Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Candidates › WI-03 race › 2025–2026
R Republican nominee for U.S. House, WI-03
Representative since 2023
The same platforms’ other accounts, such as a congressional office’s or an earlier campaign’s.
10 priorities from vanordenforcongress.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
Our national infrastructure is aging, and Derrick is committed to ensuring that western Wisconsin has access to safe, clean drinking water, well-maintained roads and bridges, and reliable rural broadband.
In Congress, Derrick has secured millions in funding to provide western Wisconsin with drinking water that is safe from contaminants and has also secured $350 million to transition firefighting foams away from PFAS to safer alternatives.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
As a former small business owner, Derrick understands that four years under the Biden-Harris administration have put considerable strain on the finances of Wisconsin families.
Derrick knows the people of Wisconsin are the hardest working in the country. That is why he champions legislation like the Working Family Tax Cuts which ensures more of your hard earned money remains where it should be: in your pocket.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Derrick has put duty above personal gain his entire life. After 26 years in the Navy, including 21 as a Navy SEAL, he returned to Wisconsin to open a small business and give back to his community. Now, Derrick is bringing that same mindset to Washington, working for every person in his district, regardless of political party, not for the political leaders in D.C.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Derrick will work to make sure individuals with preexisting conditions are protected when Obamacare is fully repealed and a new system is implemented allowing for true competition in healthcare, driving costs down.
While that work continues in Washington, Derrick is working to ensure that every Wisconsinite has access to high quality, readily available, and actually affordable healthcare. Under Derrick’s leadership, he secured $1 billion annually for BadgerCare, obtained an additional $600,000 in federal funding for new ambulances in underserved areas of the District, and successfully fought for and secured $500 million to strengthen Wisconsin’s rural hospital infrastructure.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Derrick’s Navy service gave him a unique perspective on caring for our veterans. He receives his healthcare through the VA and continues to do so even as a Member of Congress.
As a Corpsman with the Navy SEALs, Derrick saved countless lives on the battlefield and has worked to cut red tape at the VA, making treatment for physical and mental injuries more accessible for veterans.
As Chairman of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, Derrick works tirelessly to create pathways for veterans to successfully reintegrate into civilian life through post-secondary education, new employment and training opportunities, support for veteran-owned businesses, and removing barriers to housing.
In Congress, Derrick has demanded accountability from the VA, fought to protect veterans from foreclosure through the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act, and worked to enhance GI Bill transparency, ensuring educational benefits are fair for both reserve and enlisted members.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
While rising crime, illegal immigration, and increased illicit drug use have made our communities less safe, Derrick has been a staunch supporter of law enforcement throughout his life.
He has brought together leaders across Wisconsin’s Third Congressional District to hear the challenges they face in protecting and serving our communities—leading to his support for legislation that classifies fentanyl as a controlled substance.
In Congress, Derrick continues to stand with the men and women in blue, supporting legislation that combats crime, strengthens law enforcement, and ensures officers have the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Wisconsin is America’s Dairyland, and the Third Congressional District is a major producer of dairy and agricultural products. Derrick is committed to working on behalf of farmers and is the first Wisconsin member in more than a decade to serve on the House Agriculture Committee.
Derrick continues to deliver major wins for Wisconsin farmers in Congress, including passing the Dairy Business Innovation Act to support the development, production, marketing, and distribution of Wisconsin dairy products.
He also championed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act which was signed into law by President Trump and ensures children have access to whole milk.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Derrick has staunchly supported President Trump’s border policies and his efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens, including the man who assaulted two women just blocks from his home in Prairie du Chien.
Without borders, we are, by definition, not a nation. Derrick is working with the Trump Administration to secure our borders, ensure law enforcement and border patrol agents have the resources they need, keep communities safe, and remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens from our streets.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
Derrick supports term limits on all legislators, ensuring that being elected to Congress remains an act of public service, not a way to enrich one’s self.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
LOCAL CONTROL, LOCAL BUY-IN ↗ (opens vanordenforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Wisconsin families and local communities must have the final say over what gets built in their communities. Data center development should not be imposed on communities without local input or consent.
PROTECT WISCONSIN FARMLAND ↗ (opens vanordenforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Productive Wisconsin farmland will not be paved over for data centers.
RATEPAYER PROTECTION ↗ (opens vanordenforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Data centers will not begin construction until they have signed agreements with local utilities and communities to cover the new energy and grid infrastructure their facilities require, ensuring Wisconsin families are not left paying the bill.
PROTECT WISCONSIN’S WATER ↗ (opens vanordenforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Data centers must use technology that minimizes their impact on Wisconsin’s water resources. Closed-loop and air-cooled cooling systems should be utilized wherever feasible, and data centers must not pollute or deplete local water supplies.
USE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ↗ (opens vanordenforcongress.com/issues at this heading)
Wisconsin should prioritize locations with existing infrastructure rather than placing massive facilities in the middle of communities and rural farmland. Existing military bases and other appropriate sites should be considered before developing new sites to address noise pollution.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · vanordenforcongress.com/issues
96% of their votes went with their party’s majority; they broke with it 23 times in the 119th Congress.
House Committee on Agriculture
House Committee on Armed Services
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Matching this candidate against the House and Senate voting records…
The CRS policy areas of Orden’s 58 substantive sponsored measures, Congresses 117, 118, 119; the figure is how many fall in each. Sponsorship indicates legislative focus, not every policy position. GovInfo source ↗
FEC filings, Jan 1, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 · Official FEC bulk data · committee C00742007
93¢ of every dollar raised has been spent across 9 reports ($8.5M of $9.1M). Cash on hand went from $1.2M on Mar 31, 2025 to $1.2M on Oct 14, 2026.
| Report | Raised in the period | Spent in the period | Cash on hand at its close |
|---|---|---|---|
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2025 through Mar 31, 2025 | $1,131,040 | $453,265 | $1,194,581 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2025 through Jun 30, 2025 | $1,253,228 | $772,056 | $1,675,752 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2025 through Sep 30, 2025 | $1,032,338 | $443,661 | $2,264,429 |
| YEAR-END 2025 through Dec 31, 2025 | $931,453 | $461,156 | $2,734,726 |
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2026 through Mar 31, 2026 | $1,329,457 | $255,359 | $3,808,824 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2026 through Jun 30, 2026 | $1,611,631 | $735,845 | $4,684,610 |
| PRE-PRIMARY 2026 through Jul 22, 2026 | $236,906 | $244,487 | $4,677,029 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2026 through Sep 30, 2026 | $1,268,923 | $3,826,532 | $2,119,420 |
| PRE-GENERAL 2026 through Oct 14, 2026 | $306,621 | $1,260,371 | $1,165,671 |
Each report’s own period, as filed with the FEC; a report filed again counts once, as its latest copy.
Not read yet
Advanced · 0 votes (0%) · 1 of 1 · Full results ↗
Election not held yet · Full results ↗
Every contest for this seat that named this candidate, most recent last; a result is shown once the race is called. Election dates and results from civicAPI (civicapi.org). civicAPI aggregates results from Secretaries of State and equivalent election bodies, and makes its own race calls. civicapi.org ↗
Official FEC filing record for the current cycle. The priorities they publish are quoted from their own site, in their order.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the campaign’s; the record marking is ours.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 103,140 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.2M.
Money moved in from the candidate’s other authorized committees, such as a joint fundraising committee. It was raised once and is reported again here on arrival. The 8 largest sources by total given are listed. In all, 68 transfers were filed this cycle, totaling $2M.
The 12 largest committees by total given are listed. In all, 523 committee contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.2M. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total the campaign itself reports.
Total reported receipts $9,101,596
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
11% of the money placed by state came from inside Wisconsin: $247.4K of $2.2M.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 12,496 contributions · 12% | $262,462 |
| 3,537 contributions · 11% | $247,362 |
| 9,300 contributions · 9.5% | $209,035 |
| 9,960 contributions · 9.1% | $200,616 |
| 4,914 contributions · 4.6% | $100,591 |
| 3,348 contributions · 3.5% | $76,650 |
| 3,885 contributions · 3.2% | $71,377 |
| 3,886 contributions · 3% | $65,050 |
By the state each donor wrote on the filing, across 52 states and territories. Donors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized, so they cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an employer · 83,826 contributions · 78% of ranked | $1,610,986 |
| Written instead of an employer · 2,929 contributions · 5.3% of ranked | $108,581 |
| Written instead of an employer · 249 contributions · 0.4% of ranked | $8,822 |
| 49 contributions · 0.4% of ranked | $7,832 |
| 1 contribution · 0.3% of ranked | $7,000 |
| 1 contribution · 0.3% of ranked | $7,000 |
| 1 contribution · 0.3% of ranked | $7,000 |
| 1 contribution · 0.3% of ranked | $7,000 |
A further $65,934 came from donors whose answer names no employer (blank), so it is not ranked. Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 employer spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($1,982,571) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Money groups spent on their own, not through a campaign. Each ad is filed against the candidate it names, so money attacking an opponent shows on the opponent’s row. Open a candidate to see who spent it.
The campaign also refunded $230,596 in contributions, which the categories below do not include.
Total itemized disbursements $7,498,796
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
All 771 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
13 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $10,972 in all, are counted under the payee and purpose they name rather than under the processor that was paid. The total is the same either way.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 12 payments · 51% of all spending | $4,342,529 |
| 18 payments · 24% of all spending | $2,001,679 |
| 8 payments · 2.1% of all spending | $174,843 |
| 16 payments · 2% of all spending | $170,250 |
| 9 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $138,794 |
| 6 payments · 1% of all spending | $83,729 |
| 38 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $78,255 |
| 12 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $76,746 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 83,642 contributions · 77% of ranked | $1,609,194 |
| 310 contributions · 2.9% of ranked | $59,991 |
| 77 contributions · 1.1% of ranked | $22,284 |
| 233 contributions · 0.8% of ranked | $17,657 |
| 228 contributions · 0.8% of ranked | $15,949 |
| 270 contributions · 0.6% of ranked | $13,299 |
| 29 contributions · 0.6% of ranked | $11,569 |
| 77 contributions · 0.5% of ranked | $10,605 |
A further $66,434 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (N/A, blank), so it is not ranked. Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 occupation spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($1,982,571) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.