08/12/2026
Process Record — Phase 4 Nominee Response #1
KY-02
Nominee: Megan Wingfield
Date received: August 12, 2026
Question One: Congress appropriates less funding than is necessary to accomplish a legally mandated objective. What principles would guide your decisions about what to prioritize, delay, or reduce? Explain your reasoning.
"Budget gaps are a problem all across our government. Instead of just fighting over scraps in a broken system, we need to look at how these budgets get made in the first place. If there isn't enough money to do what the law requires, my goal is to get as much done as possible for people while holding the system accountable for starting projects it couldn't finish.
When money is tight, I'll stick to these principles:
Impact on Neighbors: This is the top priority. We have to focus on what gives the most immediate help or protection to regular people.
Keep Moving Forward: We need to find ways to keep the momentum going by planning how to finish the work in the next budget cycles.
Cutting Waste: We have to take a hard look at whether we can hit our goals by cutting costs without hurting the results people depend on."
Question Two: You may achieve approximately 80 percent of a desired outcome immediately, or pursue a complete solution that carries a significant risk of failing entirely. What factors would determine which course you choose?
"Most of the time, getting 80% of the job done is a lot better than ending up with nothing. In government, almost nothing is "one and done." Getting 80% there gives us a real foundation to build on later, whereas a total failure leaves us with nothing but wasted time.
Here is how I’d make that call:
Risk of Ending Up Empty-Handed: If going for "perfect" means we’ll likely get zero, I’m taking the 80% win so people get help right now.
Common Sense Progress: My campaign is built on the idea that any step forward is progress. We shouldn't leave folks hanging just because we’re holding out for a perfect solution.
Building Momentum: Governing is a process that keeps going. Often, an 80% success is a huge improvement over what we have now and gives us the energy we need to finish the job later."
Question Three: A law you supported produces significant unintended consequences after implementation. What process would you follow to determine whether to defend it, amend it, or seek its repeal?
"I’d start with honesty: I would tell my constituents exactly what went wrong and why we didn't see it coming. To figure out the next step, I’d follow this plan:
Check for Real-World Harm: Is this law hurting anyone right now? If it is, fixing that harm is the very first thing we do.
Fix What’s Broken: If we can fix the problems with an amendment, that’s the best way to go. It’s the fastest way to keep the good parts of the law while cutting out the mistakes.
Look at the Big Picture: If no one is being hurt directly, I’d weigh the good the law does against the new problems it created. We’d see if we can fix the side effects by moving things around, like if a change in farm funding accidentally hurt a school milk program, we could look at the DHHS to bridge that gap.
Repeal vs. Defense: There’s no point in "defending" a mistake. Everything in government should be up for discussion to make sure we’re actually delivering liberty and justice. If a law can’t be fixed to serve people, and the damage is worse than the benefit, I’ll fight to repeal it rather than make excuses for it."
UPDATED: August 12, 2026, 2:53 p.m. CDT.
Changes:
"Candidate" to "Nominee"
