, stating that Estes and Kansas’ U.S. senators had ignored repeated requests for local town halls. KWCH reported that over 1,500 people attended. Rep. Maxwell Frost questioned the crowd why he had traveled to Wichita while Estes was absent. Estes’ office responded with a statement listing his work on taxes, the border, Social Security, aviation, and agriculture, but did not directly address holding an open town hall. While Estes’ office publicizes district tours, business visits, and constituent meetings, this does not resolve the specific criticism regarding unscripted public forums (KWCH, 2025a; Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes, 2025d).

Tyndell later echoed this accessibility argument when she entered the race, stating that the district had “a representative that doesn’t show up” (KWCH, 2026c).

Estes’ July 2025 vote for the reconciliation law created a more substantive policy dispute. Gov. Laura Kelly and Kansas healthcare advocates warned that changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would shift costs to the state, reduce services, and strain hospitals. A Manatt Health analysis, cited by the Kansas News Service, estimated that Kansas hospitals could lose up to $2.65 billion in federal and state Medicaid funding over ten years. Later reporting found that Kansas SNAP enrollment declined after the law took effect. Estes defends the law as tax relief, support for research and development, stronger border funding, and a reduction in waste and fraud. The dispute, therefore, is not over how he voted, but over who benefits and who bears the law’s costs (KCUR, 2025; KCUR, 2026; KWCH, 2025b; Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes, 2025e).

Finally, opponents from both parties criticize Estes for deferring too readily to Trump. Carmichael called it “blind devotion.” McCollum argues that Estes has not done enough to reclaim congressional authority over tariffs and military action. Estes supported Trump’s 2025 reconciliation law, opposed a 2026 measure intended to restrict the president’s Iran war powers, and has defended the administration’s election, immigration, and trade agenda. Estes presents the same record as keeping Republican promises on taxes, border security, energy, and national defense (Kansas Reflector, 2026b, 2026c; Vote Frank McCollum, 2026).

Estes has a long enough record for voters to judge the claims against concrete actions: a presidential-elector objection, major tax-and-spending votes, a disputed approach to public forums, and repeated support for Trump’s use of executive power.

Frank A. McCollum

McCollum begins where most incumbents are vulnerable: the gap between what Washington promises and what groceries, fuel, farm inputs and debt actually cost.

McCollum, 70, is a farmer from Fall River. He did not provide education, earlier employment or prior-office information in the principal candidate questionnaire. No previous elected office or official election result involving him was identified (KMUW, 2026).

His campaign focuses on inflation, debt and limits on presidential power. In a July interview, McCollum said, “There’s nothing affordable left in this country.” He argues that Congress has allowed presidents to govern excessively through executive action, particularly on tariffs and military operations. He calls for ending overseas wars as a way to reduce federal spending and debt (KRPS, 2026; Vote Frank McCollum, 2026).

McCollum opposes tax advantages for data centers because of their electricity and water demands. He supports valid identification for voting and criticizes Estes’ positions on tariffs and war powers.

He did not answer the candidate questionnaire’s abortion or immigration questions. His published materials also do not supply detailed positions on health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, farm programs or federal labor law (KMUW, 2026; Vote Frank McCollum, 2026).

His affordability critique gives Republican voters a clear argument against the incumbent. The challenge is implementation. His campaign does not identify which wars, agencies or programs would be cut, how much the changes would save, or what congressional coalitions could enact them.

No verified endorsement for McCollum was identified in the reviewed record.

Libertarian Candidate

Drew Cranmer

Cranmer is not participating in either August primary, but his presence changes the general-election debate. Where the major-party candidates mostly argue over how to use federal power, he argues that Washington possesses too much of it.

The Libertarian Party of Kansas nominated Cranmer at its April 25 convention, placing him on the expected November ballot (Libertarian Party of Kansas, 2026).

Cranmer is a Wichita data engineer and software entrepreneur. The national Libertarian Party identifies him as a co-founder and chief executive of Unum Church Management Software and an architect of large-scale distribution data systems (Libertarian National Committee, 2026).

His campaign supports nonintervention in foreign conflicts, withdrawal from undeclared wars, an end to unconditional foreign aid and restoration of Congress’ constitutional war powers. He opposes automated license-plate readers and other warrantless mass-surveillance systems, including federal grants used to purchase them (Drew Cranmer for Congress, 2026).

Cranmer proposes auditing the Federal Reserve and adopting a version of the “Penny Plan,” which would require annual reductions in federal spending. He wants education, health care, land-use policy and law enforcement returned to state and local control.

His platform invokes nullification and interposition, ideas under which states resist federal actions they consider unconstitutional. It does not fully explain how that approach would operate when federal courts disagree (Drew Cranmer for Congress, 2026).

Cranmer describes himself as Catholic and pro-life. He supports the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, favors state authority over abortion, opposes federal abortion funding and rejects a federal law recreating Roe v. Wade. He also opposes the federal death penalty under the same stated sanctity-of-life principle (Drew Cranmer for Congress, 2026).

His campaign provides less detail on agriculture, Social Security, Medicare, immigration, housing, labor law and federal election administration. Those gaps will matter if he reaches the general election against candidates offering more conventional plans for using federal power.

Campaign Finance

This section uses FEC reports and the uploaded donor analyses. Period totals and cumulative totals are identified separately. Amended reports replace the filings they amend. ActBlue and WinRed conduit memo entries are not counted a second time as contributions. A donor’s employer or occupation describes an individual donor; it does not convert that person’s contribution into money from the employer. Team Estes is legally separate from Ron Estes for Congress, so its gross receipts are not added to the candidate committee’s receipts.

Chris Carmichael: Building Common Ground

Carmichael’s committee reports financial activity from October 1, 2025, through July 15, 2026. The campaign brought in $97,577.81 and spent $94,059.44—meaning 96.4% of everything it received had already gone back out the door by the reporting deadline.

Full-Period Financial Position

• Reporting window: October 1, 2025–July 15, 2026

• All money received: $97,577.81

• Contributions received: $91,239.69

• Support from individuals: $91,239.69, or 100% of contributions

• Itemized individual contributions: $69,113.61

• Smaller, unitemized individual contributions: $22,126.08

• Contributions from Carmichael: $0

• Direct PAC and party contributions: $0

• Money Carmichael loaned the campaign: $2,542.96

• Other loans: $0

• Refunds or offsets to operating expenditures: $0

• Other receipts: $3,795.16

• Money spent on campaign operations: $94,059.44

• Total money disbursed: $94,059.44

• Cash remaining on July 15: $3,518.37

• Debt still owed by the campaign: $2,542.96

• Debt owed to the campaign: $0

Carmichael’s campaign was financed entirely by individual contributions, although the candidate also kept it moving with $2,542.96 in loans. Those loans are campaign debt, not contributions.

No direct PAC, party-committee or other authorized-committee contribution appeared during the covered period. The FEC record also showed no 48-hour contribution notice for Carmichael through July 30 (Federal Election Commission, 2026).

Full-Period Donor Geography

Carmichael’s disclosed donor base was rooted in Kansas, but a substantial portion of his money crossed state lines. The analysis accounted for all $69,113.61 in itemized individual contributions and identified 108 distinct donors.

Geographic Breakdown

• The Kansas base: 69 donors supplied $41,284.61, or 59.7%

• Support crossing state lines: 39 donors supplied $27,829, or 40.3%

• The complete disclosed network: 108 donors supplied $69,113.61, or 100%

Nearly six of every ten itemized dollars came from Kansas. The other four came from donors spread across 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Contributions by State

• Kansas anchored the campaign with $41,284.61, or 59.7%

• Florida led the out-of-state support with $8,376, or 12.1%

• Pennsylvania followed with $5,250, or 7.6%

• Texas contributed $3,000, or 4.3%

• Ohio contributed $1,850, or 2.7%

• California contributed $1,303, or 1.9%

• North Carolina contributed $1,250, or 1.8%

• Arizona contributed $1,000, or 1.4%

• Hawaii contributed $1,000, or 1.4%

• Minnesota contributed $1,000, or 1.4%

• Oklahoma contributed $1,000, or 1.4%

• Alaska contributed $500, or 0.7%

• Alabama contributed $500, or 0.7%

• Louisiana contributed $500, or 0.7%

• Colorado contributed $250, or 0.4%

• The District of Columbia contributed $250, or 0.4%

• Illinois contributed $250, or 0.4%

• Massachusetts contributed $250, or 0.4%

• Missouri contributed $250, or 0.4%

• Virginia contributed $50, or 0.1%

These figures cover itemized individual contributions only. The public filings do not identify the donors, locations, occupations or employers behind the remaining $22,126.08 in unitemized contributions.

Full-Period Donor Occupations and Employers

The campaign drew money from a varied professional network, but one category clearly led the field. Donors listed as retired, unemployed or not employed supplied one-third of Carmichael’s itemized contributions. Military, defense and aerospace donors formed the second-largest bloc.

Contributions by Filing-Declared Occupation and Employer

• The largest financial bloc—retired, unemployed or not employed: $22,773.75 from 48 donors, or 33%

• Carmichael’s aerospace and defense base—military, defense and aerospace: $11,100 from 15 donors, or 16.1%

• Business leadership—business, executive and corporate: $9,657 from 13 donors, or 14%

• Professional organizers and advisers—consulting, advocacy and nonprofit: $7,824.86 from five donors, or 11.3%

• Medical professionals—health care and medical: $5,400 from five donors, or 7.8%

• Lawyers and policymakers—legal, government and public policy: $3,770 from nine donors, or 5.5%

• The technology sector—technology and systems: $3,150 from four donors, or 4.6%

• Resource-based industries—energy, environment, agriculture and natural resources: $3,000 from four donors, or 4.3%

• Money and property interests—finance, real estate and investment: $1,250 from three donors, or 1.8%

• Education: $1,053 from one donor, or 1.5%

• Other or unclear occupations: $135 from one donor, or 0.2%

The analysis used each donor’s latest reported occupation and employer. These are analytical groupings of the free-text information submitted by contributors and reported by the campaign. They are not classifications created by the FEC.

Donors Who Gave at Least $1,000

Twenty-five donors reached at least $1,000 during the covered period. Four reached $3,500 or more, and the campaign’s largest donor gave $5,000.

• Matthew Harnly of West Chester, Pennsylvania: $5,000; self-employed consultant

• Boris Masera of Kissimmee, Florida: $3,500; Aero Engineering Support Group; president

• Jigar S. Patel of Lenexa, Kansas: $3,500; self-employed; doctor at a software payer-services company

• Kelly Johnston of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; unemployed

• Ali A. Azmi of Derby, Kansas: $2,100; HyperPet; senior director of global sourcing

• Jerry Ruiz of Blanco, Texas: $2,000; Derco; logistics

• Paul Cathy Lavender of Andover, Kansas: $1,888.75; unemployed

• Justin Shore of Clearwater, Kansas: $1,750; Cisco Systems; network engineer

• Jan Manlove of Clearwater, Kansas: $1,500; retired

• Brooke Kozlowski of Wichita, Kansas: $1,474.86; self-employed consultant

• Michael Snider of Wichita, Kansas: $1,250; self-employed attorney

• Remy Echavarria of Durham, North Carolina: $1,250; self-employed cosmetologist

• Joana Myers of Haysville, Kansas: $1,056; Myers Mushrooms LLC; warehouse manager

• Edward Yerage of Travis Air Force Base, California: $1,053; Reach University; professor

• Eric Myers of Haysville, Kansas: $1,000; self-employed; mushroom industry

• Hyunjoo Song of Mililani, Hawaii: $1,000; LiAloha LLC; retail

• Joel Eppley of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: $1,000; Southwest Airlines; pilot

• Kelly Grout of Lakeville, Minnesota: $1,000; BCG; consultant

• Mark Hoffman of Goodyear, Arizona: $1,000; unemployed

• Mary Vanier of Manhattan, Kansas: $1,000; self-employed rancher

• Nancy Kerr of Pratt, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• Roger Hilarides of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Flint Hills Resources; executive

• Stephen Fisher of Ocoee, Florida: $1,000; unemployed

• Tim Carmichael of Tampa, Florida: $1,000; Baunovo; president

• William Bradley of Overland Park, Kansas: $1,000; unemployed

For donors whose itemized transactions did not capture all earlier contributions, the amount shown uses the cumulative total reported to the FEC.

Where Carmichael’s Money Went

Carmichael’s spending was built primarily around campaign professionals, communications work and staff rather than a large paid-advertising operation. Consulting, communications, management and related professional services consumed nearly half the entire budget. When staff, payroll and taxes are added, those campaign operations accounted for 60.1% of all spending.

• The campaign’s largest investment—consulting, communications, campaign management, fundraising assistance, bookkeeping and other professional services: $43,476.89, or 46.2%

• Physical voter contact—printing, postage, palm cards, stationery, signs, apparel and campaign supplies: $16,668.89, or 17.7%

• The people running the operation—staff, payroll and taxes: $13,074.33, or 13.9%

• Campaign overhead and participation—rent, filing fees, events and travel: $4,920.22, or 5.2%

• Paid promotion—advertising, including a podcast advertisement and jingle: $4,270.14, or 4.5%

• Campaign infrastructure—digital tools, fundraising charges and payment-processing fees: $4,139.09, or 4.4%

• Meta charges the campaign described as disputed, fraudulent or later refunded through bank credits: $3,610.16, or 3.8%

• Other operating expenditures not separately itemized on Schedule B: $3,899.72, or 4.1%

The itemized Schedule B records account for $90,159.72 of Carmichael’s $94,059.44 in operating expenditures. The remaining $3,899.72 is included in the campaign’s total spending but is not broken into individual transactions in the reviewed Schedule B records.

The disputed Meta charges remain part of the gross spending total because the campaign reported them as expenditures. The committee separately reported $3,795.16 in other receipts, while the expenditure descriptions say the disputed charges were refunded through bank credits.

These spending categories are analytical groupings based on the purposes and vendors reported by the campaign. Because the displayed percentages are rounded to one decimal place, they may not add to exactly 100%.

Tyndell for Congress

Tyndell’s committee reports financial activity from March 3 through July 15, 2026. In a little more than four months, the campaign received $234,454.92, spent $161,558.49 and retained $72,896.43. That left the campaign with 31.1% of its receipts still available for the closing stretch.

Full-Period Financial Position

• Reporting window: March 3–July 15, 2026

• All money received: $234,454.92

• Contributions received: $234,229.11

• Support from individuals: $233,629.11, or 99.74% of contributions

• Itemized individual contributions: $195,216.80

• Smaller, unitemized individual contributions: $38,412.31

• Contribution from Tyndell: $600, or 0.26% of contributions

• Direct PAC and party contributions through July 15: $0

• Candidate loans: $0

• Other loans: $0

• Refunds or offsets to operating expenditures: $225.81

• Other receipts: $0

• Money spent on campaign operations: $161,558.49

• Total money disbursed: $161,558.49

• Cash remaining on July 15: $72,896.43

• Debt still owed by the campaign: $0

• Debt owed to the campaign: $0

Individuals supplied virtually the entire campaign treasury. Tyndell contributed $600, while the campaign reported no candidate loans, outside loans or debt.

The cumulative columns in Tyndell’s later raw filings are $100 higher than the total produced by adding the activity reported during each filing period. The FEC’s processed candidate summary and the individual reporting periods reconcile to $234,454.92 in receipts, $234,229.11 in contributions and $600 in candidate contributions. Those reconciled figures are used here.

The campaign reported no direct PAC or party contribution during the period ending July 15. ActBlue was a conduit and payment processor, not the source of the individual contributions routed through it.

PAC Money Arrived After the Reporting Deadline

The campaign’s individual-only funding record changed after July 15. By July 30, the FEC had published three 48-hour notices reporting another $8,000:

• Robyn Chadwick of Wichita supplied $1,000 on July 21

• Way Back PAC supplied $2,000 on July 23

• IBEW PAC supplied $5,000 on July 27

These notices do not change the campaign’s reported July 15 cash, receipt or spending totals. Way Back PAC and IBEW PAC are the first direct PAC contributions identified in the reviewed records (Federal Election Commission, 2026).

Full-Period Donor Geography

Tyndell built a larger disclosed donor network than Carmichael and drew a greater share of her itemized money from Kansas. The analysis accounted for all $195,216.80 in itemized individual contributions and identified 212 distinct donors.

Geographic Breakdown

• The Kansas base: 151 donors supplied $128,259.33, or 65.7%

• Support crossing state lines: 61 donors supplied $66,957.47, or 34.3%

• The complete disclosed network: 212 donors supplied $195,216.80, or 100%

Nearly two-thirds of Tyndell’s itemized money came from Kansas. The remaining one-third arrived from donors across 21 states and the District of Columbia.

Contributions by State

• Kansas dominated the map with $128,259.33, or 65.7%

• California led the out-of-state support with $17,400, or 8.9%

• Virginia contributed $7,850, or 4%

• Texas contributed $7,000, or 3.6%

• Oregon contributed $5,579.20, or 2.9%

• The District of Columbia contributed $5,500, or 2.8%

• Massachusetts contributed $4,500, or 2.3%

• Maryland contributed $3,928.27, or 2%

• Ohio contributed $3,650, or 1.9%

• Tennessee contributed $2,000, or 1%

• New York contributed $1,250, or 0.6%

• Montana contributed $1,050, or 0.5%

• Arizona contributed $1,000, or 0.5%

• North Carolina contributed $1,000, or 0.5%

• North Dakota contributed $1,000, or 0.5%

• Wisconsin contributed $1,000, or 0.5%

• Michigan contributed $750, or 0.4%

• Pennsylvania contributed $750, or 0.4%

• Alaska contributed $500, or 0.3%

• New Mexico contributed $500, or 0.3%

• Washington contributed $500, or 0.3%

• Florida contributed $250, or 0.1%

These figures cover itemized individual contributions only. The public filings do not identify the donors, locations, occupations or employers behind the remaining $38,412.31 in unitemized contributions.

Full-Period Donor Occupations and Employers

Tyndell’s largest pool of money did not come from a conventional industry group. Donors listed as retired, unemployed or not employed contributed more than two-fifths of the campaign’s itemized individual money. Business and corporate donors formed the second-largest bloc, followed by finance, real estate and investment.

Contributions by Filing-Declared Occupation and Employer

• The campaign’s financial center—retired, unemployed or not employed: $83,556.20 from 92 donors, or 42.8%

• Business leadership—business, executive and corporate: $26,070.40 from 28 donors, or 13.4%

• Money and property interests—finance, real estate and investment: $18,867.20 from 13 donors, or 9.7%

• Medical professionals—health care and medical: $14,175 from 20 donors, or 7.3%

• Lawyers and policymakers—legal, government and public policy: $13,499 from 23 donors, or 6.9%

• The technology sector—technology and systems: $13,164 from nine donors, or 6.7%

• Resource-based industries—energy, environment, agriculture and natural resources: $12,750 from six donors, or 6.5%

• Education: $5,585 from seven donors, or 2.9%

• Professional organizers and advisers—consulting, advocacy and nonprofit: $4,000 from six donors, or 2%

• Other or unclear occupations: $3,050 from six donors, or 1.6%

• Military, defense and aerospace: $500 from two donors, or 0.3%

The analysis used each donor’s latest reported occupation and employer. These are analytical groupings of the free-text information submitted by contributors and reported by the campaign. They are not classifications created by the FEC.

Donors Who Gave at Least $1,000

Sixty-seven donors reached at least $1,000 during the covered period. Twenty-one reached $3,500 or more, giving Tyndell a considerably deeper pool of large contributors.

• Christine Jackman of Enterprise, Oregon: $3,579.20; Valley Bronze of Oregon; president

• Brandon Glier of Washington, D.C.: $3,500; Gallatin AI; CEO

• Christine Jantz of Medford, Massachusetts: $3,500; not employed

• Douglas McGinness of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; self-employed geologist

• Elizabeth Epstein of Arlington, Virginia: $3,500; not employed

• Emil Martinsek of Xenia, Ohio: $3,500; GetYourGuide; chief marketing officer

• Harry Frieze of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• J. Eric Engstrom of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• James Otten of Lawrence, Kansas: $3,500; not employed

• Jennifer Curfman of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Koch Industries; associate general counsel

• Jill Docking of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; The Docking Group; financial adviser

• John Young of Cheney, Kansas: $3,500; Great Basin Environmental Services LLC; principal-owner

• Jonathan Salcedo of Moraga, California: $3,500; Rhombus Systems Inc.; software engineer

• Katherine Hanscom of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Flint Hills Properties LP; business owner

• Kurt Kauffman of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; physician

• Lew McGinnis of Galveston, Texas: $3,500; self-employed real-estate investor

• Meg Garlinghouse of Menlo Park, California: $3,500; not employed

• Stephen Marler of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; not employed

• Susan Miner of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• Victoria Hermes-Bond of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• William Johnson of Austin, Texas: $3,500; Indeed; senior engineering manager

• Robin Wolgast of Topeka, Kansas: $3,066.54; retired

• Jennifer Pelka of Sonoma, California: $3,000; Une Femme; CEO

• Amy Fernandez of Wichita, Kansas: $2,500; homemaker

• Kathy Wilson of Wichita, Kansas: $2,475; not employed

• David Holt of Wichita, Kansas: $2,039.87; not employed

• Ashley All of Lawrence, Kansas: $2,000; volunteer

• Charles Bell III of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; not employed

• Kenneth Segna of Studio City, California: $2,000; Prologue Entertainment; television executive

• Mary Boyce of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; Wesley Family Medicine; doctor

• Mary Marler of Nashville, Tennessee: $2,000; not employed

• Oscar Plotkin of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; self-employed investor

• Paul Carttar of Lawrence, Kansas: $2,000; self-employed social-impact consultant

• Susan Devaughn of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; IMA; insurance broker

• Clay Bastian of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; retired

• Kurt Harper of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; Depew Gillen Rathbun & McInteer LC; attorney

• Mary Desch of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; self-employed pickleball instructor

• Nassim Nabbout of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; Cancer Center of Kansas; physician

• Rebecca Armstrong of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; Wichita Public Schools; educator

• Robert Kramer of Arlington, Virginia: $1,500; Appian Corporation; manager

• Tayssir Issa of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; YaYa’s; owner

• Robert Cook of Arlington, Virginia: $1,316.20; Bob Cook Homes; owner

• Nathalie Bourdereau of Rockville, Maryland: $1,250; Meaningful Futures; chief operating officer

• Jason Jones of Haysville, Kansas: $1,100 cumulative; Wildcat Construction

• Mark Janzen of Wichita, Kansas: $1,025; Janzen Corporation; president

• Basil Hourani of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Capital 7; co-founder and executive partner

• Carol Beier of Topeka, Kansas: $1,000; not employed

• Carrie Davis of Woodside, California: $1,000; Coldwell Banker; Realtor

• Charese Dakhil of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; self-employed physician

• Gregory Harness of Fargo, North Dakota: $1,000; retired

• Harold Linde of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; self-employed landlord

• Joe Goetz of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin: $1,000; retired

• John Dossett of Portland, Oregon: $1,000; self-employed attorney

• Jordan Kahn of Wellesley, Massachusetts: $1,000; retired

• Lisa Tatum of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; BUTL; educator

• Mark Meyers of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Koch; attorney

• Marq Sams of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; self-employed dentist

• Marti Ammar of New York, New York: $1,000; self-employed investor

• Roarke Gordon of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch LLC; attorney

• Robert Coykendall of Haysville, Kansas: $1,000; not employed

• Roger Eastwood of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• Scott Wise of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; not employed

• T. Anthony Lindsey of Huntersville, North Carolina: $1,000; self-employed

• Thomas Smith of Lostine, Oregon: $1,000; not employed

• Tom Kitch of Tempe, Arizona: $1,000; self-employed; law

• William Bradley of Overland Park, Kansas: $1,000; not employed

• William Darrah of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Darrah Oil; oil-and-gas producer

For donors whose itemized transactions did not capture all earlier contributions, the amount shown uses the cumulative total reported to the FEC.

Where Tyndell’s Money Went

Tyndell spent most heavily on building the machinery needed to raise more money, shape the campaign’s message and deliver it to voters. Fundraising services alone consumed nearly 30% of the budget. When strategy, management and social-media work are added, those professional campaign operations accounted for 56.3% of all spending.

• The campaign’s largest expense—fundraising services: $47,902.72, or 29.7%

• Strategy and campaign direction—strategic consulting, campaign management and social-media services: $43,000, or 26.6%

• Putting the message in voters’ hands—campaign literature, printing, postage, signs, apparel and related reimbursements: $35,429.48, or 21.9%

• The campaign’s digital backbone—database services, campaign software and credit-card processing: $22,453.79, or 13.9%

• Keeping the reports and rules in order—compliance services: $7,500, or 4.6%

• Events and travel—catering, event tickets, air travel, vehicle rental and booth fees: $2,974.49, or 1.8%

• Getting onto the ballot—candidate filing-fee reimbursement: $1,760, or 1.1%

• Other operating expenditures not separately itemized on Schedule B: $538.01, or 0.3%

The itemized Schedule B records account for $161,020.48 of Tyndell’s $161,558.49 in operating expenditures. The remaining $538.01 is included in the campaign’s total spending but is not broken into individual transactions in the reviewed Schedule B records.

Reimbursements were counted once at the amount paid to the person being reimbursed. The subordinate entries showing the purchases covered by those reimbursements were used to understand what the money purchased but were not added a second time.

These spending categories are analytical groupings based on the purposes and vendors reported by the campaign. Because the displayed percentages are rounded to one decimal place, they may not add to exactly 100%.ee contributions, no candidate loan and no committee debt. ActBlue was a conduit and payment processor, not the source of the routed individual contributions. The July 23 Way Back PAC notice is the first direct PAC receipt identified after that report.

Ron Estes for Congress

Estes entered the 2025–2026 cycle with nearly $1.2 million already in the bank. Between January 1, 2025, and July 15, 2026, his campaign received another $1.86 million, spent $1.3 million and increased its cash reserve to more than $1.75 million.

Most of the campaign’s new contributions did not come from individuals. PACs and other political committees supplied $1.09 million—77.8% of all contributions—while individuals supplied 22.2%. The campaign also received $382,768.49 transferred from Team Estes, its joint fundraising committee. (Federal Election Commission [FEC], 2026).

Full-Period Financial Position

• Reporting window: January 1, 2025–July 15, 2026

• Cash carried into the cycle: $1,198,276.04

• All money received: $1,855,034.98

• Contributions received: $1,401,947.75

• Individual and other-person contributions: $311,847.75, or 22.2% of contributions

• Itemized individual and other-person contributions: $302,756.29

• Smaller, unitemized contributions: $9,091.46

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $1,090,100, or 77.8% of contributions

• Contributions from Estes: $0

• Transfers from Team Estes: $382,768.49

• Candidate loans: $0

• Other loans: $0

• Operating-expenditure offsets: $3,297.61

• Other receipts: $67,021.13

• Money spent on campaign operations: $910,141.90

• Other disbursements, including political and charitable contributions: $384,650

• Contribution refunds: $841.79

• Total money disbursed: $1,295,633.69

• Cash remaining on July 15: $1,757,677.33

• Debt owed by the campaign: $0

• Debt owed to the campaign: $0

The processed FEC summary classifies a returned $2,500 political contribution as an operating-expenditure offset rather than an ordinary receipt. That classification changes the division between offsets and other receipts but does not change the $1,855,034.98 total.

Full-Period Donor Geography

The analysis accounted for all $302,756.29 in itemized contributions reported on Line 11(a)(i). After obvious name variations were consolidated, the records identified 175 people and three tribal organizations, for 178 disclosed contributors.

Kansas supplied just over half of the itemized money.

Geographic Breakdown

• The Kansas base: 90 contributors supplied $151,695.29, or 50.1%

• Known out-of-state support: 87 contributors supplied $150,561, or 49.7%

• Location not reported: one contributor supplied $500, or 0.2%

• Complete disclosed network: 178 contributors supplied $302,756.29

Contributions by State

• Kansas led with $151,695.29, or 50.1%

• The District of Columbia supplied $32,251, or 10.7%

• Virginia supplied $29,250, or 9.7%

• New York supplied $18,000, or 5.9%

• California supplied $15,500, or 5.1%

• Florida supplied $11,500, or 3.8%

• Arizona supplied $7,000, or 2.3%

• New Jersey supplied $7,000, or 2.3%

• Missouri supplied $6,500, or 2.1%

• Minnesota supplied $5,300, or 1.8%

• South Carolina supplied $3,500, or 1.2%

• Ohio supplied $3,000, or 1%

• Nevada supplied $2,500, or 0.8%

• Maryland supplied $2,000, or 0.7%

• Colorado supplied $1,600, or 0.5%

• Iowa supplied $1,000, or 0.3%

• South Dakota supplied $1,000, or 0.3%

• Texas supplied $1,000, or 0.3%

• North Carolina supplied $850, or 0.3%

• Rhode Island supplied $500, or 0.2%

• Louisiana supplied $400, or 0.1%

• Tennessee supplied $400, or 0.1%

• Nebraska supplied $260, or 0.1%

• Mississippi supplied $250, or 0.1%

• One contributor with no reported location supplied $500, or 0.2%

These figures do not include the people behind $9,091.46 in unitemized contributions, the $1.09 million from PACs and other committees, or the $382,768.49 transferred from Team Estes.

Full-Period Donor Occupations and Employers

Business owners, executives and corporate employees formed Estes’s largest direct-contributor category. Retired and nonworking donors placed second, followed by donors connected to law, government, lobbying and public policy.

Contributions by Filing-Declared Occupation and Employer

• Business, executive and corporate: $93,274.25 from 51 contributors, or 30.8%

• Retired, unemployed or not employed: $54,801.04 from 29 contributors, or 18.1%

• Legal, government and public policy: $49,351 from 30 contributors, or 16.3%

• Finance, real estate and investment: $22,110 from 24 contributors, or 7.3%

• Health care and medical: $19,050 from seven contributors, or 6.3%

• Other or unclear: $18,500 from 15 contributors, or 6.1%

• Consulting, advocacy and nonprofit: $14,120 from 10 contributors, or 4.7%

• Tribal governments and organizations: $11,000 from three contributors, or 3.6%

• Energy, environment, agriculture and natural resources: $10,750 from four contributors, or 3.6%

• Technology and systems: $6,000 from three contributors, or 2%

• Military, defense and aerospace: $3,800 from two contributors, or 1.3%

These are analytical groupings based on the free-text occupation and employer information reported by the campaign. They are not classifications created by the FEC.

Direct Contributors Who Gave at Least $1,000

One hundred direct contributors reached at least $1,000 during the covered period. Ten reached $7,000. This list covers contributions made directly to Ron Estes for Congress; it does not include PAC contributions or money given through Team Estes.

• Ben Chouake of Englewood, New Jersey: $7,000; Transystems; physician

• David L. Murfin of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Murfin Inc.; chairman and CEO

• Janet Murfin of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; homemaker

• Jeffrey Turner of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; retired

• Matt Lowen of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Lowen Corp.; executive

• Phillip Near of Andover, Kansas: $7,000; Jump Start Stores; owner

• Rhonda Turner of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Transystems; therapist

• Robert K. Casper of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; POET; renewable fuels

• Stephen L. Clark of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Clark Investment Group; retired

• Tim D. Nordell of Sedan, Kansas: $7,000; retired

• Kirsten Chadwick of Alexandria, Virginia: $6,000; Fierce Government Relations; consultant

• Christopher Hatcher of Arlington, Virginia: $5,500; Williams & Jensen PLLC; attorney

• Morongo Band of Mission Indians Tribal Operations Account of Banning, California: $5,500

• Jacob Triolo of Washington, D.C.: $5,300; Capitol Tax Partners; lobbyist

• Charles Chandler of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; INTRUST Bank; executive

• Gary Lundy of Pittsburg, Kansas: $5,000; Watco; executive

• Gholam Mujtaba of Corona, New York: $5,000; Day & Midnight Stores Inc.; CEO, as reported

• Jonathan Lewin of Miami Beach, Florida: $5,000; CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc.; software

• Tim Welsh of Saint Paul, Minnesota: $5,000; CCC Intelligent Solutions; president

• Christopher Javens of Washington, D.C.: $4,500; Capitol Tax Partners LLP; consultant

• Carey R. Maurer of Wichita, Kansas: $4,074.25; B&C Creations; owner

• Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians of Santa Ynez, California: $4,000

• Geraldine Jabara of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• Greg Nickerson of Johns Island, South Carolina: $3,500; Washington Tax Group; consultant

• Harvey F.G. Jabara of Scottsdale, Arizona: $3,500; Olive Management LLC; managing member

• James Gilbaugh of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; self-employed physician

• Kent Walker of Mountain View, California: $3,500; Google LLC; president

• Lawrence Golub of New York, New York: $3,500; Golub Capital; chief executive officer

• Marilyn Hebenstreit of Kansas City, Missouri: $3,500; retired

• Melissa M. Jabara of Scottsdale, Arizona: $3,500; homemaker

• Michael K. Torrey of Arlington, Virginia: $3,500; Michael Torrey and Associates; consultant

• Michael Saltzman of Brooklyn, New York: $3,500; EvolutionIQ; occupation information requested

• Patrick Goebel of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Star Lumber; CEO

• Scott Redler of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Redler Hospitality; restaurateur

• Todd Lair of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; LTC; manager

• John O’Neill of Wichita, Kansas: $3,300; Omni Aerospace Inc.; business owner

• Cheryl Near of Andover, Kansas: $3,000; owner

• Donna Nordell of Sedan, Kansas: $3,000; occupation and employer information requested

• Lori Ziebart of Fort Lauderdale, Florida: $3,000; Energy Infrastructure Council; CEO

• Tim McGivern of Washington, D.C.: $3,000; OGR; lobbyist

• Justin Sok of Washington, D.C.: $2,750; Rich Feuer Anderson; government-affairs consultant

• Cecilia Curbelo of Miami, Florida: $2,500; Marked by Ceci; principal

• Fatih Ozmen of Sparks, Nevada: $2,500; occupation and employer information requested

• L. Rodger Currie of Washington, D.C.: $2,500; Bristol Myers Squibb; senior vice president for U.S. policy and government

• L. Nicole Currie of Washington, D.C.: $2,500; Amgen Inc.; executive director of government affairs

• Warren Payne of Alexandria, Virginia: $2,500; Mayer Brown; consultant

• Susan Lundy of Pittsburg, Kansas: $2,100; homemaker

• Becky Clark of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; retired

• Brad Elliott of Wichita, Kansas: $2,000; Equity Bancshares; CEO

• David Olander of Clifton, Virginia: $2,000; Capitol Counsel LLC; attorney

• John Federico of Topeka, Kansas: $2,000; Leadership Kansas; executive director

• Karan Bhatia of Washington, D.C.: $2,000; Google; vice president of government affairs

• Richard B. Webb of Pittsburg, Kansas: $2,000; Watco; executive

• Carol Katzman of Overland Park, Kansas: $1,800; retired

• Caroline Harris of Washington, D.C.: $1,500; CTP; partner

• David Camp of Washington, Missouri: $1,500; 162 Strategies; attorney

• Justin T. Binns of Aurora, Ohio: $1,500; occupation and employer information requested

• Karissa Dugan of Goddard, Kansas: $1,500; homemaker

• Michael Monteferrante of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; Envision; CEO

• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians of Los Angeles, California: $1,500

• Tucker C. Shumack of Arlington, Virginia: $1,500; OGR; lobbyist

• John Isenberg of Prairie Village, Kansas: $1,340; retired

• Adam Nordstrom of Arlington, Virginia: $1,000; Viking Navigation LLC; principal

• Alan Hackman of New York, New York: $1,000; Intercolor USA; owner

• Allen J. Mistysyn of Richfield, Ohio: $1,000; occupation and employer information requested

• Bonnie Siegel of Leawood, Kansas: $1,000; ASE Group Inc.; owner

• Brian Glackin of Washington, D.C.: $1,000; Brian Glackin & Associates LLC; consultant

• Brian Sutter of Alexandria, Virginia: $1,000; Capitol Hill Consulting Group; senior vice president

• D. Gene Dikeman II of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Bank of the Plains; president and CEO

• Elisabeth Kensinger of Topeka, Kansas: $1,000; homemaker

• Emanuel Rossman of McLean, Virginia: $1,000; Harbinger Strategies; partner

• Frank Friedman of Leawood, Kansas: $1,000; LPFS; finance

• Fred Berry of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Berry Companies; CEO

• G. Mark Mickelson of Sioux Falls, South Dakota: $1,000; Mickelson & Co.; president

• Irvin Robinson of Naples, Florida: $1,000; retired

• James Meltsner of Washington, D.C.: $1,000; self-employed attorney

• Jeff McMillen of Fairfax: $1,000; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; attorney; state reported as District of Columbia

• Joseph Ambalu of New York, New York: $1,000; Amba Gem Corporation; owner

• Korb Maxwell II of Mission Hills, Kansas: $1,000; Polsinelli; shareholder

• Lawrence Willcox of Bethesda, Maryland: $1,000; Capitol Tax Partners; lawyer

• Lisa Ritchie of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; homemaker

• Mark Warren of Washington, D.C.: $1,000; Brownstein; attorney

• Matt McAvoy of Overland Park, Kansas: $1,000; Ash Brokerage; partner

• Melory Tsipouria of Chula Vista, California: $1,000; PB Cleaners; owner

• Michael Downing of Clive, Iowa: $1,000; Athene; actuary

• Michael Gad of New York, New York: $1,000; Michael Gad Emerald; owner

• Michael Gortenburg of Leawood, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• Michelle Dimarob of Alexandria, Virginia: $1,000; Surround Sound Strategies LLC; founder

• Paul Attwater of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Morgan Stanley; financial adviser

• Sage Eatman of Alexandria, Virginia: $1,000; Mehlman Consulting; lobbyist

• Sam Olswanger of Washington, D.C.: $1,000; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; senior policy adviser

• Santo Catanese of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Investment Resources Corp.; real estate

• Scott Ritchie of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Ritchie Exploration Inc.; president

• Scott Sparks of Denver, Colorado: $1,000; self-employed; life insurance

• Siamak Ijadi of New York, New York: $1,000; Ijadi Gem Inc.; owner

• Steven F. Suellentrop of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Legacy Bank; president and CEO

• William Davis of Arlington, Virginia: $1,000; Capitol Tax Partners; partner

• William Hakimi of Great Neck, New York: $1,000; A Harimi & Sons; owner

• William S. Clifford of Garden City, Kansas: $1,000; Fry Eye Associates; physician

• Zach Price of Washington, D.C.: $1,000; Washington Tax Group; consultant

PAC and Other Political-Committee Support

The campaign received $1,090,100 from 297 PACs and other political committees. That money represented 77.8% of all contributions received during the period.

Twenty-one committees reached $10,000:

• Airbus Group Inc. PAC

• American College of Cardiology PAC

• American Council of Engineering Companies PAC

• American Revival PAC

• American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries PAC

• Buckeye Liberty PAC

• Fidelity PAC

• Garmin International Inc. PAC

• Google LLC NetPAC

• Help Elect Republicans Now

• Lockton Inc. Political Action Committee

• Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. PAC

• Mr. Southern Missourian in the House PAC

• NAIOP-PAC

• National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors PAC

• National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives PAC

• National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association RockPAC

• Seaboard Corporation PAC

• Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America PAC

• Boeing Company PAC

• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s Action Committee for Rural Electrification

Those 21 committees supplied $210,000. The remaining 276 PACs and political committees supplied $880,100.

Where Estes’s Money Went

Estes’s two largest spending priorities were nearly equal. The campaign spent $384,650 making political and charitable contributions and $382,560.94 on fundraising consultants. Together, those two categories consumed 59.2% of all disbursements.

• Political and charitable contributions: $384,650, or 29.7% of total spending

• Fundraising consulting: $382,560.94, or 29.5%

• Travel, meals and events: $131,800.06, or 10.2%

• Advertising, media and content production: $128,857.51, or 9.9%

• Staff, payroll and payroll taxes: $99,312.60, or 7.7%

• Compliance, legal services, software and taxes: $63,759.86, or 4.9%

• Office, technology and administrative overhead: $38,825.28, or 3%

• Printing, postage and campaign materials: $28,441.61, or 2.2%

• Digital tools and transaction fees: $25,736.80, or 2%

• Other or unclassified operating costs: $9,232.67, or 0.7%

• Operating expenditures not separately itemized: $1,614.57, or 0.1%

• Contribution refunds: $841.79, or 0.1%

Of the $384,650 in political and charitable giving, $320,000 went to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Another $60,150 went to Republican organizations, candidate committees and political groups. The remaining $4,500 was reported as charitable giving.

The operating-expenditure categories account for all $910,141.90 in reported campaign operations. Credit-card payments and reimbursements were counted once at the amount paid, with the underlying memo entries used to determine what the money purchased.

Team Estes

Team Estes is not Estes’s principal campaign committee. It is a joint fundraising committee that collects money and distributes net proceeds among participating Republican committees. Its current FEC-listed participants include Ron Estes for Congress, the Kansas Republican Party, the National Republican Congressional Committee and Restoring Our Nation PAC (Federal Election Commission [FEC], 2026).

That legal structure explains the committee’s spending. Team Estes received $612,032.08 during the current cycle and transferred $573,321.77—94.5% of everything it spent—to Republican committees.

Full-Period Financial Position

• Reporting window: January 1, 2025–June 30, 2026

• Cash carried into the cycle: $5,845.17

• All money received: $612,032.08

• Total contributions: $612,032.08

• Individual and other-person contributions: $607,532.08, or 99.26% of contributions

• Itemized individual and other-person contributions: $606,827.08

• Smaller, unitemized contributions: $705

• PAC contributions: $4,500, or 0.74% of contributions

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• Transfers received: $0

• Loans received: $0

• Other receipts: $0

• Operating expenditures: $29,759.10

• Transfers to participating or affiliated committees: $573,321.77

• Contribution refunds: $3,500

• Total money disbursed: $606,580.87

• Cash remaining on June 30: $11,296.38

• Debt owed by the committee: $0

• Debt owed to the committee: $0

The $607,532.08 in individual and other-person contributions is the amount donors gave to the joint fundraising committee. It is not the amount ultimately retained by Estes’s candidate committee. Team Estes deducted operating expenses and divided the remaining money among recipient committees.

Full-Period Donor Geography

The analysis accounted for all $606,827.08 in itemized contributions and identified 99 people and four organizations, for 103 disclosed contributors.

Team Estes was much more geographically concentrated than the candidate committee. Nearly four of every five itemized dollars came from Kansas.

Geographic Breakdown

• The Kansas base: 91 contributors supplied $484,227.08, or 79.8%

• Known out-of-state support: 11 contributors supplied $120,100, or 19.8%

• Location not reported: one contributor supplied $2,500, or 0.4%

• Complete disclosed network: 103 contributors supplied $606,827.08

Contributions by State

• Kansas dominated the committee with $484,227.08, or 79.8%

• Missouri supplied $42,500, or 7%

• Virginia supplied $39,500, or 6.5%

• Colorado supplied $26,500, or 4.4%

• New Jersey supplied $11,100, or 1.8%

• Florida supplied $500, or 0.1%

• One contributor with no reported location supplied $2,500, or 0.4%

These figures do not identify the people behind $705 in unitemized contributions and do not include the committee’s three PAC contributors.

Full-Period Donor Occupations and Employers

Business owners and corporate executives supplied more than two-fifths of Team Estes’s itemized money. Retired and nonworking donors supplied another 26.3%. Together, those two groups accounted for more than two-thirds of the committee’s disclosed individual and other-person contributions.

Contributions by Filing-Declared Occupation and Employer

• Business, executive and corporate: $255,373.62 from 36 contributors, or 42.1%

• Retired, unemployed or not employed: $159,833 from 30 contributors, or 26.3%

• Finance, real estate and investment: $49,000 from 10 contributors, or 8.1%

• Health care and medical: $36,000 from four contributors, or 5.9%

• Energy, environment, agriculture and natural resources: $31,500 from six contributors, or 5.2%

• Other or unclear: $31,100 from 11 contributors, or 5.1%

• Technology and systems: $28,500 from two contributors, or 4.7%

• Military, defense and aerospace: $10,000 from one contributor, or 1.6%

• Legal, government and public policy: $5,520.46 from three contributors, or 0.9%

These are analytical groupings based on the occupation and employer information reported by the committee. They are not FEC classifications.

Team Estes Contributors Who Gave at Least $1,000

Ninety-four of Team Estes’s 103 disclosed contributors gave at least $1,000. The figures below are gross contributions to the joint fundraising committee across 2025 and 2026, not the portion ultimately transferred to Estes’s campaign.

• Neal Bough of Stockton, Missouri: $30,000; Neals Construction LLC; construction

• Allen Bird of Arlington, Virginia: $27,000; MA Traders; CEO

• David Pham of Lone Tree, Colorado: $26,500; self-employed physician

• Sandlian Realty of Wichita, Kansas: $25,000

• Ivan E. Crossland Jr. of Columbus, Kansas: $15,000; Crossland Construction; CEO

• Rezaul A. Chowdhury of Wichita, Kansas: $15,000; DJ Engineering; CEO

• Scott Foote of Hoxie, Kansas: $15,000; Foote Cattle Company; self-employed

• Thomas Ward of Mission Hills, Kansas: $15,000; retired

• Rodney Steven of Wichita, Kansas: $13,500; owner of Genesis Health Clubs

• Ann Konecny of Kansas City, Missouri: $12,500; Foley Equipment; executive

• Janet Schwindaman of Goddard, Kansas: $12,500; homemaker

• Paul Konecny of Mission Hills, Kansas: $12,500; retired

• Scott Schwindaman of Goddard, Kansas: $12,500; retired

• Carl Harris of Newton, Kansas: $10,413.73; Carl Harris Co.; construction

• Alan Lieber of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; Washer Specialties; president

• Ann Marie Ross of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; homemaker

• Barry L. Downing of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; Northrock Inc.; president

• C.A. Lieber of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; Washer Specialties Co.; president

• Dennis L. Ross of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; retired

• Dianne Owen Graham of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; Graham Advisors; president

• Don Klausmeyer of Clearwater, Kansas: $10,000; Klausmeyer Construction; owner

• Donald J. McGinty of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; reported as retired and as a president and owner

• Eric Teasdale of Leesburg, Virginia: $10,000; BetterUp; general manager

• James E. Lee of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; Lee Aerospace Inc.; owner

• Marty Cornejo of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; retired

• Steven R. Sutherland of Wichita, Kansas: $10,000; National Plastics Color Inc.; president

• Nicholas K. Powell of Mission Hills, Kansas: $8,500; Colt Energy Inc.; executive chairman

• Adam Beren of Wichita, Kansas: $7,500; Berexco; CEO and president

• Ellen Ginsburg-Beren of Wichita, Kansas: $7,500; homemaker

• James Fouts of Goddard, Kansas: $7,500; Tanganyika Wildlife Park; zoo director

• Ken Ogdon of Wichita, Kansas: $7,500; OFG Financial Services Inc.; financial adviser

• Timothy Buchanan of Wichita, Kansas: $7,291.98; Legend Senior Living; CEO

• Robert Babst of Wichita, Kansas: $7,146.15; Metal Finishing Co. Inc.; CEO

• Brandon Steven of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Brandon Steven Motors; president

• Bruce Davison of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Strategic Financial Concepts Inc.; financial-services firm owner

• Christopher Mitchell of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; ICM Ventures Inc.; administration

• Ellen Beren of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; homemaker

• Walter Berry of Wichita, Kansas: $7,000; Berry Companies; businessman

• Jeffrey T. Arensdorf of Wichita, Kansas: $6,041.98; Village Travel; CEO

• Jim Garvey of Wichita, Kansas: $5,250; retired

• Charlie Chandler of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; occupation and employer information requested

• Craig Nelson of Rose Hill, Kansas: $5,000; Conco Construction; general contractor

• David Dishman of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; retired

• David J. VanderGriend of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; ICM Inc.; CEO

• Dianne Dishman of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; retired

• Gary T. Mason of Maize, Kansas: $5,000; ISI Environmental; engineer

• Karma L. Mason of Maize, Kansas: $5,000; retired

• Katherine Kirk of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; occupation and employer information requested

• Marla Chandler of Wichita, Kansas: $5,000; homemaker

• Mark Esfeld of Wichita, Kansas: $4,688.13; Top Notch Personnel Inc.; president

• Steven Anderson of Wichita, Kansas: $4,541.02; retired

• John Lohnes of Wichita, Kansas: $4,500; Sunstates Custard Management; CEO

• Bart Miller of Overland Park, Kansas: $3,646.15; Centrinex; CEO

• Clark Investment Group of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; later refunded

• D. Craig Nelson of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Broe Group; general contractor

• Daniel Taylor of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• Fadi Badin of Woodland Park, New Jersey: $3,500; Direct Meds; CFO

• James Gilbaugh of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; self-employed physician

• Michelle Breault of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; retired

• Patrick Goebel of Wichita, Kansas: $3,500; Star Lumber; CEO

• Thomas P. Ragukonis of Paramus, New Jersey: $3,500; self-employed physician

• Korb Maxwell II of Mission Hills, Kansas: $3,487.40; Polsinelli; attorney

• Bill Maness of Leawood, Kansas: $2,604.48; Syndeo Outsourcing; CEO

• Ben Chouake of Englewood, New Jersey: $2,500; Transystems; physician

• Craig Stevens of Warrenton, Virginia: $2,500; retired

• Dana Anderson of Lawrence, Kansas: $2,500; retired

• Don McGinty of Wichita, Kansas: $2,500; McGinty Machines; president and owner

• Joyce Ogdon of Wichita, Kansas: $2,500; occupation and employer information requested

• Sarah Friesen, location not reported: $2,500; occupation and employer information requested

• Sherri L. Fouts of Goddard, Kansas: $2,500; homemaker

• John David Langford of Leawood, Kansas: $2,000; retired

• Abraham Kazmir of Closter, New Jersey: $1,600; student

• S&S Investments of Haysville, Kansas: $1,500

• Sierra P. Scott of Wichita, Kansas: $1,500; KPTS; television news anchor

• Lisa Ritchie of Wichita, Kansas: $1,041.98; homemaker

• Chris McGowne of Hays, Kansas: $1,033.06; McGowne Law; attorney

• Coleen Tabor of Andover, Kansas: $1,000; Envision; administration

• David Bleakley of Mission Hills, Kansas: $1,000; Colt Energy Inc.; executive vice president

• Fred Berry of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Berry Companies; CEO

• Helen VanEtten of Topeka, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• Janet Murfin of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; homemaker

• Kay M. McCollom of Augusta, Kansas: $1,000; occupation and employer information requested

• Kevin Allam of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; oil-and-gas producer; president

• Laham Development Company LLC of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000

• Lonny Bruce of McPherson, Kansas: $1,000; Bruce Oil LLC; owner

• Mark Kahrs of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Kahrs Law Offices PA; lawyer

• Michael Monteferrante of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Envision Inc.; CEO

• Michaelis A. Matthew of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Emprise Bank; bank executive and CEO, name as reported

• Scott Hatchett of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Hatchett Devlin Automotive Group; president

• Steven F. Suellentrop of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Legacy Bank; president and CEO

• Suzanne Berry of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• Teri Monteferrante of Andover, Kansas: $1,000; Flint Hills Realty; real-estate agent

• Terrence P. Dunn of Leawood, Kansas: $1,000; retired

• William L. Murfin of Wichita, Kansas: $1,000; Murfin Inc.; manager

Direct PAC Contributions

Team Estes also received $4,500 from three PACs:

• Agricultural Retailers Association PAC: $2,500

• National Utility Contractors Association Legislative Information and Action Committee: $1,000

• Performance Contracting Group Employee Owners PAC: $1,000

Where Team Estes’s Money Went

Team Estes operated primarily as a collection and distribution mechanism. Transfers to Republican committees consumed 94.5% of all spending.

• Transfers to participating and affiliated committees: $573,321.77, or 94.5%

• Digital fundraising tools and transaction fees: $13,908.28, or 2.3%

• Compliance services, legal work and software: $9,468.13, or 1.6%

• Fundraising consulting: $4,296.18, or 0.7%

• Refund of a corporate contribution: $3,500, or 0.6%

• Event food and beverages: $1,600, or 0.3%

• Operating expenditures not separately itemized: $486.51, or 0.1%

The $573,321.77 in transfers was distributed as follows:

• Ron Estes for Congress: $382,768.49

• Restoring Our Nation PAC: $101,054.13

• National Republican Congressional Committee: $48,909.32

• Keep Kansas Red PAC: $39,644.44

• Kansas Republican Party: $945.39

Ron Estes for Congress therefore received 66.8% of Team Estes’s transfers and 63.1% of the joint committee’s total spending. The remaining money went to other Republican organizations or paid the costs of raising and distributing the funds.

Vote Frank McCollum

Vote Frank McCollum registered April 27 with committee ID C00948455. The statement of organization names Kodie McCollum Unruh as treasurer and custodian of records. In a July 9 miscellaneous filing, the committee stated: “We have not raised or spent $5000 during this quarter.” No regular current-cycle report establishing receipts, cash, debt, spending or personal financing was located through July 29 (Federal Election Commission, 2026h, 2026i).

The absence of a regular report does not by itself establish a violation; federal reporting duties can depend on thresholds and filing status. A July 28 notice for a committee called McCollum for Congress belonged to Minnesota committee C00354688 and is unrelated to Frank McCollum’s Kansas campaign.

Drew Cranmer for Congress

Cranmer’s principal campaign committee registered April 27. Its FEC record did not contain a regular 2025–2026 financial report or summary through July 29.

There are therefore no federally verified totals for receipts, cash, debt, spending or personal funding. That absence alone does not establish a violation (Federal Election Commission, 2026j).

The uploaded filings did not document independent expenditures or other outside spending in this race. None has been added to candidate or joint-fundraising totals.

What Voters Are Deciding

The Democratic primary focuses on which candidate’s résumé can credibly challenge Republicans in a district held since 1995.

Carmichael’s strength is his three decades in military command and logistics, including a government-facing aerospace supply chain role. While relevant, this experience presents his main accountability test. Voters need clear answers on any equity or deferred compensation he holds at D-J Engineering, whether he would leave the company, and how he would handle federal decisions impacting his employer and its customers.

Tyndell’s background emphasizes law and institutions, covering tribal policy, violence prevention, and business management, alongside a call for Congress to reclaim authority over war and tariffs. Her financial disclosure, more comprehensive than a campaign biography, reveals details about her assets, management roles, and earnings. This transparency prompts further questions: which business roles would she relinquish, what would she divest, and how would she manage votes affecting oil, gas, property, and manufacturing? Her leadership of a politically active 501(c)(4) also raises a transparency concern, as the organization’s public pages do not identify its donors.

The Republican choice is more straightforward. Estes benefits from seniority, his chairmanship of a Social Security subcommittee, work on tax and aerospace policy, a formal Farm Bureau endorsement, and a political organization built over five election cycles. However, his incumbency also provides grounds for criticism. Voters can scrutinize his electoral objection, significant domestic-policy votes, record of supporting Trump, and the recurring criticism that he does not participate in enough open local forums.

McCollum’s challenge is most potent as an indictment of current issues: high prices, Congress’s surrender of authority, presidents imposing tariffs and waging wars, and growing national debt. His weakness lies in bridging the gap between diagnosis and legislative solutions. His campaign has not outlined which programs he would cut, how his plans would pass, or his stance on several of the district’s largest federal issues.

Cranmer, waiting beyond the primaries, offers the most sweeping proposal: decentralize power from Washington, end undeclared wars, and return major responsibilities to states and local governments. While his platform is specific on surveillance, war powers, and federalism, it leaves substantial gaps on agriculture, federal benefits, immigration, and other programs that affect the district daily.

Democrats must decide which candidate can effectively connect professional experience to household costs and public trust. Republicans must determine whether Estes’ influence outweighs the criticisms associated with his record. These decisions will shape a general election in a district where a congressional vote can quickly impact an aircraft plant, a hospital, a farm, a classroom, or a family budget.

References

1. Census Reporter.

   1. 2024a: Congressional District 4, Kansas profile

   2. 2024b: American Community Survey voting-age, citizenship, race and ethnicity tables

   3. 2024c: American Community Survey employment by industry table B24030

2. Carmichael, C. (2024). D-J Engineering at the 2024 U.S. Air Force Contracting Summit

3. Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground. (2026). Official campaign website

4. Club for Growth. (2026). Ron Estes legislative scorecard

5. Congress.gov.

   1. 2021: H.R. 1448, PAWS for Veterans Therapy Act

   2. 2026: H.R. 7520, Efficiency Adjustment Delay Act

6. D-J Engineering.

   1. 2026a: Company history and background

   2. 2026b: Company capabilities

   3. 2026c: AS9100 certification scope

7. Drew Cranmer for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

8. Federal Election Commission.

   1. 2026a: Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground pre-primary report

   2. 2026b: Katy for Kansas committee records and current-cycle totals

   3. 2026c: Katy for Kansas July 23 48-hour contribution notice

   4. 2026d: Katy for Kansas July 25 48-hour contribution notice

   5. 2026e: Ron Estes for Congress pre-primary report

   6. 2026f: Team Estes statement of organization

   7. 2026g: Team Estes second-quarter report

   8. 2026h: Vote Frank McCollum July 9 miscellaneous filing

   9. 2026i: Vote Frank McCollum committee records

   10. 2026j: Drew Cranmer for Congress committee records

   11. 2026k: Chris Carmichael Building Common Ground 2025 year-end report

   12. 2026l: Ron Estes for Congress committee records and cycle totals

   13. 2026m: Team Estes committee records, cycle totals and transactions

   14. 2026n: Ron Estes for Congress July 24 48-hour contribution notice

   15. 2026o: Ron Estes for Congress July 26 48-hour contribution notice

   16. 2026p: Ron Estes for Congress July 28 48-hour contribution notice

   17. 2026q: Ron Estes for Congress July 29 amended first-quarter report

9. Givebutter. (2026). Leading Kansas fundraising page and tax-status information

10. Heritage Action. (2026). Ron Estes legislative scorecard

11. Hill Industry Partner Exchange. (2026). Chris Carmichael speaker profile

12. Kansas Farm Bureau. (2026). VOTE FBF endorsement of Ron Estes

13. Kansas Legislative Research Department. (2022). Ad Astra 2 congressional redistricting summary

14. Kansas Reflector.

    1. 2026a: Kansas Democrat bows out of 4th District race

    2. 2026b: Carmichael discusses Estes, Trump and the 4th District race

    3. 2026c: Kansas congressional candidates criticize the handling of the Iran war

15. Kansas Secretary of State.

    1. 2017: 2017 special election official results

    2. 2018a: 2018 primary election official results

    3. 2018b: 2018 general election official results

    4. 2020a: 2020 primary election official totals

    5. 2020b: 2020 general election official totals

    6. 2022a: 2022 primary election official totals

    7. 2022b: 2022 general election official totals

    8. 2024a: 2024 primary election official totals

    9. 2024b: 2024 general election official totals

    10. 2026a: Important election dates

    11. 2026b: Candidate filing information

16. Katy for Kansas. (2026). Official campaign website

17. KCUR.

    1. 2025: Kansas hospital advocates warn that Medicaid reductions will still hurt

    2. 2026: More than 10,000 Kansas children lose food assistance after the 2025 reconciliation law

    3. KMUW. (2026). Voter guide: U.S. Congressional 4th District candidates

18. KRPS. (2026). Southeast Kansas candidates focus on taxes and affordability

19. KWCH.

    1. 2025a: Out-of-state lawmakers hold Wichita town hall and criticize Kansas officeholders’ absence

    2. 2025b: Gov. Laura Kelly warns federal spending law will affect Kansas Medicaid, SNAP and the state budget

    3. 2026a: Kansas 4th District Democratic primary narrows to two active candidates

    4. 2026b: D-J Engineering provides components for the Artemis II rocket

    5. 2026c: Katy Tyndell announces campaign and criticizes Estes’ accessibility

20. Leading Kansas. (2026). Founders and leadership biographies

21. Libertarian National Committee. (2026). Drew Cranmer candidate profile

22. Libertarian Party of Kansas. (2026). Party nomination announcement

23. Office of U.S. Representative Ron Estes.

    1. 2021: Kansas representatives announce electoral-vote objections

    2. 2025a: HITS Act announcement

    3. 2025b: Unfair Tax Prevention Act announcement

    4. 2025c: Financing Our Energy Future Act announcement

    5. 2025d: Estes recaps district visits

    6. 2025e: Estes delivers House remarks supporting the 2025 reconciliation law

    7. 2026: Official congressional news archive

24. Ron Estes for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

25. Sedgwick County Election Office. (2026). Primary election notice of offices and candidates

26. Tyndell, K. (2022). Testimony concerning firearm relinquishment and domestic violence

27. U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). Contract announcement including D-J Engineering A-10 aircraft elevators

28. U.S. House Clerk.

    1. 2021a: Arizona electoral-vote objection, roll call 10

    2. 2021b: PRO Act, roll call 70

    3. 2021c: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, roll call 369

    4. 2022a: CHIPS and Science Act, roll call 404

    5. 2022b: Inflation Reduction Act, roll call 420

    6. 2022c: Respect for Marriage Act, roll call 513

    7. 2024a: Ukraine security supplemental, roll call 151

    8. 2024b: Israel security supplemental, roll call 152

    9. 2025a: Laken Riley Act, roll call 23

    10. 2025b: SAVE Act, roll call 102

    11. 2025c: Reconciliation measure H.R. 1, roll call 190

    12. 2026a: Ron Estes member profile

    13. 2026b: Katy Tyndell candidate financial disclosure

29. U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. (2025). 119th Congress subcommittee chairs

30. U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives. (2026). Daniel Robert Glickman congressional biography

31. USAspending.gov. (2026). D-J Engineering federal-award record

32. Vote Frank McCollum. (2026). Official campaign website

On August 4, Democratic voters in Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District will choose between U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids and progressive challenger Sarah Preu. Republicans will choose between former Shawnee City Council member Eric Jenkins and Army veteran Chase LaPorte. Libertarian Steven A. Hohe is already nominated for the November 3 general election.

Davids enters the race with eight years in Congress, influential committee assignments, national endorsements, and more than $1.72 million in campaign cash. However, she faces growing criticism from Democrats who believe she has moved too far toward the political center, citing her retreat from an apparent 2018 expression of support for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, her votes for both versions of the Laken Riley Act, her support for a 2026 funding package containing temporary Department of Homeland Security funding, her support for military assistance to Israel, her decision not to join a 2023 ceasefire resolution, substantial PAC and pro-Israel political support, and her refusal to support Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.

Preu is campaigning as a progressive alternative. Her platform includes Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, a $17 federal minimum wage, large-scale public-housing investment, stronger regulation of artificial intelligence, an arms embargo on Israel, and a broader federal response to climate change.

Jenkins brings decades of experience with the Army and Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with eight years in local office. LaPorte is campaigning as a military veteran, small-business owner, and political outsider. Hohe offers a Libertarian alternative centered on reducing federal power, taxation, and overseas military involvement.

District Snapshot

Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District, centered on suburban Johnson County, includes all of Anderson, Franklin, Johnson, and Miami counties, and part of Wyandotte County. This configuration combines cities like Overland Park, Olathe, Shawnee, Lenexa, Leawood, and Prairie Village with Ottawa, Paola, Garnett, other smaller communities, and rural areas. Portions of Kansas City, Bonner Springs, and Edwardsville add urban and industrial elements (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025).

The district’s current boundaries, established after the 2020 census, were implemented in 2022. The Republican-controlled Legislature enacted the Ad Astra 2 map, overriding Governor Laura Kelly’s veto, and the Kansas Supreme Court upheld it. The assigned census population was 734,470. Recent estimates place the population at approximately 754,087 across about 2,262 square miles (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2022; Rivera v. Schwab, 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024).

The district is wealthier and more educated than Kansas as a whole. Its estimated median household income is $101,317, with a per-capita income of $55,268, and a poverty rate of 6.8%. Approximately 95.8% of adults have completed high school, and 53.5% hold at least a bachelor’s degree. Homeowners occupy 69.5% of housing units. The district also includes an estimated 28,701 veterans, representing 4.9% of its adult civilian population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024).

The 2020 redistricting file recorded 556,362 voting-age residents:

• White alone: 443,750 (79.8%)

• Black alone: 25,240 (4.5%)

• Asian or Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander: 26,618 (4.8%)

• American Indian alone: 2,791 (0.5%)

• Some other race: 18,373 (3.3%)

• Two or more races: 39,590 (7.1%)

While Republicans hold a registration advantage, recent elections demonstrate that registration alone does not determine outcomes. In May 2026, the district had 222,264 registered Republicans (40.22%), 168,689 Democrats (30.52%), and 152,628 unaffiliated voters (27.61%). Other parties constituted less than 2% (Kansas Secretary of State, 2026b).

The district’s suburban core raises issues concerning housing costs, transportation, healthcare, education, technology, and professional employment. Its smaller cities and rural areas bring additional needs related to agriculture, broadband, small businesses, and infrastructure. The urban portion in Wyandotte County introduces questions about wages, immigration, housing, and public services. Candidates aim to represent all these diverse communities..

Election History

In 2018, Sharice Davids won a six-candidate Democratic primary with 37.34% of the vote before defeating Republican incumbent Kevin Yoder in the general election:

• Sharice Davids: 170,518 votes (53.57%)

• Kevin Yoder: 139,762 votes (43.91%)

• Libertarian Chris Clemmons: 8,021 votes (2.52%)

Davids’s 30,756-vote margin ended Republican control of the seat (Kansas Secretary of State, 2018a, 2018b).

She has since maintained her hold on the district with consistent margins. In 2020, Davids defeated Republican Amanda Adkins 220,049 to 178,773 (10.06 percentage points). Following redistricting, Davids again defeated Adkins in 2022, securing 165,527 votes compared to Adkins’s 128,839 (12.18-point margin) (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020b, 2022b).

In 2024, Davids defeated Republican Prasanth Reddy 209,871 to 167,570 (10.76 percentage points). Across all four general-election victories, Davids has consistently garnered between 53.36% and 54.94% of the vote .The current Democratic primary marks Davids’s first contested congressional primary since 2018; she ran unopposed for renomination in 2020, 2022, and 2024. (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024b)

Republican voters, however, have experienced more regular primary contests. Amanda Adkins won a five-candidate Republican primary with 30.64% in 2020. She then defeated John McCaughrean 77.23% to 22.77% in 2022. In 2024, Prasanth Reddy defeated Karen Crnkovich 53.06% to 46.94% (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020a, 2022a, 2024a).

Hohe is also a familiar figure in the district, having been the Libertarian congressional nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2022. He received 11,596 votes (2.83%) in 2020 and 6,928 votes (2.30%) in 2022. In 2024, he ran for Kansas House District 18, securing 4.45% of the vote (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020b, 2022b, 2024b; KCUR, 2026).

Democratic Candidates

Sharice Davids

Background and Experience
Sharice Davids, who entered Congress in 2019, previously worked as an attorney, economic-development professional, nonprofit leader, and White House Fellow. She holds degrees from Johnson County Community College, the University of Missouri–Kansas City (bachelor’s), and Cornell University (law).

An enrolled member of the Ho-Chunk Nation, Davids and Deb Haaland were the first two Native American women elected to Congress. Davids was also among the first two openly LGBTQ Native American members of Congress (U.S. House Historian, 2026; Sharice Davids for Congress, 2026).

Her campaign emphasizes her focus on lowering household costs, improving infrastructure, expanding manufacturing, protecting health coverage, and securing federal resources for her district. She supports abortion rights, LGBTQ protections, gun-safety laws, and clean-energy investment.

On immigration, Davids advocates for border enforcement, legal immigration pathways, and broader reform. While opposing mass deportation and family separation, she has supported legislation expanding mandatory detention for certain undocumented immigrants accused of crimes (Johnson County Post, 2026a; KMBC, 2018; Sharice Davids for Congress, 2026).

Legislative and Government Record
Davids serves on the House Agriculture Committee (conservation and research; commodities, risk management, and credit subcommittees) and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (aviation; highways-and-transit subcommittees). These assignments align with her district’s agricultural communities, roads, airports, and suburban transportation needs (U.S. House Clerk, 2026a; U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, 2025).

Her legislative record shows more success with targeted measures than with sweeping laws. Provisions from her CAREER Act, aiding individuals recovering from substance-use disorders, were incorporated into the SUPPORT Act, which became law in December 2025. Her SERV Act, improving Small Business Administration support for veteran entrepreneurs, passed the House in February 2025 but had not become law by July 28, 2026.

Davids also introduced bipartisan legislation with Republican Rep. Frank Lucas concerning tribal food distribution. Other proposals addressed employment flexibility for workers with disabilities and mental-health services for LGBTQ youth. The introduction or House passage of a bill does not guarantee its enactment into law (Congress.gov, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d, 2025e).

Selected Federal Voting History
A final-passage vote on large federal bills indicates a member’s stance on the entire measure, not necessarily agreement with every provision.

• March 10, 2021, H.R. 1319: Voted for the American Rescue Plan (Public Law 117-2) (U.S. House Clerk, 2021a).

• November 5, 2021, H.R. 3684: Voted for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) (U.S. House Clerk, 2021b).

• June 24, 2022, S. 2938: Voted for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Public Law 117-159) (U.S. House Clerk, 2022a).

• August 12, 2022, H.R. 5376: Voted for the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169) (U.S. House Clerk, 2022b).

• March 7, 2024, H.R. 7511: Voted for the first House version of the Laken Riley Act, which passed but did not become law (U.S. House Clerk, 2024a).

• April 20, 2024, H.R. 8035: Voted for a Ukraine security supplemental (part of Public Law 118-50) (U.S. House Clerk, 2024b).

• April 20, 2024, H.R. 8034: Voted for an Israel security supplemental (part of Public Law 118-50) (U.S. House Clerk, 2024c).

• January 22, 2025, S. 5: Voted for the revised Laken Riley Act (Public Law 119-1) (U.S. House Clerk, 2025a).

• April 10, 2025, H.R. 22: Voted against the SAVE Act and its documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal voter registration (U.S. House Clerk, 2025b).

• July 3, 2025, H.R. 1: Voted against the Republican tax and spending law (Public Law 119-21) (U.S. House Clerk, 2025c).

• February 3, 2026, H.R. 7148: Voted for a broad appropriations package including temporary Department of Homeland Security funding (one of 21 Democrats voting yes) (U.S. House Clerk, 2026b).

Her overall voting pattern is strongly Democratic on issues such as taxes, infrastructure, health care, climate, labor, and civil rights. Her votes on immigration and national security represent some of the clearest departures from the priorities of the party’s progressive wing.

Endorsements and Public Assessments
The LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and LGBTQ Equality PAC endorse Davids as a 2026 candidate.

Advocacy group scorecards further illustrate her voting alignment:

• League of Conservation Voters: 94% (2025) and 95% (lifetime)

• AFL-CIO: 100% (2025) and 99% (lifetime)

• Human Rights Campaign: 100% (118th Congress)

• Reproductive Freedom for All: 100% (2025)

• Heritage Action: 0% (119th Congress) and 3% (lifetime)

These scores do not offer a neutral evaluation of job performance, as each organization selects and weighs votes according to its specific priorities. However, taken together, they demonstrate that Davids’ voting record, while occasionally including bipartisan or enforcement-oriented votes, largely aligns with the priorities of labor, environmental, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ advocacy organizations (AFL-CIO, 2026; Heritage Action, 2026; Human Rights Campaign, 2024; League of Conservation Voters, 2026; LGBTQ Equality PAC, 2026; LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, 2026; Reproductive Freedom for All, 2026).

Controversies and Democratic Criticism
Criticism of Davids from within the Democratic Party centers on whether her political moderation, which helped her hold a formerly Republican district, has become an obstacle to addressing key issues such as immigration enforcement, healthcare costs, housing, climate change, and U.S. support for Israel.

Immigration and ICE
Davids’s history with ICE began with a disputed position during her first congressional campaign. In a 2018 interview, she appeared to agree when asked whether she supported defunding or abolishing the agency. She later clarified her remarks, stating she did not support abolishing ICE. Instead, she endorsed secure borders, lawful immigration pathways, and reforms intended to prevent family separation (KMBC, 2018).

Her congressional record has since moved firmly away from abolition. Davids voted for the March 2024 House version of the Laken Riley Act, joining 36 other Democrats, and supported the revised legislation again in January 2025.

The enacted law mandates federal detention of certain undocumented immigrants accused of specified crimes and grants states expanded authority to challenge federal immigration decisions. Critics argue that mandatory detention based solely on an arrest or accusation can deny due process to individuals who have not been convicted (U.S. House Clerk, 2024a, 2025a).

In February 2026, Davids was one of 21 Democrats who voted for H.R. 7148, a broader government-funding package that included temporary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. While the measure covered numerous departments and federal programs, it did continue DHS funding, including the federal immigration-enforcement system (U.S. House Clerk, 2026b).

Simultaneously, Davids has opposed particular detention projects, including CoreCivic’s detention operation in Leavenworth and a proposed 7,500-bed facility in south Kansas City. Supporters view these actions as an effort to distinguish border enforcement from private and excessively large detention facilities. Critics, however, see a contradiction between opposing detention centers near her district and supporting legislation that preserves the enforcement system, thereby creating demand for detention space (KCUR, 2026).

Israel, Gaza, and Pro-Israel Political Funding
In April 2024, Davids voted for H.R. 8034, a package providing approximately $26 billion for Israel and related humanitarian and regional assistance. Roughly $17 billion was allocated for Israeli military and missile-defense needs. The measure passed 366–58 and became part of Public Law 118-50 (U.S. House Clerk, 2024c).

She did not cosponsor H.Res. 786, the October 2023 resolution calling for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. This resolution had 18 Democratic cosponsors and did not receive a House vote. While not cosponsoring it is not equivalent to casting a vote against it, Davids declined to join that particular ceasefire effort (Congress.gov, 2023).

Her campaign’s acceptance of pro-Israel political funding has made these policy decisions more controversial. Campaign critics have categorized $36,504 from the previous election cycle as associated with AIPAC and $118,581 as coming from a broader collection of pro-Israel political sources. These are not official FEC funding categories and depend on how individual donors and committees are classified.

Federal records establish that Davids receives substantial support from PACs and other political committees, including those advocating stronger U.S.-Israel relations. A contribution documents financial support; it does not prove that the donor directed the recipient’s vote. Nevertheless, critics argue that accepting large amounts of interest-group money raises questions about access and independent judgment on military assistance and Gaza policy (Federal Election Commission, 2026a, 2026g).

Health Care and Progressive Priorities
Davids supports protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, reducing prescription-drug costs, and defending coverage for people with preexisting conditions. However, she has not supported replacing the existing system with Medicare for All.

Critics argue that her incremental approach keeps private insurers at the center of the healthcare system and does not guarantee care for every person. Supporters contend that building on the Affordable Care Act is more politically achievable and avoids forcing people from existing coverage arrangements (Sharice Davids for Congress, 2026).

Davids also did not join the congressional Green New Deal resolution. While her environmental score from the League of Conservation Voters remains high, and she supported the Inflation Reduction Act and federal clean-energy investment, critics on the left argue that these actions fall short of the structural response required by climate change.

The same tension appears across her record. Davids’s supporters describe bipartisanship and incremental legislation as necessary for representing a politically mixed district and producing results. Her critics, however, describe that approach as accepting limits imposed by corporate power, Republican opposition, and the existing political system.

Sarah Preu

Background and Experience
Sarah Preu, a technology and communications project manager, owns a technical communications business. Her professional background includes work with Siemens and Cerner. Preu states that she has lived in the district for approximately 25 years but has not held elected office (Johnson County Post, 2026a, 2026b).

Her professional experience has provided her familiarity with project management, corporate communication, and technology. Her campaign presents this work as preparation for evaluating complex federal programs, technical policy, and the growing influence of artificial intelligence. Her strength lies in the clarity and breadth of her platform. Her principal challenge will be demonstrating how someone without elected or legislative experience can build the coalitions necessary to advance that platform through Congress.

Economic, Labor, and Health-Care Platform
Preu supports Medicare for All and the elimination of insulin charges. She argues that health care should be a public guarantee rather than a benefit dependent on employment, income, or an insurance company. Her labor platform includes a $17 federal minimum wage, passage of the PRO Act, stronger collective-bargaining protections, and limits on the share of family income consumed by child care.

She advocates for greater federal investment in public housing, rent stabilization, stronger tenant protections, and measures aimed at reducing housing insecurity. These positions assign more responsibility to the federal government than the housing policies typically advanced by moderate congressional Democrats. Her campaign also calls for changes intended to shift economic power from corporations and wealthy donors toward workers, tenants, and consumers (Sarah Preu for Congress, 2026).

Immigration and Civil Rights
Preu calls for abolishing ICE, ending workplace and neighborhood immigration raids, and creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. While abolishing ICE would not eliminate all federal immigration law, Congress would still need to decide which agency would assume responsibility for customs enforcement, immigration investigations, detention decisions, and removal proceedings.

She supports restoring federal abortion protections, passing the Equality Act, banning assault weapons, and requiring universal background checks.Her civil rights platform also emphasizes protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and communities subject to discriminatory enforcement (Sarah Preu for Congress, 2026).

Housing, Climate, and Technology
Preu supports significant public housing investment, rent stabilization, and stronger tenant protections. Her climate platform includes green manufacturing, electrical-grid modernization, expanded public transportation, and environmental requirements for data centers.

Her technology proposals are unusually detailed for a congressional campaign. They include mandatory safeguards for high-risk artificial intelligence systems, a right to human review of consequential automated decisions, and labeling requirements for deepfakes.

These proposals respond to concerns about automated discrimination, employment decisions, misinformation, and the energy and water demands of large data centers. Implementation would require Congress to define which systems qualify as high risk, which agencies would enforce the standards, and what legal remedies would be available to people harmed by automated decisions (Sarah Preu for Congress, 2026).

Foreign Policy
Preu supports an arms embargo on Israel, renewed U.S. participation in the Iran nuclear agreement, repeal of existing congressional authorizations for military force, and restored American support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Her foreign policy platform would represent a substantial departure from current bipartisan policy toward Israel. It would also require congressional and executive action beyond the authority of one House member.

Her campaign connects these positions to a broader argument that Congress has surrendered too much war-making authority to presidents and has not imposed sufficient human rights conditions on military assistance (Sarah Preu for Congress, 2026).

Endorsements
Preu’s campaign publishes endorsements from CAIR Action, Progressive Democrats of America, the organization’s Kansas chapter, Track AIPAC, Progressive Voter Network, Cannabis Justice Coalition, several local elected officials, and civic-education creator “Mr. Beat.”

Republican Candidates

Eric Jenkins

Eric Jenkins served on the Shawnee City Council (2015-2023), including a term as president, and on the city planning commission. His campaign highlights 34 years of active-duty and reserve Army service, including Special Forces and military-police command, with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and a career with FEMA (Eric Jenkins for Kansas, 2026; KCUR, 2026).

Jenkins won the 2018 Republican primary for Kansas House District 18 but lost the general election to Democrat Cindy Neighbor (5,831 to 5,070). In 2023, he lost his Shawnee Ward 2 council reelection to Jeanie Murphy (1,516 to 1,253) (Kansas Secretary of State, 2018b; KCUR, 2026).

Jenkins advocates for lower taxes, spending restraint, deficit reduction, and preserving Trump-era tax cuts. He supports stronger border enforcement, legal immigration pathways, an “all of the above” energy policy, protection of gun, speech, and religious-liberty rights, and greater state and local control.

In 2019, Jenkins opposed a Shawnee nondiscrimination ordinance protecting sexual orientation and gender identity; it passed 5–2. In 2022, he supported a symbolic resolution backing restrictions on transgender athletes despite public opposition (Johnson County Post, 2019; KCUR, 2022).

His campaign argues his military leadership, disaster-response work, and local-government experience prepare him for Congress. However, his public record offers voters specific decisions to evaluate, particularly concerning LGBTQ protections, local governance, and the distinction between long public service and outsider politics.

Chase LaPorte

Chase LaPorte is an Army veteran and small-business owner. His campaign states he served over seven years, achieved the rank of sergeant, and completed three deployments to Iraq. He notes involvement with the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Shriners (Chase LaPorte for Congress, 2026; Johnson County Post, 2026b).

LaPorte briefly sought the Republican nomination for governor in 2022 before withdrawing. He began the 2026 cycle as a U.S. Senate candidate against Roger Marshall, then switched to the 3rd District House race (KCUR, 2026).

His campaign emphasizes congressional term limits, spending restraint, cost of living, regulation, veterans’ issues, and public safety. It offers fewer details on policy implementation related to taxes, health care, agriculture, immigration, and major federal programs.

Following U.S. strikes connected to Iran, LaPorte called the decision hasty and cautioned against a ground war. Earlier campaign materials described him as anti-abortion and supportive of a biblically defined view of marriage and family, though these positions receive less attention on his current campaign website (Chase LaPorte for Congress, 2026; KCUR, 2026).

His strategy frames his previous campaigns as persistent and argues military and business experience are more crucial than conventional governmental experience. His challenge is demonstrating how his broad campaign themes would translate into specific federal legislation and budget decisions.

Libertarian Candidate

Steven A. Hohe

Steven A. Hohe is a businessman, Air Force veteran, and a recurring Libertarian candidate. He has not held elected office but has appeared on the district’s congressional ballot three times and ran for the Kansas House in 2024 (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020b, 2022b, 2024b).

In past campaigns, Hohe advocated for reducing federal power, returning many social services to the states, replacing income taxes with a consumption-tax model, repealing the Affordable Care Act, and reducing overseas military involvement. He also stated he would preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Hohe declined KCUR’s 2026 interview request, and an accessible current platform was not available. His earlier positions establish his past approach but do not confirm every detail remains unchanged (KCUR, 2026).

Hohe will not compete on August 4. Kansas minor parties nominate federal candidates by caucus or convention, and the official candidate list places him directly in the general election (Johnson County Election Office, 2026; Kansas Secretary of State, 2026a).

Campaign Finance

The figures below come from Federal Election Commission records. Candidate committees, candidate loans, joint fundraising committees, party committees and independent expenditures are legally different categories. They should not be combined as though they were controlled by the same campaign.

Sharice for Congress

Davids’s reliance on PAC and large-dollar fundraising has also drawn criticism unrelated to Israel. Her current-cycle donor list includes committees connected to organized labor, aviation, agriculture, construction, engineering, insurance, health care, telecommunications, trial lawyers and major corporations. Disclosed committees contributing as much as $10,000 include:

• AFLAC PAC

• American Association for Justice PAC

• Burns & McDonnell PAC

• Cox Enterprises PAC

• CRH Americas PAC

• Dairy Farmers of America PAC

• National Air Traffic Controllers Association PAC

• Fair Shot PAC

• Jobs Education & Families First PAC

• Way Back PAC

That range complicates any simple description of her funding as exclusively corporate. Some committees represent workers, professional associations or ideological organizations. Others represent companies and regulated industries. Critics argue that reliance on PACs and donors capable of giving thousands of dollars can give institutions greater access than ordinary constituents. Davids’s supporters argue that competitive congressional races require large financial operations and that receiving a lawful contribution does not establish control over her decisions.

Sharice for Congress has served as Sharice Davids’s principal campaign committee since February 2018. From its creation through July 15, 2026, it reported approximately:

• Total receipts: $28,214,004.90

• Total contributions: $26,797,922.90

• Individual contributions: $21,120,364.30

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $5,637,458.68

• Party-committee contributions: $40,099.92

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $26,489,793.01

• Cash on hand on July 15, 2026: $1,724,211.89

• Current debt: $0

Across her entire campaign history, individuals supplied approximately 78.81% of contributions. PACs and other political committees supplied approximately 21.04%, while party committees supplied approximately 0.15%. Davids has never reported using personal contributions or candidate loans to finance the committee.

2017–2018 Election Cycle
During Davids’s first campaign for Congress, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $4,860,761.14

• Total contributions: $4,432,898.06

• Individual contributions: $3,996,428.93

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $431,469.13

• Party-committee contributions: $5,000

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $4,852,128.71

• Ending cash: $8,632.43

• Debt: $38,827.66

Individuals supplied 90.15% of contributions during Davids’s successful first campaign. PACs and other political committees supplied 9.73%. This was the only completed election cycle in which the committee ended with reported debt.

2019–2020 Election Cycle
During Davids’s first reelection campaign, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $5,790,837.15

• Total contributions: $5,457,503.82

• Individual contributions: $4,137,407.34

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $1,309,877.60

• Party-committee contributions: $10,218.88

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $5,320,319.13

• Ending cash: $479,150.45

• Debt: $0

Individuals supplied 75.81% of contributions, while PACs and other political committees supplied 24%. The committee eliminated its earlier debt and ended the cycle with nearly $480,000 available.

2021–2022 Election Cycle
During Davids’s second reelection campaign, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $7,894,095.76

• Total contributions: $7,422,700.06

• Individual contributions: $5,844,958.27

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $1,567,731.79

• Party-committee contributions: $10,010

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $8,309,622.97

• Ending cash: $63,623.24

• Debt: $0

This was the committee’s most expensive completed election cycle. Individuals supplied 78.74% of contributions, while PACs and other political committees supplied 21.12%. Spending exceeded receipts because the campaign used cash carried forward from 2020.

2023–2024 Election Cycle
During Davids’s third reelection campaign, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $5,977,870.92

• Total contributions: $5,825,588.73

• Individual contributions: $4,289,568.53

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $1,521,190.16

• Party-committee contributions: $14,830.04

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $5,638,238.37

• Ending cash: $403,255.79

• Debt: $0

Individuals supplied 73.63% of contributions, while PACs and other political committees supplied 26.11%. This was the highest PAC share of any completed Davids campaign cycle.

2025–2026 Election Cycle Through July 15, 2026
During the current cycle, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $3,690,439.93

• Total contributions: $3,659,232.23

• Individual contributions: $2,852,001.23

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $807,190

• Party-committee contributions: $41

• Candidate contributions and loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $2,369,483.83

• Cash on hand: $1,724,211.89

• Debt: $0

Individuals supplied 77.94% of contributions, while PACs and other political committees supplied 22.06%. Of the individual money, $1,732,028.99 was itemized and $1,119,972.24 was unitemized. The committee entered the final weeks before the primary with the largest cash balance it had reported at the end of any period summarized here.

Overall, Davids’s campaign operation grew from a heavily individual-funded first campaign into an established congressional committee combining individual fundraising with substantial PAC support. The committee has received more than $5.63 million from PACs and other political committees since 2018, but individuals have remained its dominant source of contributions in every election cycle. (Federal Election Commission, 2026a).

Committee for Sarah Preu for KS

From March 1 through July 15, the committee reported:

• Total receipts and contributions: $21,415.02

• Individual contributions: $18,438.02, or 86.10%

• Candidate contribution: $1,740, or 8.13%

• Kansas Democratic Party in-kind contribution: $1,237, or 5.78%

• PAC contributions: $0

• Loans: $0

• Total disbursements: $8,817.60

• Cash on hand: $12,598.42

• Debt: $0

The candidate contribution covered the federal filing fee. The Kansas Democratic Party contribution was reported as an in-kind contribution rather than money transferred to the campaign’s bank account (Federal Election Commission, 2026b, 2026h).

Eric Jenkins for Congress

From April 1 through July 15, the committee reported:

• Total receipts: $18,916.39

• Total contributions: $17,126.39

• Individual contributions: $7,126.39, or 41.61% of contributions

• Restoring Our Nation PAC contributions: $10,000, or 58.39% of contributions

• Candidate loan: $1,790

• Total disbursements: $6,632.79

• Cash on hand: $12,283.60

• Debt owed by the committee: $1,790

The $1,790 candidate loan is debt that the committee may repay. It is not a candidate contribution and should not be included in the contribution percentages (Federal Election Commission, 2026c, 2026i).

Chase LaPorte

No current campaign-committee report was located for LaPorte through July 28. That leaves no federally verified totals for his receipts, individual contributions, PAC funding, candidate funding, spending, cash or debt.

The absence of a report does not by itself establish a violation. Federal registration and reporting obligations depend on whether a candidate or campaign crosses the applicable legal thresholds and on how campaign activity is structured (Federal Election Commission, 2026f).

Steven A. Hohe

No current campaign-committee report was located for Hohe through July 28. As a result, there are no federally verified figures available for his 2026 receipts, spending, cash, debt or personal financing (Federal Election Commission, 2026f).

What Voters Are Deciding

The Democratic primary in this district presents a clear divergence in governing philosophies.

Representative Sharice Davids seeks reelection, leveraging eight years in Congress, current assignments on the Agriculture and Transportation committees, a record of enacted legislation, institutional endorsements, four general-election victories, and over $1.72 million in campaign funds. Her voting record largely aligns with labor, environmental, reproductive-rights, and LGBTQ organizations.

However, Davids’s record also includes positions that have drawn scrutiny from some Democratic voters. She has distanced herself from her apparent 2018 support for abolishing ICE, voted for both versions of the Laken Riley Act, and supported a 2026 funding package that included temporary DHS funding. She backed military assistance for Israel, declined to support the 2023 ceasefire resolution, accepts substantial PAC and pro-Israel political support, and advocates for expanding the Affordable Care Act over adopting Medicare for All. While she supported major clean-energy legislation, she did not cosponsor the Green New Deal resolution. Supporters view these decisions as pragmatic representation of a district with more registered Republicans than Democrats. Critics, however, argue that political caution, institutional fundraising, and an emphasis on bipartisanship have moved her too far from policies they believe Democratic voters need.

Sarah Preu offers a direct progressive alternative. Her platform advocates for Medicare for All, a $17 minimum wage, abolition of ICE, stronger tenant protections, greater public investment in housing and transportation, broader regulation of artificial intelligence, and an arms embargo on Israel. While Preu’s platform provides detailed policy commitments, she lacks an elected or legislative record to demonstrate her ability to build the coalitions necessary for enactment. Her campaign is funded overwhelmingly by individuals but reported only $12,598.42 in cash as of July 15, operating on a dramatically different scale from the incumbent’s campaign (Federal Election Commission, 2026a, 2026b; Sarah Preu for Congress, 2026).

Republican voters face a choice between two candidates with different types of experience.

Pran K. Jenkins offers decades of service in the Army and FEMA, eight years on the Shawnee City Council, and a conventional conservative platform with federally disclosed campaign finances. His public record also includes opposition to Shawnee’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination ordinance, support for a transgender-athlete resolution, an unsuccessful Kansas House campaign, and a lost council reelection. A single PAC supplied 58.39% of his disclosed contributions (Federal Election Commission, 2026c; Johnson County Post, 2019; KCUR, 2022, 2026).

Chase LaPorte presents himself as a political outsider, emphasizing his military service, small-business experience, support for term limits, and frustration with federal spending and regulation. His campaign provides fewer implementation details, and his previous entries into gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races complicate his “first-time outsider” narrative. With no current FEC report, voters cannot verify his campaign’s fundraising, sources of contributions, or whether he is personally financing it (Chase LaPorte for Congress, 2026; Federal Election Commission, 2026f; KCUR, 2026).

The two primary winners are expected to join Hohe on the November ballot. However, the August 4 primary comes first. Democratic voters will decide whether Davids’s moderation represents effective governing or unacceptable compromise, and whether her record on immigration, Israel, campaign finance, health care, and climate warrants replacing a successful incumbent. Republican voters will determine whether Jenkins’s governmental experience or LaPorte’s outsider identity offers the stronger challenge.

References

1. AFL-CIO. (2026). Sharice Davids legislative scorecard

2. Chase LaPorte for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

3. Congress.gov.

   1. 2023: H.Res. 786—Calling for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine

   2. 2025a: H.R. 2483—SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025

   3. 2025b: H.R. 828—SERV Act

   4. 2025c: H.R. 3956—FDPIR Act of 2025

   5. 2025d: H.R. 4644—ABLE Employment Flexibility Act

   6. 2025e: H.R. 3757—Pride in Mental Health Act

4. Eric Jenkins for Kansas. (2026). Official campaign website

5. Federal Election Commission.

   1. 2026a: Sharice for Congress committee records and financial summaries

   2. 2026b: Committee for Sarah Preu for KS committee records

   3. 2026c: Eric Jenkins for Congress 12-day pre-primary report

   4. 2026d: Sharice Davids Victory Fund 2026 second-quarter report

   5. 2026e: Sharice Davids Victory Fund 2026 Statement of Organization

   6. 2026f: Kansas 3rd Congressional District candidate and committee records

   7. 2026g: Sharice for Congress PAC and other political-committee receipts

   8. 2026h: Committee for Sarah Preu for KS second-quarter report

   9. 2026i: Eric Jenkins for Congress second-quarter report

6. Heritage Action. (2026). Sharice Davids legislative scorecard

7. Human Rights Campaign. (2024). 118th Congressional Scorecard

8. Johnson County Election Office. (2026). Candidates and elected officials

9. Johnson County Post.

   1. 2019: Shawnee adopts nondiscrimination ordinance with protections for LGBTQ individuals

   2. 2026a: Sharice Davids and Sarah Preu Democratic-primary report

   3. 2026b: Kansas 3rd Congressional District candidate overview

10. Kansas Legislative Research Department.

    1. 2022: Ad Astra 2 congressional redistricting packet

    2. 2025: Kansas Congressional District 3 map

11. Kansas Secretary of State.

    1. 2018a: 2018 primary election official results

    2. 2018b: 2018 general election official results

    3. 2020a: 2020 primary election official results

    4. 2020b: 2020 general election official results

    5. 2022a: 2022 primary election official results

    6. 2022b: 2022 general election official results

    7. 2024a: 2024 primary election official results

    8. 2024b: 2024 general election official results

    9. 2026a: Candidate information and filing deadlines

    10. 2026b: May 2026 voter-registration numbers by congressional district

12. KCUR.

    1. 2022: Shawnee signals support for banning transgender athletes despite overwhelming criticism

    2. 2026: Kansas 3rd Congressional District voter guide

13. KMBC. (2018). Sharice Davids clarifies position on abolishing ICE

14. League of Conservation Voters. (2026). Sharice Davids national environmental scorecard

15. LGBTQ Equality PAC. (2026). Sharice Davids endorsement

16. LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. (2026). Sharice Davids endorsement

17. Reproductive Freedom for All. (2026). Sharice Davids legislative scorecard

18. Rivera v. Schwab. (2022). Kansas Supreme Court opinion

19. Sarah Preu for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

20. Sharice Davids for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

21. U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). American Community Survey profile for Kansas Congressional District 3

22. U.S. House Clerk.

    1. 2021a: Roll Call 72, H.R. 1319

    2. 2021b: Roll Call 369, H.R. 3684

    3. 2022a: Roll Call 299, S. 2938

    4. 2022b: Roll Call 420, H.R. 5376

    5. 2024a: Roll Call 66, H.R. 7511

    6. 2024b: Roll Call 151, H.R. 8035

    7. 2024c: Roll Call 152, H.R. 8034

    8. 2025a: Roll Call 23, S. 5

    9. 2025b: Roll Call 102, H.R. 22

    10. 2025c: Roll Call 190, H.R. 1

    11. 2026a: Member profile and committee assignments: Sharice Davids

    12. 2026b: Roll Call 53, H.R. 7148

23. U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. (2025). Sharice Davids subcommittee assignments

24. U.S. House Historian. (2026). Sharice Davids biography

On August 4, Kansas Republicans will decide whether to stick with first-term U.S. Rep. Derek Schmidt with a long political record or hand Chad E. Young another shot after his fifth-place finish in the district’s 2024 Republican primary. Don Coover is the only Democrat in the race, while the Libertarian Party of Kansas has nominated John Hauer through its state convention process (Neosho County, 2026; Libertarian Party of Kansas, 2026).

Schmidt enters the race with nearly every traditional advantage: elected experience, a federal voting record, state-government leadership, national endorsements and a massive financial lead. Young is campaigning from the opposite direction, promising a sweeping dismantling of federal taxes and agencies but offering few details about how that vision would work. Coover brings military, veterinary and agricultural experience. Hauer brings two Iraq deployments and a working-class Libertarian message aimed squarely at taxes, government spending and war.

District Snapshot

Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District presents sharp contrasts. It encompasses the state capital, parts of Kansas City and Lawrence, major military installations, university communities, manufacturing centers, and expansive rural areas. Consequently, its voters do not share a single economy, way of life, or set of political concerns.

The district includes 24 complete counties and portions of several others (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025a, 2025b). Its boundaries have a distinct political history; lawmakers first implemented the current map, known as Ad Astra 2, in 2022 and divided Douglas, Jackson, and Wyandotte counties. Although a lower court initially invalidated the map, the Kansas Supreme Court ultimately allowed it to take effect (Rivera v. Schwab, 2022).

The 2020 Census reported 734,470 people in the district. By 2024, the American Community Survey estimated its population at 739,248, including 562,728 voting-age adults and approximately 538,714 adult citizens. These figures originate from different Census Bureau products, and researchers should not treat them as measurements from the same year (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025b; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024a, 2024b).

The district’s estimated 2024 population included:

• White, non-Hispanic: 512,494 (69.3%)

• Black, non-Hispanic: 49,371 (6.7%)

• Hispanic or Latino of any race: 109,604 (14.8%)

• Asian, non-Hispanic: 14,233 (1.9%)

• American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 4,498 (0.6%)

• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: 3,047 (0.4%)

• Another race, non-Hispanic: 3,350 (0.5%)

• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 42,651 (5.8%)

Hispanic or Latino origin is an ethnicity, not a separate racial category. The figures above use non-Hispanic racial groups to prevent overlap, and researchers should not combine them with older voting-age racial figures that use different categories (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024a).

The district’s economic indicators reveal another set of contrasts. Its median household income was $68,050, with approximately 12.7% of residents living below the poverty line. Among adults 25 or older, 90.6% had at least a high school credential, but only 26.8% held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Homeowners occupied 68.4% of occupied homes, compared with 31.6% occupied by renters. The district was also home to an estimated 44,755 veterans, representing about 8.1% of its adult civilian population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024a).

Even the district’s urban-rural split is complex. A 2020 Census tabulation classified approximately 59.7% of its residents as urban and 40.3% as rural. This does not imply an even division of communities. Topeka, the Kansas City area, and part of Lawrence share a district with farming communities, military installations, and large areas with fewer than 50 residents per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

Healthcare, manufacturing, retail, education, construction, public administration, transportation, and warehousing are among the district’s largest employment sectors. Fort Riley, Fort Leavenworth, and the Kansas Air National Guard’s 190th Air Refueling Wing underscore the importance of military readiness and veterans’ policy. The district also includes Emporia State University, Pittsburg State University, and Washburn University (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024c; Kansas Board of Regents, 2026).

While agriculture remains important, it cannot fully explain the entire district or every vote cast within it. Rural hospitals, military readiness, veterans’ services, wages, manufacturing, housing, education, transportation, and federal programs carry different stakes in different communities. Any candidate seeking to represent the 2nd District must address all these realities simultaneously.

Election History

For nearly two decades, Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District has been Republican territory; the party has continuously held the seat since January 2009. This followed Democrat Nancy Boyda’s single term from 2007 through 2008 (U.S. House Historian, 2026).

The 2022 election offered little suspense during the primary, as neither major party had a contested race. Republican Jake LaTurner secured 94,578 primary votes, while Democrat Patrick Schmidt received 54,439. In November, LaTurner defeated Schmidt with 134,506 votes (57.64%) to Schmidt’s 98,852 votes (42.36%). The Republican won by 35,654 votes and 15.28 percentage points (Kansas Secretary of State, 2022a, 2022b).

The race dynamic shifted dramatically in 2024 when LaTurner declined to seek reelection, initiating a five-candidate battle for the Republican nomination. Derek Schmidt emerged decisively from this crowded field:

• Derek Schmidt: 34,971 votes (53.08%)

• Shawn Tiffany: 13,013 votes (19.75%)

• Jeff Kahrs: 11,634 votes (17.66%)

• Chad Young: 3,412 votes (5.18%)

• Michael Ogle: 2,858 votes (4.34%)

The Democratic primary was much closer. Nancy Boyda returned more than 15 years after leaving Congress, defeating Matt Kleinmann with 13,571 votes (51.72%) to Kleinmann’s 12,670 votes (48.28%) (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024a).

However, the November general election was not close. Schmidt received 172,847 votes (57.09%), while Boyda received 115,685 votes (38.21%). Libertarian John Hauer garnered 14,229 votes (4.70%). Schmidt defeated Boyda by 57,162 votes and 18.88 percentage points, thereby extending the Republican hold on the district (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024b).

Schmidt arrived in Congress with an extensive political record, yet also with a significant statewide defeat still fresh in memory. Two years prior, he had lost the 2022 governor’s race to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly by 22,258 votes; Kelly received 49.54% and Schmidt 47.33% (Kansas Secretary of State, 2022c).

Republican Candidates

Derek Schmidt

Background and Experience
Derek Schmidt was born in Independence in 1968. He served in the Kansas Senate from 2001 through 2011 and was Senate majority leader from 2005 through 2011. He then served as Kansas attorney general from 2011 through 2023. After losing the 2022 governor’s race, he joined the law firm Husch Blackwell before running for Congress in 2024 (U.S. House Historian, 2026; Husch Blackwell, 2023). Schmidt entered Congress in January 2025 and is seeking his second term.

Legislative and Government Record
Schmidt serves on the House Armed Services, Judiciary and Small Business committees. His subcommittee assignments include Military Personnel; Readiness; Tactical Air and Land Forces; Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement; Judiciary Oversight; Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust; Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Workforce Development; and Rural Development, Energy and Supply Chains.

He is not a committee or subcommittee chair and does not hold a documented House party-leadership position (Office of the Clerk, 2026a). Congress.gov listed 17 Schmidt-sponsored measures and more than 300 cosponsorships as of July 27. None of his sponsored measures had become law by that date (Congress.gov, 2026).

H.R. 8352, Schmidt’s Criminal History Access Act, passed the House on May 12, 2026, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It had not become law. Other sponsored proposals addressed rural emergency-hospital policy, recognition of the Quindaro Townsite, emergency disclosure of cellphone-location information, immigration-enforcement partnerships, veterans’ access to military medical facilities and Medicaid fraud (Congress.gov, 2026; Office of Rep. Derek Schmidt, 2026a).

Schmidt also worked with Democratic Rep. Sharice Davids on legislation intended to keep local USDA field offices open. A separate bipartisan small-business proposal, the Main Street Competes Act, passed the House in June (Office of Rep. Derek Schmidt, 2026b; Congress.gov, 2026).

Selected Federal Voting History
Large bills often contain hundreds of provisions. A vote for or against one does not prove that Schmidt agreed or disagreed with every section. The votes below show his official position on final passage or adoption.

• January 14, 2025, H.R. 28: Schmidt voted yea on legislation restricting transgender participation in federally funded women’s and girls’ sports. The House passed the bill 218–206–1. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2025a).

• January 22, 2025, S. 5: Schmidt voted yea on the Laken Riley Act, which expanded immigration detention and removal requirements. The House passed the bill 263–156, and it became Public Law 119-1 (Office of the Clerk, 2025b).

• January 23, 2025, H.R. 21: Schmidt voted yea on legislation requiring specified medical care after an infant is born alive following an attempted abortion. The House passed the bill 217–204–1. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2025c).

• March 11, 2025, H.R. 1968: Schmidt voted yea on full-year continuing appropriations. The House passed the measure 217–213, and it became Public Law 119-4 (Office of the Clerk, 2025d).

• April 10, 2025, H.Con.Res. 14: Schmidt voted yea on the Republican budget and reconciliation framework. The House adopted it 216–214 (Office of the Clerk, 2025e).

• April 10, 2025, H.R. 22: Schmidt voted yea on legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration. The House passed it 220–208. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2025f).

• April 28, 2025, S. 146: Schmidt voted yea on the TAKE IT DOWN Act addressing intimate and deceptive digital images. The House passed it 409–2, and it became Public Law 119-12 (Office of the Clerk, 2025g).

• July 3, 2025, H.R. 1: Schmidt voted yea on a major tax, Medicaid, SNAP, energy and immigration law. The House passed it 218–214, and it became Public Law 119-21 (Office of the Clerk, 2025h).

• December 11, 2025, H.R. 2550: Schmidt voted nay on legislation restoring specified federal collective-bargaining rights. The House passed it 231–195. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2025i).

• February 3, 2026, H.R. 7148: Schmidt voted yea on consolidated federal appropriations. The House passed it 217–214, and it became law (Office of the Clerk, 2026b).

• April 30, 2026, H.R. 7567: Schmidt voted yea on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. The House passed it 224–200. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2026c).

• June 4, 2026, H.R. 2913: Schmidt voted nay on the Ukraine Support Act. The House passed it 226–195. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2026d).

• June 9, 2026, H.R. 5408: Schmidt voted nay on legislation requiring faster first-contract bargaining procedures. The House passed it 230–193. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2026e).

• July 22, 2026, H.R. 7008: Schmidt voted yea on the Stop Insider Trading Act. The House passed it 232–198. It had not been enacted as of July 27, 2026 (Office of the Clerk, 2026f).

• July 23, 2026, H.Con.Res. 89: Schmidt voted nay on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran. The House adopted it 214–208 (Office of the Clerk, 2026g).

The record shows broad support for the House Republican agenda on taxes, spending, immigration, abortion and transgender policy. It also shows opposition to two labor measures, opposition to the House-passed Ukraine bill and opposition to the Iran withdrawal resolution. Schmidt supported the bipartisan intimate-image law and the House bill restricting congressional stock trading.

Endorsements and Public AssessmentsSchmidt’s campaign lists endorsements from Donald Trump, 60 Plus Association, Kansans for Life PAC, Kansas Family Voice, Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Livestock Association, Kansas State Council of Fire Fighters, National Sorghum Producers and the NRA Political Victory Fund (Derek Schmidt for Congress, 2026). National Sorghum Producers separately announced its endorsement on June 25 (National Sorghum Producers, 2026).

Heritage Action reported an 84% session and lifetime score for Schmidt. Club for Growth reported a 95% score for 2025 and lifetime. The League of Conservation Voters reported a 0% score for 2025 and lifetime. Because Schmidt entered Congress in 2025, those “lifetime” House ratings cover less than two years. Each organization selects and weighs the votes used in its score, so the percentages measure alignment with that organization rather than overall job performance (Heritage Action, 2026; Club for Growth, 2026; League of Conservation Voters, 2026).

Documented Accountability Issues
As Kansas attorney general, Schmidt joined an amicus brief supporting Texas’ effort to challenge the 2020 presidential-election results in four states. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas permission to file the case because Texas lacked standing to challenge how other states conducted their elections (Texas v. Pennsylvania, 2020; U.S. Supreme Court, 2020).

The 65 Project filed a Kansas ethics complaint against Schmidt in September 2022 over his involvement. Schmidt said he expected the complaint to be dismissed. A separate, earlier complaint connected to the same litigation was dismissed in 2021 because it did not contain sufficient facts to support an ethics violation. A final disposition of the September 2022 complaint has not been publicly documented, so it would be inaccurate to say that every related complaint was dismissed (Kansas Reflector, 2022).

KCUR included Schmidt in its July 17 guide to the congressional race. The Lawrence Journal-World reported that Schmidt did not respond to its Republican-primary questionnaire, while Young did. That documents one questionnaire nonresponse but does not establish that Schmidt refuses all interviews, forums or media requests (KCUR, 2026; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Chad E. Young

Chad Young is a Lawrence resident making his second run for the district. He received 3,412 votes, or 5.18%, in the 2024 Republican primary. He has not held elected office (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024a; KCUR, 2026).

Young connects his campaign to Life Skills Programs, an organization he says offers boxing, self-defense, GED assistance, anger management and other services. KCUR reported that the organization was not registered in Kansas and that an Arkansas registration had expired. That reporting does not establish whether the organization operates under another legal name or through another organization (KCUR, 2026).

Young supports abolishing federal taxation and eliminating federal agencies. He opposes corporate lobbying, pharmaceutical companies, data-center development, license-plate readers, digital identification and other forms of government surveillance. He also promotes raw milk, restrictions on ultra-processed food and greater disclosure from the Food and Drug Administration (KCUR, 2026; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Those positions establish his general direction but leave important questions unanswered. His public campaign materials do not identify which agencies he would eliminate, how remaining federal programs would be funded without taxation or how debt obligations and constitutionally required spending would be handled.

Young also argues that emerging wireless technology poses health risks. His campaign materials do not cite scientific evidence supporting that claim.

Young was listed as a participant in a June 6 Bonner Springs NAACP candidate forum. KCUR included him in its July 17 election guide, and Young responded to the Lawrence Journal-World’s Republican-primary questionnaire published July 18 (League of Women Voters of Johnson County, 2026; KCUR, 2026; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Democratic Candidate

Don Coover

Don Coover is the only Democratic candidate and will advance automatically to November. Coover is a Galesburg-area veterinarian, rancher and agricultural-business operator. His campaign says he grew up in a rural southeastern Kansas family with seven children. His father was a union truck driver and farmer, while his mother was a teacher (Don Coover for Congress, 2026a).

Coover graduated from West Point and served more than a decade in the Army. His assignments included infantry, aviation, military intelligence, cryptographic work and veterinary services. He later attended Kansas State University’s veterinary program and worked in feed manufacturing, livestock genetics and reproductive technology. He now operates a veterinary practice and a ranch with several hundred cattle (Don Coover for Congress, 2026a; Kansas Reflector, 2025).

Coover describes himself as a former longtime Republican with a middle-of-the-road political outlook. His campaign focuses on grocery, housing and health-care costs; Medicare; rural emergency care; government contracts; tariffs and congressional stock trading (KCUR, 2026; Don Coover for Congress, 2026b).

He has criticized broad tariffs as harmful to farmers and criticized the 2025 reconciliation law for increasing federal debt while disproportionately benefiting higher-income interests. He says health policy should serve patients instead of insurers and supports protecting Medicare and rural hospitals (Kansas Reflector, 2025; Don Coover for Congress, 2026b).

Coover’s public platform does not provide detailed positions on abortion, firearms, immigration, education, energy, LGBTQ rights, Social Security or major technology regulations. Those omissions should be treated as unresolved policy questions, not as proof of support or opposition.

Coover participated in a congressional-candidate forum during the Kansas Democratic Party’s Washington Days gathering on March 8. He also appeared at a May 6 Eudora Democrats candidate event and was listed for the June 6 Bonner Springs NAACP candidate forum. KCUR included Coover in its July 17 guide to the race (Kansas Democratic Party, 2026; Eudora Democrats, 2026; League of Women Voters of Johnson County, 2026; KCUR, 2026).

Libertarian Candidate

John Hauer

John Hauer is a Topeka resident, military veteran and the Libertarian Party’s convention nominee. He also serves as the party’s 2nd District coordinator. Hauer received 14,229 votes, or 4.70%, as the district’s 2024 Libertarian nominee (Libertarian Party of Kansas, 2026; Kansas Secretary of State, 2024b).

Hauer served two deployments in Iraq and has described warehouse and delivery work in his employment history. He has not held elected office (KCUR, 2026).

Hauer supports eliminating the federal income tax, sharply reducing federal spending, closing overseas military bases and bringing American troops home. He opposes corporate bailouts and additional tax reductions directed toward wealthy people and corporations. His antiwar position draws heavily on his Iraq experience (John Hauer for Congress, 2026; KCUR, 2026).

Hauer’s public platform does not provide detailed positions on health care, abortion, firearms, immigration, agriculture, education, environmental policy or federal civil-rights enforcement. Hauer has said one goal of his campaign is to spread a working-class Libertarian message even if victory is unlikely (KCUR, 2026).

KCUR included Hauer in its July 17 guide to the congressional race (KCUR, 2026).

Campaign Finance

The figures below come from Federal Election Commission records. The Derek Schmidt Victory Fund is a separate joint fundraising committee, so its total receipts should not be treated as money raised directly by Schmidt’s campaign.

Derek Schmidt for Congress

Federal Election Commission records through July 15, 2026, show that Derek Schmidt for Congress reported:

• Total receipts: $1,481,357.22

• Total contributions: $1,426,021.26

• Individual contributions: $911,521.26

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $514,500

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• Candidate contributions: $0

• Transfers from authorized committees: $44,506.12

• Operating-expenditure offsets: $1,675

• Other receipts: $9,154.84

• Candidate loans: $0

• Other loans: $0

• Cash on hand: $939,168.02

• Debt owed to the committee: $0

• Debt owed by the committee: $2,897.71

Individuals supplied 63.9% of Schmidt’s reported contributions. PACs and other political committees supplied 36.1%. Those percentages use total contributions, not total receipts, as the denominator. Transfers and other receipts are therefore excluded from the percentage calculation (Federal Election Commission, 2026a, 2026b).

Previous Campaign
During Schmidt’s 2024 congressional campaign through November 5, his committee reported approximately $1.237 million in receipts, including $1.213 million in contributions. Individual contributions totaled approximately $803,573, PAC contributions totaled $401,300 and candidate contributions totaled $8,564.57 (Federal Election Commission, 2024a, 2024b).

Across the reporting history beginning in April 2024 and ending July 15, 2026, Schmidt’s committee reported approximately $2.718 million in receipts.

PAC and Organizational Support
Eight committees each supplied $10,000 during the current cycle:

• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association PAC

• American Council of Engineering Companies PAC

• Growth Energy PAC

• Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America PAC

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants PAC

• Seaboard Corporation PAC

• American Israel Public Affairs Committee PAC

• National Pork Producers Council PAC

Other major support included $8,500 from the American Bankers Association PAC, $8,000 from Dairy Farmers of America PAC, and $7,500 each from the National Automobile Dealers Association PAC and Northrop Grumman’s employee PAC (Federal Election Commission, 2026b).

The contributor list includes committees connected to agriculture, banking, energy, engineering, accounting, alcohol distribution, defense, real estate, transportation, health care and Republican officeholders. A PAC contribution is not automatically an endorsement.

Derek Schmidt Victory Fund

The Derek Schmidt Victory Fund’s participants are Derek Schmidt for Congress, Stand Tall for Kansas PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A joint fundraising committee collects contributions and distributes proceeds among its participating committees under an allocation formula. Its full receipts should not be described as money received directly by Schmidt’s campaign (Federal Election Commission, 2024c).

Through June 30, 2026, the Victory Fund reported:

• Total receipts: $154,188.44

• Individual contributions: $129,188.44

• Political-committee contributions: $25,000

• Transfers to participating committees: $129,269.88

• Cash on hand: $3,505

• Debt: $0

The committee distributed:

• Derek Schmidt for Congress: $67,800.52, or 52.45% of all transfers

• Stand Tall for Kansas PAC: $34,719.38, or 26.86% of all transfers

• National Republican Congressional Committee: $26,749.98, or 20.69% of all transfers

The largest disclosed receipts included $25,000 from Patrick Gideon; $15,000 from Baystone Financial LLC; $15,000 from POET PAC; $10,500 from Mark Heitz; $10,000 from Richard Miller; $10,000 from Space Exploration Technologies Corp. PAC; and $10,000 from Southern Ohio Holdings LLC.

The Baystone contribution was attributed through memo entries to H. Evan Howe and Shelley Howe at $7,500 each. The Southern Ohio Holdings contribution was attributed to John G. Richardson. Those attribution entries identify the people behind the entity contributions and are not counted again as separate receipts (Federal Election Commission, 2026e).

Don Coover for Congress

Federal Election Commission records through July 15, 2026, show that Don Coover for Congress reported:

• Total receipts: $758,823.24

• Total contributions: $758,791.26

• Individual contributions: $718,291.26

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $33,500

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• Candidate contributions: $7,000

• Transfers from authorized committees: $0

• Other receipts: $31.98

• Candidate loans: $0

• Other loans: $0

• Cash on hand: $244,286

• Debt owed to the committee: $0

• Debt owed by the committee: $0

Individuals supplied 94.7% of Coover’s total contributions. PACs supplied 4.4%, and Coover supplied 0.9% through $7,000 in candidate contributions. The candidate’s contributions are reported separately from the committee’s individual-contribution total (Federal Election Commission, 2026c).

PAC and Organizational Support

Coover’s $33,500 in PAC support included:

• SMART Transportation Division PAC: $5,000

• Carpenters Legislative Improvement Committee: $5,000

• UAW V-CAP: $5,000

• Way Back PAC: $5,000

• United Association plumbers and pipefitters PAC: $5,000

• Machinists Non-Partisan Political League: $5,000

• Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen PAC: $2,500

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC: $1,000

Most of Coover’s political-committee money came from organized-labor PACs. Way Back PAC accounts for the remaining $5,000 (Federal Election Commission, 2026d).

Chad Young

As of July 27, Federal Election Commission records did not show a current campaign-finance report for Young’s 2026 campaign.

Young says he is self-financing and does not accept campaign donations. Without an FEC report, there are no federally verified totals for his receipts, cash, debt or personal funding (KCUR, 2026; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

The absence of a report does not by itself establish a violation. Federal registration and reporting duties can depend on whether a campaign crosses applicable contribution or spending thresholds. Filing for the Kansas ballot does not replace federal reporting when those requirements apply.

John Hauer

As of July 27, Federal Election Commission records did not show a current campaign-finance report for Hauer’s 2026 campaign.

There are therefore no federally verified 2026 totals available for his receipts, cash, debt or personal funding. The absence of a report does not by itself establish a violation.

What Voters Are Deciding

The Republican primary presents the race’s first and sharpest choice.

Schmidt asks voters to trust a long public record, current committee assignments, institutional endorsements, and more than $939,000 in campaign cash. His votes generally align with the House Republican agenda, but they also give voters a clear record to examine. Schmidt supported the 2025 tax and spending law, stricter immigration and voter-registration policies, and restrictions affecting transgender athletes. He opposed federal bargaining measures, the House-passed Ukraine bill, and an effort to remove American forces from hostilities with Iran.

Young offers something far more sweeping: not a different approach to the federal government, but the dismantling of much of it. He wants to abolish federal taxation and eliminate federal agencies while opposing corporate lobbying, government surveillance, digital identification, and data centers. His campaign has not explained how the government would continue meeting its basic obligations under that plan. Young also has no FEC report allowing voters to verify the size or source of his claimed self-financing.

The Republican winner will face Democrat Don Coover and Libertarian John Hauer in November, along with any independent candidate who qualifies by the August 3 deadline.

Coover brings military, agricultural, and veterinary experience to a campaign focused on affordability and rural health care. Individuals overwhelmingly fund his campaign, and it has raised enough to mount a substantial race. However, voters still lack detailed positions from Coover on several major federal issues.

Hauer stakes out the field’s most consistently antiwar and anti-tax position. His two deployments to Iraq give personal weight to his call for closing foreign military bases and bringing American troops home. But much of his domestic agenda remains undefined, and no current FEC report gives voters a verified account of his campaign finances.

This race is bigger than an incumbent defending his seat against a challenger. On August 4, Republican voters will choose between Schmidt’s established record inside government and Young’s promise to tear major parts of that government down. In November, voters will choose among that Republican nominee, Coover’s rural- and affordability-focused Democratic campaign, and Hauer’s antiwar Libertarian alternative. With the independent filing deadline falling just one day before the primary, the final field, and the final choice before voters, could still grow.

References

1. Club for Growth. (2026). Congressional scorecard

2. Congress.gov. (2026). Legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Derek Schmidt

3. Derek Schmidt for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

4. Don Coover for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

5. Eudora Democrats. (2026). Congressional candidate event

6. Federal Election Commission.

   1. 2024a: Derek Schmidt for Congress amended 30-day post-general report

   2. 2024b: Derek Schmidt for Congress committee records and transactions

   3. 2024c: Derek Schmidt Victory Fund Statement of Organization

   4. 2025: Don Coover for Congress Statement of Organization

   5. 2026a: Derek Schmidt for Congress 12-day pre-primary report

   6. 2026b: Derek Schmidt for Congress committee records and transactions

   7. 2026c: Don Coover for Congress 12-day pre-primary report

   8. 2026d: Don Coover for Congress committee records and transactions

   9. 2026e: Derek Schmidt Victory Fund committee records and transactions

   10. 2026f: Candidate and committee data

7. Heritage Action. (2026). Legislative scorecard: Derek Schmidt

8. Husch Blackwell. (2023). Former Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt joins Husch Blackwell

9. John Hauer for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

10. Kansas Board of Regents. (2026). Kansas public institutions

11. Kansas Democratic Party. (2026). Washington Days

12. Kansas Legislative Research Department. (2025).

    1. 2025a: Kansas Congressional District 2 map

    2. 2025b: Kansas Congressional District 2 profile

13. Kansas Reflector.

    1. 2022: Legal advocacy group files ethics complaint against Schmidt tied to 2020 election lawsuit

    2. 2025: Southeast Kansas farmer challenges Republican incumbent for 2nd District seat

14. Kansas Secretary of State.

    1. 2022a: 2022 primary election official vote totals

    2. 2022b: 2022 general election official vote totals

    3. 2024a: 2024 primary election official vote totals

    4. 2024b: 2024 general election official vote totals

    5. 2026a: Important election dates

    6. 2026b: Candidate filing deadline closes

15. KCUR. (2026). Kansas 2nd Congressional District primary election guide

16. Lawrence Journal-World. (2026). Two candidates face off in Republican primary for Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District

17. League of Conservation Voters. (2026). National Environmental Scorecard: Derek Schmidt

18. League of Women Voters of Johnson County. (2026). Bonner Springs NAACP candidate forum

19. Libertarian Party of Kansas. (2026). LPKS elects candidates

20. National Sorghum Producers. (2026). National Sorghum Producers endorses Derek Schmidt

21. Neosho County. (2026). Official notice of the 2026 primary election

22. Office of U.S. Rep. Derek Schmidt. (2026).

    1. 2026a: Criminal History Access Act passes House

    2. 2026b: Schmidt and Davids introduce USDA Field Office Stability Act

23. Rivera v. Schwab. (2022). Kansas Supreme Court opinion

24. Texas v. Pennsylvania. (2020). Amicus brief of Missouri and other states

25. U.S. Census Bureau.

    1. 2020: Congressional-district data and urban-rural tabulations

    2. 2024a: 2024 American Community Survey profile: Kansas Congressional District 2

    3. 2024b: Citizen voting-age population, table B05003

    4. 2024c: Employment by industry, table C24030

26. U.S. House Clerk.

    1. 2025a: Roll Call 12, H.R. 28

    2. 2025b: Roll Call 23, S. 5

    3. 2025c: Roll Call 27, H.R. 21

    4. 2025d: Roll Call 70, H.R. 1968

    5. 2025e: Roll Call 100, H.Con.Res. 14

    6. 2025f: Roll Call 102, H.R. 22

    7. 2025g: Roll Call 104, S. 146

    8. 2025h: Roll Call 190, H.R. 1

    9. 2025i: Roll Call 332, H.R. 2550

    10. 2026a: Member profile: Derek Schmidt

    11. 2026b: Roll Call 53, H.R. 7148

    12. 2026c: Roll Call 154, H.R. 7567

    13. 2026d: Roll Call 207, H.R. 2913

    14. 2026e: Roll Call 216, H.R. 5408

    15. 2026f: Roll Call 280, H.R. 7008

    16. 2026g: Roll Call 282, H.Con.Res. 89

27. U.S. House Historian. (2026). Derek Schmidt

28. U.S. Supreme Court. (2020). Order in Texas v. Pennsylvania

Kansas voters have two contested primaries for the 1st Congressional District. Republican voters will choose between incumbent U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann and challenger Craig Musser. Democratic voters will choose between Colin McRoberts and Lauren Reinhold. Mann has held the seat since 2021 and is seeking a fourth term. The two primary winners will join Libertarian nominee Steven Robert Jacob in November for a seat that represents most of western and central Kansas, several regional cities, and portions of northeast Kansas, including western Lawrence (Thomas County Clerk, 2026; U.S. House Clerk, 2026; Libertarian Party of Kansas, 2026a).

Mann is the only candidate with an elected federal record or congressional leadership post. Republican voters can judge his votes on presidential electors, taxes, Medicaid, food assistance, border policy, guns, marriage, infrastructure, agriculture, aviation safety and foreign aid. Democrats are choosing between two Lawrence attorneys with different legal careers and approaches to federal power. Jacob gives November voters a third-party option and brings previous experience as a Libertarian candidate for Douglas County Commission.

District Snapshot

The Big First covers about 49,635 square miles with an average of fewer than 15 residents per square mile. It contains 57 whole counties and parts of a handful of others (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025a).

The district stretches from the Colorado border into northeast Kansas and includes Manhattan, Salina, Hutchinson, McPherson, Great Bend, Hays, Garden City, Dodge City, Liberal and part of Lawrence. It combines university communities, meatpacking and agricultural hubs, manufacturing and health-care centers, and vast farm and ranch areas. The current map, first used in 2022, added western Lawrence and other Douglas County territory, so earlier results are not directly comparable (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025b).

The demographic figures below come from the Kansas Legislative Research Department’s 2020 census profile, the Census Bureau’s 2020–2024 Citizen Voting Age Population special tabulation and the 2024 American Community Survey. Hispanic or Latino origin is an ethnicity that overlaps the racial categories, so those figures should not be added together (Kansas Legislative Research Department, 2025b; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024b).

• Total population: 731,386

• Voting-age population: 565,616

• Citizen voting-age population: 535,787

• White voting-age population: 439,359, or 77.7%

• Black voting-age population: 15,603, or 2.8%

• Hispanic or Latino voting-age population: 73,822, or 13.1%

• Asian voting-age population: 11,023, or 1.9%

• American Indian or Alaska Native voting-age population: 4,753, or 0.8%

• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander voting-age population: 397, or 0.1%

• Two-or-more-races voting-age population: 18,951, or 3.4%

• Median household income: $67,677

• Poverty rate: 12.4%

• Bachelor’s degree or higher: 31.0% of residents age 25 or older

• Homeownership and renting: 64.3% of occupied homes were owner-occupied, while 35.7% were renter-occupied

• Veterans: 35,146, or 6.3% of the civilian adult population

The Big First is still predominantly white, but it lacks cultural or economic uniformity. More than 73,000 voting-age residents are Hispanic or Latino, over one-third of occupied homes are rentals, and nearly one in eight residents lives below the poverty line. The district also includes more than 35,000 veterans and a substantial population without a four-year college degree. These numbers describe a district where agriculture matters, but so do wages, housing costs, health care, education, veterans’ services, and the ability of working families to build stable lives in the communities they call home.

Election History

The 1st Congressional District’s Republican dominance stretches back more than seven decades. Howard S. Miller of Hiawatha was the last Democrat elected to represent the district. He won in 1952, served one term from January 3, 1953, through January 3, 1955, and no Democrat has represented the district since (U.S. House Historian, 2026).

Even Miller’s victory predates the modern “Big First.” The sprawling western and central Kansas district took shape in 1963 following the 1962 election, when Republican Bob Dole defeated Democratic Rep. J. Floyd Breeding. The modern Big First has never elected a Democrat.

Tracey Mann first captured the seat in 2020 after then-Rep. Roger Marshall left it to run for the U.S. Senate. Mann emerged from a four-candidate Republican primary with 54.21% of the vote and won the general election with 71.16%. Because that election occurred under the previous congressional map, it provides historical context rather than a direct comparison with the district voters know today (Kansas Secretary of State, 2020a; Kansas Secretary of State, 2020b).

The district boundaries changed before the 2022 election, but the political result did not. Mann defeated Democrat James Beard with 161,333 votes, or 67.67%, to Beard’s 77,092 votes, or 32.33%. Neither candidate faced opposition in the party primaries that year (Kansas Secretary of State, 2022a; Kansas Secretary of State, 2022b).

In 2024, Mann again won more than two-thirds of the general-election vote. He defeated Democrat Paul Buskirk with 210,493 votes, or 69.14%, to Buskirk’s 93,965 votes, or 30.86%. Mann’s Republican primary was even more lopsided: He defeated Eric Bloom with 57,219 votes, or 87.53%, while Bloom received 8,148 votes, or 12.47%. Buskirk ran unopposed in the Democratic primary and received 15,240 votes (Kansas Secretary of State, 2024a; Kansas Secretary of State, 2024b).

Kansas’s 1st Congressional District does not merely lean Republican. It has functioned as a Republican fortress for generations. But that history does not make the seat hereditary property. Every election gives voters another opportunity to decide whether decades of one-party control have produced genuine representation or merely made political competition easier to dismiss.

Republican Candidates

Tracey Mann

Background and path to Congress
Tracey Mann, the Salina-based Republican incumbent, grew up on his family’s farm near Quinter. He graduated from Kansas State University and worked in commercial real estate. His biography also lists agricultural leadership, work with the Kansas Chamber, service on bank-loan committees, and community boards (Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2026a).

Mann lost a crowded Republican primary for the seat in 2010. Governor Jeff Colyer appointed him lieutenant governor in February 2018, a position he held until January 2019. Mann won the open congressional seat in 2020, secured reelection in 2022 and 2024, and defeated a 2024 Republican primary challenger with 87.53% of the vote (Lawrence Journal-World, 2010; Kansas Secretary of State, 2020a, 2020b, 2022a, 2024a, 2024b).

His campaign uses the slogan “The Conservative You Can Trust.” It presents him as an ally of President Donald Trump and emphasizes opposition to abortion, gun rights, border enforcement, lower taxes, domestic energy production, agriculture, and rural development. His official House issue pages further list crop insurance, agricultural exports, biofuels, telehealth, rural hospitals, the 340B drug-pricing program, and reduced federal regulation (Tracey Mann for Congress, 2026; Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2026b).

Committee Power and Legislative Work
Mann holds seats on two House committees directly important to the Big First district. On the House Agriculture Committee, Mann chairs the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry and serves on the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development and Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture subcommittees. This chairmanship grants him the authority to help shape hearings, oversight, and legislation concerning livestock, dairy, poultry, inspection, marketing, animal welfare, and grazing. He does not chair the full Agriculture Committee (House Agriculture Committee, 2025a, 2025b).

On the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he serves on the Aviation; Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials; and Water Resources and Environment subcommittees, though he chairs none of them. He also co-chairs the Congressional FFA Caucus, an advocacy role rather than a committee or party-leadership post (House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2025; Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2026a).

Mann sponsored the 2022 law renaming the Russell post office for former U.S. Senator Robert J. Dole. He has also introduced bipartisan proposals on rural child care and, with Democratic Representative Jill Tokuda, rural-clinic rules, advanced-practice providers, and behavioral health. As of July 23, these rural proposals had not become law (Congress.gov, 2022; Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2025a, 2025b).

Mann and Senator Jerry Moran also advocated for moving the Food for Peace international food-aid program from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the USDA. The House-passed 2026 farm bill includes this transfer. Mann supported the farm bill in committee and voted for it on the House floor. The bill passed 224-200 on April 30, with 209 Republicans, 14 Democrats, and one independent voting yes. Mann did not author the entire farm bill, and House passage does not constitute enactment. The bill still required Senate action at the cutoff (House Agriculture Committee, 2026; U.S. House Clerk, 2026a).

His office reports annual districtwide listening tours, tele-town halls, and federal-agency casework. The Kansas Farm Bureau cited his outreach when endorsing him, though no independent audit of casework totals was located (Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2025c; Kansas Farm Bureau, 2026).

Selected Federal Voting History
The following list represents a selection of consequential votes, not every vote Mann has cast. A vote for or against a large bill does not necessarily indicate agreement or disagreement with every provision within it. The House Clerk’s roll calls establish these votes, but the list cannot summarize every provision or political argument surrounding each measure (U.S. House Clerk, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023a, 2023b, 2024a, 2024b, 2025, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c; Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2026c).

• Jan. 6, 2021: Objection to Arizona’s presidential electors. Mann voted Yea to sustain the objection. Failed 121-303.

• Jan. 7, 2021: Objection to Pennsylvania’s presidential electors. Mann voted Yea to sustain the objection. Failed 138-282.

• Jan. 13, 2021: Second impeachment of President Donald Trump after the Capitol attack. Mann voted Nay. House approved 232-197.

• March 10, 2021: American Rescue Plan Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 220-211; became law.

• Nov. 5, 2021: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 228-206; became law.

• June 24, 2022: Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a federal gun-safety law. Mann voted Nay. House approved 234-193; became law.

• Aug. 12, 2022: Inflation Reduction Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 220-207; became law.

• Dec. 8, 2022: Final House action on the Respect for Marriage Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 258-169; became law.

• May 11, 2023: Secure the Border Act. Mann voted Yea. House approved 219-213; did not become law.

• May 31, 2023: Fiscal Responsibility Act debt-limit and spending agreement. Mann voted No. House approved 314-117; became law.

• April 20, 2024: Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. Mann voted Yea. House approved 366-58.

• April 20, 2024: Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 311-112.

• July 3, 2025: Final House action on H.R. 1, the 2025 tax-and-spending reconciliation law. Mann voted Aye. House approved 218-214; became Public Law 119-21.

• Feb. 24, 2026: ROTOR Act aviation-safety bill. Mann voted Nay. Received 264-133 majority but failed under the two-thirds rule.

• April 14, 2026: ALERT Act aviation-safety bill. Mann voted Yea. House approved 396-10; sent to Senate.

• April 30, 2026: Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. Mann voted Yea. House approved 224-200; sent to Senate.

• June 4, 2026: Ukraine Support Act. Mann voted Nay. House approved 226-195.

Controversies and Public Assessments
Mann took office three days before the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. After the House reconvened, he voted to sustain objections to electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Both objections failed by large margins. Courts had rejected election challenges, state officials had certified the results, and the objections did not change the outcome. These votes remain among the clearest constitutional-accountability issues in his record because they concerned whether Congress should accept certified presidential electors (U.S. House Clerk, 2021a, 2021b).

Mann and other Kansas Republicans stated they wanted fraud allegations and election-integrity concerns investigated, but their statement did not prove those allegations. Critics viewed the votes as support for an effort to overturn a valid election. The record establishes his votes, not that he committed a crime (Colorado Newsline, 2021).

Mann voted for final House passage of H.R. 1 on July 3, 2025. The law extended major parts of the 2017 tax cuts, increased funding for border enforcement and defense, changed energy policy, increased parts of the farm safety net, and modified Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program rules.

Mann stated that H.R. 1 prevented tax increases, strengthened the border, reduced regulation, and helped families, businesses, and agriculture. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2025 through 2034. The CBO also estimated that the Medicaid chapter would reduce spending by $886.8 billion and increase the uninsured population by 7.5 million in 2034. Supporters point to tax relief, work requirements, and a $50 billion rural-health fund; critics cite the deficit, coverage losses, and reduced resources for lower-income households (Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2025d; Congressional Budget Office, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2026).

Mann’s transportation assignment became part of a national controversy in February 2026. The ROTOR Act followed the 2025 collision near Reagan National Airport that killed 67 people aboard an American Airlines flight from Wichita and an Army helicopter. The Senate had passed the bill, and families of the victims strongly supported it. Under the fast-track House procedure used, the bill needed a two-thirds majority. It received 264 yes votes and 133 no votes, one vote short of the required threshold. Mann was the only Kansas House member to vote no (U.S. House Clerk, 2026b; KWCH, 2026).

Mann stated that the bill preceded final National Transportation Safety Board recommendations and bypassed the normal committee process. Senator Jerry Moran and victims’ families criticized its failure. Mann later cosponsored and voted for the ALERT Act, which his office said addressed all 50 NTSB recommendations. It passed 396-10, though some families still preferred the ROTOR Act. Mann therefore opposed one aviation bill and supported another (Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, 2026c; KWCH, 2026).

During Mann’s 2010 campaign, the Hutchinson News withdrew its endorsement after he stated President Barack Obama should produce citizenship papers. Hawaii officials had confirmed Obama’s citizenship, and his birth certificate and contemporaneous birth notices were public. This episode tied Mann to the false “birther” controversy but was not an ethics finding or current policy position (Lawrence Journal-World, 2010).

The Kansas Farm Bureau’s VOTE FBF political action committee endorsed Mann on June 15, 2026. The organization stated that feedback from county Farm Bureau groups across all 60 district counties shaped the endorsement. Kansas Farm Bureau President Glenn Brunkow praised Mann’s representation of agriculture, district outreach, and willingness to listen (Kansas Farm Bureau, 2026).

Heritage Action gives Mann an 88% score for the current Congress and 93% lifetime. The AFL-CIO gives him 0% for 2025 and 1% lifetime, while the League of Conservation Voters gives him 0% for 2025 and 1% lifetime. Each organization selects its own votes and standards, so the scores measure agreement with those groups, not neutral overall performance (Heritage Action, 2026; AFL-CIO, 2026; League of Conservation Voters, 2026).

Craig Musser

Craig Musser is an Ellinwood-area Republican challenger. His campaign says he holds bachelor’s degrees in physics and chemical engineering, an MBA, a master’s degree in safety and the Certified Safety Professional credential. His career includes engineering, manufacturing, mining, environmental cleanup and agriculture, including work at Superfund sites, an Army depot and industrial plants (Craig Musser for Congress, 2026a; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Musser initially entered the federal record differently from the Kansas ballot. His February FEC statement of candidacy identified his party as “Other,” and his March launch was reported as a United Kansas candidacy. He filed with Kansas on May 29 as a Republican, and the state-certified ballot places him in the Republican primary. No verified source reviewed for this article explains why he changed ballot lines. The chronology is a record discrepancy, not evidence of wrongdoing (Federal Election Commission, 2026b; Hays Post, 2026; McPherson County Election Office, 2026).

His campaign describes its approach as “Republican sensibility with Libertarian ideals.” His published positions create direct contrasts with Mann. He calls for drastically lower tariffs and more stable farm markets. Mann supports Trump’s broader agenda and has emphasized protecting producers from trade disruption while expanding exports.

Musser supports bodily autonomy and says reproductive decisions should remain with women and physicians. Mann opposes abortion and supports federal restrictions. Musser wants to preserve Social Security by removing the wage cap on payroll taxes. Mann’s campaign stresses protecting the program but does not propose that financing change.

Musser supports broad preventive testing, vaccines, standardized medical billing, telehealth and mental-health parity. He supports funding federal education mandates, protecting church-state separation, simplifying the tax code and making the IRS more service-oriented for ordinary filers.

His rural agenda includes infrastructure, delivery services, zoning changes, fresh-food access and farm-to-plate programs (Craig Musser for Congress, 2026b; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026). Musser has not held elected office and has no legislative record. No previous campaign, military service, party office or verified 2026 endorsement was located. His campaign website is Craig Musser for Congress (Craig Musser for Congress, 2026a).

Democratic Candidates

Colin McRoberts

Colin McRoberts is a Lawrence Democrat and first-time candidate. He teaches marketing and business law at the University of Kansas and holds a bachelor’s degree in international studies and a Harvard law degree. He previously practiced law in Chicago and worked as a negotiation adviser to businesses, unions, nonprofits, and government, diplomatic and military teams in 24 countries (University of Kansas School of Business, 2026; Colin for Kansas, 2026a; Kansas Reflector, 2026).

His campaign presents negotiation and institutional reform as his main qualifications. On trade and agriculture, McRoberts wants Congress to reclaim tariff authority from the president, reduce broad tariffs, give smaller farms credits for tariff costs and restore predictable export markets. He supports a new farm bill, restored USDA staffing and research, stronger right-to-repair protections and federal benefits that favor locally connected farm ownership (Colin for Kansas, 2026b, 2026c).

On health care, he supports restoring enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, protecting Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and moving toward universal coverage. His campaign has discussed a Medicare-style public option as one possible approach. He opposes a federal abortion ban; supports LGBTQ, disability and labor rights; and supports safe-storage and extreme-risk gun laws. His immigration plan would revive the 2024 bipartisan border proposal, combine enforcement with legal status and a path to citizenship, and review federal enforcement for civil-rights violations (Colin for Kansas, 2026b).

McRoberts also wants to expand the House so districts average about 500,000 residents, strengthen civil remedies for federal abuse, restrict officials from profiting from social-media posts tied to their duties and prohibit generative artificial intelligence in campaign communications. He has no elected-office or federal voting record. His Colin for Kansas website links Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Bluesky accounts (Colin for Kansas, 2026c).

Lauren Reinhold

Lauren Reinhold is a Lawrence Democrat and first-time candidate. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Truman State University and a University of Kansas law degree. Her nearly three decades of legal and public-service work include legal-aid housing, consumer and family cases, immigration, disability claims, Social Security, Medicare and federal labor law (Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Reinhold worked for the National Labor Relations Board as an investigator and election officer. She later worked for the Social Security Administration as an attorney-adviser and in workforce-support roles. She also served as an officer in a federal employee union. Government Executive reported that she opposed policy changes that made some federal jobs easier to remove from civil-service protections. She accepted a federal separation offer in early 2025 and made rebuilding a professional civil service central to her campaign (Government Executive, 2026; Leader & Times, 2026; Lauren Reinhold for Kansas, 2026a).

Reinhold calls her rural investment plan a “Rural New Deal.” It includes roads, bridges, water systems, passenger rail and community infrastructure. She supports protecting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Affordable Care Act, preserving rural hospitals and creating a free or low-cost public insurance option (Lauren Reinhold for Kansas, 2026b; Great Bend Tribune, 2026).

Her agriculture plan calls for a farm bill, fully staffed USDA offices, support for family producers and limits on corporate concentration. Her labor agenda includes stronger unions, worker protections and a higher minimum wage. She has proposed a zero federal income-tax rate for people earning less than $100,000, paid for through higher rates on corporations and the highest earners. The campaign has not published the full legislative language or an independent revenue estimate for that tax proposal.

On immigration, Reinhold supports border security, faster immigration courts, humane enforcement, a workable agricultural labor system and a path to citizenship. She wants Congress to reclaim constitutional authority over tariffs and war. She supports abortion rights and has tied voting rights, disability access and civil-service protections to a broader argument that federal institutions must remain capable of serving the public (Lauren Reinhold for Kansas, 2026b; Lawrence Journal-World, 2026).

Reinhold has called Mann a “rubber stamp” for the Trump administration. That is an opponent’s characterization. Mann’s roll-call history, committee record and instances where he opposed large Republican-backed measures, including the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, give readers the underlying evidence needed to assess the claim.

Reinhold has no elected-office or legislative record. Her Lauren Reinhold for Kansas website links Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, Bluesky and X accounts.

Libertarian Candidate

Steven Robert Jacob

Steven Robert Jacob is a Lawrence Libertarian who is already nominated for the November general election. The Libertarian Party of Kansas selected him for U.S. House District 1 at its April 25 convention. His April 30 FEC statement of candidacy identifies him as a Libertarian challenger, and the party’s current candidate page links an official Steven Jacob for Kansas 1 Facebook page (Libertarian Party of Kansas, 2026a, 2026b; Federal Election Commission, 2026h).

Jacob told The Lawrence Times in 2022 that he moved to Lawrence in 1983, apart from one year in Perry, and graduated from Lawrence High School in 1989. At that time, he reported working 31 years as a city maintenance worker and three years as an Uber driver (The Lawrence Times, 2022a).

This is not Jacob’s first campaign. In 2022, he ran as the Libertarian nominee for Douglas County Commission District 1 against Democratic incumbent Patrick Kelly and Republican Justin Spiehs. Kelly won the three-candidate race. Jacob’s questionnaire emphasized limiting government spending, increasing housing supply through zoning changes, expanding the commission from three to five members for broader representation and scrutinizing public spending on homelessness and mental-health services. Those statements addressed county government and should not be treated as a complete federal platform (The Lawrence Times, 2022a, 2022b).

No detailed 2026 federal policy platform, campaign website beyond the Facebook page, debate appearance, legislative record or independently verified endorsement for Jacob was located in the public sources reviewed. The verified record establishes his Libertarian nomination, previous local campaign, Lawrence ties, occupational background and FEC registration without inferring positions he has not published for this federal race.

Campaign Finance

Tracey Mann

Tracey Mann has built a heavily funded campaign operation since first running for Congress in 2009. Adding the committee’s FEC totals across all reporting cycles through July 15, 2026, Mann for Congress reported nearly $6.6 million in receipts. That included approximately $2.98 million from individuals, $2.18 million from PACs and other political committees, and $943,738 transferred from authorized committees (Federal Election Commission, 2026a).

The sources of Mann’s campaign money have changed substantially. Individuals supplied most of his funding when he won the seat in 2020. During the current cycle, individuals account for only 23.2% of receipts, while PAC contributions and authorized-committee transfers account for more than 70%.

Mann’s largest repeat individual donors across all reporting cycles include:

• Mark Demetree: $40,800; Demetree Salt

• Martie Floyd: $35,200

• Thomas Hemmer: $34,200; Solomon Corporation

• Roetta Mann: $29,200

• Troy Sporer: $27,550; Sporer Land Development

• Lindsay Olsen: $26,800; Mortgage Investment Trust Corporation

• Aaron Morrison: $25,500; Morrison Ventures

• Bart Briggs: $23,600

• David Mann: $23,400

• Ward Nairn: $23,200; Golden Rule

• Shane Cordes: $23,000; Midwest ATC

• Gerald Kuckelman: $22,800; Innovative Livestock Services

• J. Michael Vess: $22,200; Vess Oil Corporation

• John Fairleigh: $22,000; Fairleigh Corporation

• Lee Borck: $20,100

Those 15 donors alone contributed $399,550 directly to Mann for Congress. The reports do not disclose their personal net worth, but their repeated large contributions show that much of Mann’s individual support has come from business owners, executives, investors and major agricultural interests capable of giving thousands of dollars across multiple election cycles (Federal Election Commission, 2026b).

Mann’s recurring institutional donors represent agriculture, food production, energy, banking, real estate, construction and transportation interests. The Mann Victory Fund, his joint fundraising operation, has collected nearly $1.9 million since 2020, primarily through large contributions from affluent individuals. That money is divided among Mann for Congress and other Republican committees.

Mann’s campaign has evolved from an individual-funded operation into one increasingly supported by PACs, joint fundraising and repeat high-dollar donors. Individuals supplied 61.2% of his receipts when he won the seat in 2020, compared with 23.2% during the current reporting period. During the same period, the combined share supplied by PAC contributions and authorized-committee transfers increased from 25.5% to 70.5%. His campaign also moved from nearly $198,000 in debt at the end of 2020 to more than $2.7 million in cash and no debt before the 2026 primary.

Through July 15, 2026, Mann for Congress reported:

• Total receipts: $6,596,765.51

• Individual contributions: $2,984,583.57

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $2,175,928.03

• Transfers from authorized committees: $943,738.23

• Candidate loans: $325,200

• Candidate contributions: $2,517.32

• Party-committee contributions: $5,100

• Operating-expenditure offsets: $3,605.07

• Other receipts: $156,093.29

• Total spending: $3,883,461.29

These totals are calculated from the committee’s FEC financial summaries for every election cycle from 2010 through the 2026 pre-primary reporting period (Federal Election Commission, 2026a).

Mann Victory Fund

The Mann Victory Fund is Tracey Mann’s joint fundraising committee, not a traditional PAC. It collects contributions under a single fundraising agreement and distributes the proceeds among Mann for Congress, Great Plains PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee. From its creation in 2020 through June 30, 2026, the committee reported nearly $1.9 million in receipts, almost entirely from individuals (Federal Election Commission, 2026g, 2026h).

Through June 30, 2026, the Mann Victory Fund reported:

• Total receipts: $1,872,639.56

• Itemized individual contributions: $1,865,499.56

• Unitemized individual contributions: $1,140

• Total individual contributions: $1,866,639.56, or 99.7%

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $6,000, or 0.3%

• Transfers received: $0

• Loans received: $0

• Other receipts: $0

• Total spending: $1,845,782.29

• Operating expenditures: $162,624.89

• Transfers to participating committees: $1,683,157.40

• Cash on hand: $26,857.27

• Debt: $0

The Victory Fund transferred 91.2% of its spending to its participating committees. Operating expenses accounted for the remaining 8.8% (Federal Election Commission, 2026g).

Largest Individual Contributors

After accounting for reported reattributions and excluding memo-only partnership attribution records, the largest individuals contributing directly to the Mann Victory Fund were:

• Mike Walker: $100,000; Blue Beacon International executive

• Penny Walker: $75,000; listed as a homemaker

• Cecil O’Brate: $50,000; American Warrior president

• Cindy Walker: $50,000; listed as a homemaker

• Trace Walker: $50,000; Blue Beacon International executive

• R. Scott Foote: $47,500; Hoxie Feedyard

• Michelle Foote: $42,500; self-employed philanthropist

• Christopher K. Spray: $40,000; Venture Corporation president

• Jennifer M. Fairleigh: $40,000; Fairleigh Companies administrator

• John D. Fairleigh: $40,000; Fairleigh Corporation agriculture-business executive

• Orville “Kip” Spray: $37,500; Venture Corporation CEO

• Brian Winter: $36,500; Winter Livestock cattle buyer

• Brenda L. Reeve: $35,000; listed as a homemaker

• Lee M. Reeve: $35,000; Reeve Cattle Company owner

These amounts cover multiple election cycles. A joint fundraising committee may accept a single contribution representing the combined legal limits of its participating committees. The contribution is then allocated among those committees rather than becoming entirely available to Mann for Congress (Federal Election Commission, 2026c, 2026h).

Partnership Contributions

The committee reported $72,600 in contributions from partnerships:

• O’Brate Royalty LLC: $50,000; attributed in FEC memo records to Cecil O’Brate

• L&L Enterprises: $10,000; attributed to Jim Lewis

• Sandlian Realty: $6,600; attributed to Colby Sandlian

• Nairn & Nairn Farms: $5,000; attributed to Keegan Nairn

• Equity Assets LLC: $1,000; attributed to Brad Elliott

These partnership contributions are already included in the committee’s individual-contribution total. The corresponding attribution records are memo entries and should not be added again because doing so would count the same money twice (Federal Election Commission, 2026c).

Other Political-Committee Contributions

Only two political committees contributed directly to the Victory Fund:

• National Cotton Council of America Committee for the Advancement of Cotton: $5,000

• SelectQuote Political Action Committee: $1,000

Together, these contributions accounted for $6,000, or 0.3% of the Victory Fund’s receipts (Federal Election Commission, 2026g).

Distribution of Funds

The Victory Fund transferred $1,683,157.40 in net proceeds to its three participating committees:

• Mann for Congress: $913,467.09, or 54.3%

• Great Plains PAC: $444,491.12, or 26.4%

• National Republican Congressional Committee: $325,199.19, or 19.3%

Mann for Congress received slightly more than half of the distributed proceeds. The remaining 45.7% went to Great Plains PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee (Federal Election Commission, 2026g).

Operating Expenditures

The committee reported $162,624.89 in operating expenditures. Its largest disclosed operating payees were:

• Les Williamson LLC: $55,381.27

• Graham Advisors LLC: $44,852.21

• Capital One: $19,354.50

• Anedot: $14,790

• The KAM Company: $12,094.98

• Strategic Advance Services LLC: $5,000

The reported purposes included compliance work, fundraising and finance consulting, credit-card expenses, merchant-account fees, event costs, travel, printing and mailing. The filings also disclosed an $18,836 charter-airfare expense as a memo entry underlying a Capital One payment. That amount is not added separately because it is already included in the reported credit-card payment (Federal Election Commission, 2026g).

Overall, the Mann Victory Fund functions primarily as a collection and distribution operation. It raised nearly $1.9 million, received 99.7% of that money through the FEC’s individual-contribution category and transferred more than $1.68 million to Mann for Congress and two other Republican committees. It retained $26,857.27 in cash and reported no debt as of June 30, 2026.

Craig Musser

Craig Musser for Congress is Musser’s active principal campaign committee. It registered on June 2, 2026, and lists Musser as treasurer. Across its reports covering January 1 through July 15, the committee reported no receipts and $24,035.60 in spending: $1,745.34 during the first quarter, $15,835.96 during the second quarter and $6,454.30 from July 1 through July 15. Each report showed a negative cash balance matching that period’s spending. The filings do not explain how the expenses were financed and report no candidate contributions or loans. With no outside receipts disclosed, the campaign appears to be self-funded at this point, but the reports do not formally document the spending as money contributed or loaned by Musser. The unusual presentation may require clarification or amended reports (Federal Election Commission, 2026b).

Colin McRoberts

Colin for Kansas is McRoberts’s active principal campaign committee. Its latest processed pre-primary report covers activity through July 15, 2026.

• FEC candidate ID: H6KS01195

• Principal campaign committee: Colin for Kansas

• Committee ID: C00919860

• Total receipts: $113,992.57

• Individual contributions: $113,324.68, or 99.4%

  • Itemized individual contributions: $68,275

  • Unitemized individual contributions: $45,049.68

• Candidate contributions: $348.60

• Operating-expenditure offsets: $319.29

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $0

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• Transfers from authorized committees: $0

• Loans: $0

• Total spending: $82,535.94

• Cash on hand: $31,456.63

• Debt: $1,248.75

Nearly all the committee’s receipts came from individuals. McRoberts contributed only $348.60, and the campaign reported no PAC contributions, party contributions, authorized-committee transfers or loans. By July 15, it had spent 72.4% of its receipts and retained $31,456.63. Its only reported debt was $1,248.75 owed to Bonterra/NGP for campaign software (Federal Election Commission, 2026c).

Lauren Reinhold

Lauren Reinhold for Congress is Reinhold’s active principal campaign committee. Its latest attached report covers activity through June 30, 2026.

• FEC candidate ID: H6KS01203

• Principal campaign committee: Lauren Reinhold for Congress

• Committee ID: C00932855

• Total receipts: $40,651.35

• Individual contributions: $40,048, or 98.5%

  • Itemized individual contributions: $27,497

  • Unitemized individual contributions: $12,551

• Candidate contributions: $600.80

• Operating-expenditure offsets: $2.55

• PAC and other political-committee contributions: $0

• Party-committee contributions: $0

• Transfers from authorized committees: $0

• Loans: $0

• Total spending: $37,489.67

• Contribution refunds: $106

• Cash on hand: $3,161.68

• Debt: $0

Nearly all the committee’s receipts came from individuals. Reinhold contributed $600.80, and the campaign reported no PAC contributions, party contributions, authorized-committee transfers or loans. By June 30, it had spent 92.2% of its receipts and retained $3,161.68. The committee reported no debt (Federal Election Commission, 2026d).

Steven Robert Jacob

Steven Robert Jacob has not raised or spent any campaign funds.

What Voters Are Deciding

These primaries are not simply contests between four résumés. Voters must consider what kind of representation the Big First needs and what experience, independence, and use of federal power should look like in practice.

Republican voters must decide whether Mann’s accumulated power in Washington has produced enough for the district to justify another term. Mann brings congressional seniority, committee influence, a six-year federal voting record, and support from established political and agricultural organizations. Musser asks Republicans to give up those advantages in exchange for a private-sector perspective and a different direction on tariffs, reproductive policy, and Social Security. The choice is between retaining an incumbent who already knows how to operate within Congress and sending someone who argues that the district needs a change in both approach and priorities.

Democratic voters face an equally substantive choice. McRoberts emphasizes negotiation, litigation, and structural reform, presenting himself as someone prepared to challenge the systems that determine how federal power operates. Reinhold brings experience in legal aid, organized labor, and federal agencies, along with a platform focused on rural investment and strengthening the communities Washington too often treats as an afterthought. Both are attorneys from Lawrence, but they offer different theories of representation: one centers on changing institutions through negotiation and reform, the other roots itself in public service, worker advocacy, and direct federal investment.

The primary results will determine which of those competing visions survives long enough to reach November. The Republican and Democratic nominees will join Libertarian Steven Robert Jacob in a three-candidate general election. If Mann wins his primary, voters will decide whether his record since 2021 has earned another term. If Musser defeats him, the district will elect a new representative regardless of which party wins in November.

A district this large should never be reduced to a party label or treated as a seat whose outcome has already been decided. Its representative will cast votes affecting farms, hospitals, schools, retirement security, food assistance, civil rights, infrastructure, and the ability of rural communities to survive. The Big First may be a Republican stronghold, but political history is not a substitute for public accountability. Voters still have the responsibility and the power to decide who has earned the right to speak for them.

References

1. AFL-CIO. (2026). Legislative scorecard: Tracey Mann

2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2026). Rural Health Transformation Program

3. Colin for Kansas. (2026). Official campaign website

4. Colorado Newsline. (2021). Dozens of GOP lawmakers to reject certifying Biden as president

5. Congress.gov. (2022). H.R. 6175: Robert J. Dole Memorial Post Office Building

6. Congressional Budget Office. (2025).

   • 2025a: Estimated budgetary effects of Public Law 119-21

   • 2025b: Estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

   • 2025c: Estimated effects of H.R. 1 on the number of uninsured people in 2034

7. Craig Musser for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

8. Federal Election Commission. (2026).

   • 2026a: Mann for Congress committee records and financial summaries

   • 2026b: Individual contributions to Mann for Congress

   • 2026c: Mann Victory Fund committee records and financial summaries

   • 2026d: Individual contributions and partnership attributions reported by the Mann Victory Fund

   • 2026e: Mann Victory Fund transfers and other disbursements

   • 2026f: Craig Musser candidate record

   • 2026f: Craig Musser for Congress committee record

   • 2026g: Colin McRoberts candidate record

   • 2026g: Colin for Kansas committee record

   • 2026h: Lauren Reinhold candidate record

   • 2026h: Lauren Reinhold for Congress committee record

   • 2026i: Steven Robert Jacob candidate record

   • 2026i: Steven Jacob for Kansas 1 committee record

9. Government Executive. (2026). Former civil servants aim to shape policy as members of Congress

10. Great Bend Tribune. (2026). Democrats debate in Great Bend

11. Hays Post. (2026). Kansas First Congressional District has a new candidate

12. Heritage Action. (2026). Legislative scorecard: Tracey Mann

13. House Agriculture Committee.

• 2025a: Subcommittee leadership for the 119th Congress

• 2025b: Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee

• 2026: House passage of the 2026 farm bill

14. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. (2025). Subcommittee rosters for the 119th Congress

15. Kansas Farm Bureau. (2026). VOTE FBF endorses Rep. Mann for reelection

16. Kansas Legislative Research Department. (2025).

• 2025a: Kansas congressional redistricting materials

• 2025b: Ad Astra 2 congressional district plan and profiles

17. Kansas Reflector. (2026). Lawrence Democrats take aim at Kansas Republican’s congressional seat

18. Kansas Secretary of State.

• 2020a: 2020 primary election official vote totals

• 2020b: 2020 general election official vote totals

• 2022a: 2022 general election official vote totals

• 2022b: 2022 primary election official vote totals

• 2024a: 2024 general election official vote totals

• 2024b: 2024 primary election official vote totals

19. KWCH. (2026). ROTOR Act fails in the House

20. Lauren Reinhold for Kansas. (2026). Official campaign website

21. Lawrence Journal-World.

• 2010: Newspaper withdraws endorsement after Mann questions Obama’s citizenship

• 2026: Candidates make their cases in the Kansas 1st District race

22. Leader & Times. (2026). Reinhold challenging for Big First District seat

23. League of Conservation Voters. (2026). National Environmental Scorecard: Tracey Mann

24. Libertarian Party of Kansas. (2026).

• 2026a: 2026 candidates

• 2026b: LPKS convention candidate nominations

25. McPherson County Election Office. (2026). August 4, 2026, primary candidate list

26. Office of U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann.

• 2025a: Bill to expand child care in rural America

• 2025b: Bipartisan proposals to strengthen rural health care

• 2025c: Fourth annual Mann Listening Tour

• 2025d: Mann votes to send H.R. 1 to President Trump

• 2026a: Official biography

• 2026b: Issues

• 2026c: Mann votes for the ALERT Act

27. The Lawrence Times. (2022).

• 2022a: Meet the candidates for Douglas County Commission District 1

• 2022b: Douglas County election results: Patrick Kelly retains his seat

28. Thomas County Clerk. (2026). Notice of Primary Election with candidate information

29. Tracey Mann for Congress. (2026). Official campaign website

30. U.S. Census Bureau. (2024).

• 2024a: 2020–2024 Citizen Voting Age Population special tabulation

• 2024b: 2024 American Community Survey profile, Kansas Congressional District 1

31. U.S. House Clerk.

• 2021a: Arizona elector objection

• 2021b: Pennsylvania elector objection

• 2021c: Second Trump impeachment

• 2021d: American Rescue Plan

• 2021e: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

• 2022a: Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

• 2022b: Inflation Reduction Act

• 2022c: Respect for Marriage Act

• 2023a: Secure the Border Act

• 2023b: Fiscal Responsibility Act

• 2024a: Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act

• 2024b: Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act

• 2025: Final House action on H.R. 1

• 2026a: 2026 farm bill

• 2026b: ROTOR Act

• 2026c: ALERT Act

• 2026d: Ukraine Support Act

• 2026e: Member profile: Tracey Mann

32. U.S. House Historian. (2026). Howard Shultz Miller

33. University of Kansas School of Business. (2026). Colin McRoberts faculty profile

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

The phrase “average Kansan” is ubiquitous in Kansas, appearing in debates, comment sections, legislative hearings, and everyday political shorthand. Yet, after …

Read more

Read more

Read more

This was my first conversation with a candidate. Now that the band-aid is off and I feel heard by someone who is trying to make a change, I expect the next conversation to stay more on point with the questions. Right now, though, editing this video is hell.

I learned a lot, and I’m grateful that she was my first guinea pig on this journey. Her willingness to meet with me and then spend three hours talking shows me that she is here to listen to the people.

Trying to get Roger Marshall to listen is part of her campaign’s origin story. In March 2025, she left Overland Park, KS, as a voter on a mission to get answers. She left Oakley, KS, as a candidate on a mission to change what she sees as a broken system.

In early 2025, Wichita’s political leadership and residents began debating whether it’s time to change the city’s form of government once again. This conversation was reignited following …

Read more