Question 1

How has Senator Deery protected farmland from China or other threats?

Accepted Answer

Quick Take:
Sen. Deery has voted for every bill to restrict foreign adversaries like China from buying Indiana farmland. He also authored legislation to end subsidies for solar and other developments that would destroy prime farmland.

In 2024, State Rep. Kendell Culp—also Vice President of the Indiana Farm Bureau—authored House Bill 1183 to restrict foreign adversary ownership of farmland near military installations.
Prior to HEA 1183, Indiana had no law limiting foreign ownership of farmland.
The legislation passed the Senate unanimously with  Sen. Deery’s support.
Building on that progress, in 2026 Senator Deery supported additional legislation expanding restrictions to prohibit foreign adversary nationals from purchasing land anywhere in Indiana.
Claims that the 2024 law “allowed China to buy our farmland” or that it “delighted the CCP” are poll-tested lies designed to make Hoosiers mad, not to tell you the truth. The laws literally did the opposite. 
These ads are running across the state against other senators as well by simply changing the names and faces. 
The truth is that HEA 1183 was a meaningful first step that has since been strengthened and Sen. Deery has a perfect record voting for such farmland protections. These are among the reasons why he earned the endorsement of the Indiana Farm Bureau.
Inspired by the solar projects in Fountain County, Sen. Deery also authored the state's first bill to end subsidies that would remove prime farmland from production.

Question 2

How has Senator Deery fought rising property taxes?

Accepted Answer

Quick Take:
Senator Deery has consistently supported cutting property taxes—especially for seniors and veterans—and opposed a major bill because it didn’t deliver real relief.

Senator Deery has a clear record: cutting property taxes, especially for seniors and veterans—and never raising them.
He believes property taxes are fundamentally unfair. Your tax bill shouldn’t go up just because your neighbor sells or upgrades their home.
Real reform requires fixing how local government is funded and it must be done in a way that protects rural communities.
In 2024, voters were promised property tax cuts. Instead, Senate Enrolled Act 1 mostly slowed increases without delivering meaningful long-term relief.
The bill’s structure meant wealthier urban homeowners often benefited more, while rural and lower-income communities were left out.
Even many conservatives and anti-tax groups pushed for a different path, and the bill only passed narrowly.
Like these other conservatives, Senator Deery opposed this approach because it fell short of what Hoosiers were promised and needed.
Attacks against Sen. Deery’s record on property taxes for that one vote fail to understand the bill he was opposing and the entirety of Sen. Deery’s record which has consistently fought for aggressive tax reform.

Question 3

What can you tell me about Sen. Deery's conservative record?

Accepted Answer

Quick Take:
Sen. Deery is objectively one of the most conservative members of the Indiana Senate, with top-tier ratings from multiple independent organizations.
Senator Deery has a 100% conservative rating from the Indiana Family Institute and a 100% rating from Americans for Prosperity.
In 2025, just 8 of 50 senators earned perfect scores from both—putting him in the top tier of conservative lawmakers.
Independent groups like iVoterGuide confirm his record reflects core conservative principles, stating about Sen. Deery,  “Public data indicates a commitment to the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values, including the Right to Life, Religious Liberty, and personal responsibility.”
Sen. Deery represents you in Indianapolis in state government so comparisons to national lawmakers are merely campaign rhetoric.  Most bills in the Indiana state legislature are not partisan in nature, with roughly 90% of all bills passing on a bipartisan terms and 70% passing unanimously.

Question 4

Why did Senator Deery oppose mid-cycle gerrymandering?

Accepted Answer

Quick Take:
Redrawing maps mid-decade shifts power from voters to politicians, weakens rural representation, and risks backfiring politically.
The U.S. Constitution requires states to draw new congressional maps once every 10 years. Until this year, neither party—Republican or Democrat—has attempted to systematically redraw maps mid-cycle.
The power to redraw maps is the power to rig an election—but when done on schedule, it happens only once every 10 years so the corruption is limited.
Allowing gerrymandering anytime would take power away from the people and give it to the government. It would be a gift to the establishment and it would not be conservative.
The map rejected by Indiana would have also diluted rural representation. Communities in Vermillion, Parke, and much of Fountain County would be moved into a district dominated by Indianapolis.
Long term, that could mean wealthy urban representatives dominating rural districts.
From a strategic political standpoint, the map likely would have also backfired. It relied on voter turnout assumptions from previous elections with different candidates on the ballot that won't hold in 2026.
When that happens, aggressive gerrymandering can cost seats instead of gaining them.
A better strategy would have been to invest in winning competitive districts the traditional way.
Finally, Hoosiers overwhelmingly opposed mid-cycle redistricting, and senators are now being attacked for doing what their voters wanted.

Question 5

Why did your campaign release an ad attacking your opponent? Where can I find more details?

Accepted Answer

Quick Take:
The ads are based on a court case that voters can read for themselves. The case raises serious questions about fitness for office that Hoosiers have a right to know, especially given the fact that Washington D.C. groups have spent nearly $2 million propping up their selected opponent.

The ads draw directly from a civil case and subsequent appeal decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The court considered claims of “conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with business relations.” Conversion is the civil law version of theft. 
The court upheld a judgment totaling $120,107.25, including approximately $15,000 tied to the wrongful conversion of a savings account belonging to the owner’s daughter. The owner noticed the missing funds when he returned to work after a prolonged illness.
Court documents directly name my opponent as the one who:
Controlled the finances
Took the money from the daughter 
Sen. Deery ran for office because he cares about policy and people, and that’s what he would like our campaigns to be about. But the campaign has an obligation to Hoosiers and the Republican Party to make sure voters know the risks, the red flags, and the true history.

Question 6

Why are we seeing so many ads this year?

Accepted Answer

Out of state groups are targeting state senators like Spencer Deery who stood up to Washington.

Their plan is to show they can control our elections and to intimidate elected officials into listening to them—not you.

The ads may target Sen. Deery, but the real goal is to silence your voice and to show they can control the states.

They have spent nearly $2 million in this race and millions more across the state in other races.  They conducted polling to identify messages that would enrage Hoosiers, then spread those messages to try to manipulate our elections.

The attacks and "endorsements" being used around the state are generally the same with just the names and photos changed.

Indiana is supposed to be an independent power from the federal government in many issues, especially when selecting our own leaders.  This election we have the opportunity to declare our independence from these groups by supporting Spencer Deery on or before May 5th.