Drew Cranmer

“I work with data for a living, so I lean toward an evidence-based approach in all of the decisions I make. While good data can tell you what is happening or what a policy is likely to do, however, it cannot tell you what a policy is worth. That’s a question of values, and in a free, democratic society, it belongs to the people affected. In order, I would consider: 1) What does the best available evidence say, and how good is the underlying data supporting that evidence; 2) What does a policy cost (both in dollars and in liberty); 3) Who decides? When there’s broad consensus and the tradeoffs are limited, Congress should act. When the science is uncertain or contested, I’d rather let states, localities, and individuals make independent choices rather than lock in one national answer we may need to roll back. I also think Congress should be honest about where evidence ends and preference (or bias) begins. All too often “the science says” is used to squash debate that is really about values. Scientists deserve to have their findings taken seriously, and voters deserve to know when a decision is theirs to make.”

KEYWORDS: Evidence, Liberty, Accountability

“Because disoveries are costly, slow, and sometimes difficult to profit from, private markets can tend to underinvest in them. This is one of the stronger cases for federal spending. The $195 million coming into Kansas supports real labs, jobs, and students, and I don’t want to treat it as a line item to gut. That said, strong case doesn’t mean blank check. I favor the following: 1) Research funding should be offset by cutting elsewhere, like undeclared wars nd unconditional foreign aid, not added to the deficit. 2) Grants should be awarded through peer review on a merit-based system, not driven by whichever party holds power. 3) Reduce the administrative overhead and unnecessary bureaucracy while requiring that federally funded results be published openly and be reproducible so taxpayers get what they paid for. I’d also avoid abrutpt cuts that threaten to abandon or disrupt work underway. Predictable funding matters more than a larger but unstable number.”

KEYWORDS: Merit, Accountability, Stability

“Kansas has always built wealth through investment in its best resources. Wheat production, animal health, and aviation manufacturing are all applied sciences, and research at K-State and WSU feeds them. Innovation should be at the center of our economy. It makes Kansas workers and famers more productive without asking taxpayers or government to pick winners and losers. My role in Congress should be narrower than the state’s. Revenue and infractructure decisions belong to those in Topeka or local governments, and I think that’s how it should be. What I can do in Washington is keep federal rules, taxes, and deficits from becoming overly budensome toward Kansas businesses seeking to build and invest. I have one test for when public money is spent: can we measure what it did? Whether it’s investment in infrasturcture, a research center, or a state program, taxpayers should be able to clearly identify the goal, the cost, and the result. Projects that can’t show results shouldn’t be renewed, regardless of how long they’ve been funded.”

KEYWORDS: Innovation, Productivity, Accountability

“Tornadoes, flooding, wildfires, and ice storms are an all-too-real part of living in Kansas, but good forecasting, planning, and alerting can save lives. I would consult with scientists and practitioners early and often: National Weather Service meteorologists, emergency managers, engineers, hydrologists, and the agricultural and university researchers who study our land and water. I propose the following: 1) Keep the forecasting and warning systems that people depend on working. Weather radar, satellite data, and NWS staffing are not the place to look for savings. 2) Listen to local officials. County emergency mangers and first responders now their terrain, and federal disaster programs should support their plans rather than overriding them. 3) Insist on results. Mitigation dollars, like buying out repeatedly flooded properties or hardening a power grid should be judged by whether they reduced damage per dollar spent. In the aftermath, any federal response needs to be fast and predictable, with less red tape between a disaster declaration and Kansans getting help. Preparing before a storm is almost always cheaper than rebuidling afterwards. “

KEYWORDS: Preparedness, Local Control, Accountability

“Fertilizer and crop protection are why Kansas feeds so many people, and clean water is something every Kansan has a right to expect. The balance comes from a principle I think both sides accept: you can use your land freely, but you can’t send the costs onto your neighbor. I’d start with good data. Water monitoring should be public, consistent, and run by scientists, so we know where contamination is and where it comes from. Where a specific source can be shown to have harmed a water supply, that source should be responsible for the damage, through the courts and local enforcement, not a broad ban on practices that most farmers use responsibly. I’d also look at federal policy that pushes the wrong way. Subsidies and insurance rules that reward heavy inputs or farming marginal ground work against both profits and water quality. Where conservation practices work, I’d support voluntary, locally run programs over new federal mandates, and I’d want results measured.”

KEYWORDS: Property Rights, Stewardship, Evidence

“Measles is a serious disease, and the MMR vaccine is safe and highly effective. I’d say that plainly, and I’d encourage Kansas families to talk with their doctors and keep their children up to date. My approach is persuasion over coercion. I don’t support federal vaccine mandates. Trust is what drives vaccination, and mandates tend to erode it. What I would support is making the facts easy to find and the vaccine easy to get: clear, honest information from KDHE and local health departments, strong support for county health offices and rural clinics, and no bureaucratic barriers between a family and a shot. During an outbreak, I would support narrowly targeted, time-limited measures such as isolating confirmed cases and notifying exposed contacts, run by local officials who can be held accountable.”

KEYWORDS: Voluntary, Trust, Transparency

“I work with data for a living, so I take data centers seriously, and I don’t think they are inherently good or bad. The question is who pays and who decides. My principle is that large users should cover the full cost of the capacity they require. Kansas’s approach of charging big energy consumers appropriately is the right direction, because ordinary ratepayers shouldn’t subsidize a trillion-dollar company’s power bill. I’d extend that thinking to tax breaks and incentives. If a project is worth building, it can stand on its own without special deals from taxpayers. Reliability and water matter just as much. Data centers should disclose their expected electricity and water use up front, so local communities can plan and say no if the tradeoffs don’t work. Those decisions belong to counties and the state utility regulator, not Washington. What Congress can do is clear the way. Slow, costly federal permitting holds back new generation and transmission, which is what keeps the grid reliable and bills down.”

KEYWORDS: Ratepayers, Transparency, Local Control

“AI is a tool, and tools are mostly judged by who uses them and for what. My approach is to keep government away from deciding which AI products get built, and to focus it on the places where government itself is the risk. First, government use. Agencies shouldn’t use AI to surveil Americans without a warrant. I’ve looked into license plate reader networks in Wichita, and I know how quickly a “public safety tool” becomes a permanent tracking system with weak oversight. AI makes that more powerful, so the Fourth Amendment has to apply to it. Second, private harms. Fraud, defamation, and theft are already illegal, and courts should apply those laws to AI. I’d rather enforce existing rules than create a federal licensing regime that favors the biggest companies and shuts out new ones. Third, ownership and security. Creators and users should know how their data and work are used, and disclosure and contract law are better tools than bans. On data centers, I’d let local communities decide and make large users pay their own way.”

KEYWORDS: Privacy, Liberty, Accountability