Sarah Ulrich

Age: 44

Where they live: Port Orange

Where they work: Self employed at Ulrich & Ulrich LLC; Externally-employed at FARO Technologies Inc., a Division of Ametek

Prior work experience: Enterprise sales

Prior political experience: None to report.

Platform: “My platform is about restoring ethics and accountability to Congress by limiting its power through clear, enforceable reforms, rebalancing government so Congress once again checks the presidency and truly represents the people.  I also believe the largest corporations have grown too powerful by setting markets, exploiting American labor, and giving too little back; their influence must be curbed to build a fairer, stronger America.”

Why they are running: “Our country doesn’t need celebrities in Congress.  It needs servants who know sacrifice, listen first, and put people before power.  I’m running because I no longer see those values in our leadership, and because no one is entitled to represent the people, it has to be earned everyday.  When ambition replaces duty and special interests come before citizens, Washington gets comfortable while the people are left unprotected. I’m offering a choice grounded in service, accountability, and the simple belief that public office exists to serve the people.”

Most recent campaign finance report: $17,859, including a $10,440 contribution from the candidate, according to Federal Elections Commission data as of July 27.

Endorsements: None reported.

Candidate website

Fun fact about the candidate: Sarah didn’t have AC until she was 18.  The only thing that scares her in Washington is the cold weather.

---

Candidate Q&A: The questions below are based on voter questions and expressed priorities. Each of the candidates within a race were asked the same questions and given the same amount of time to respond. The candidates’ answers were fact checked, checked for spelling and grammar but otherwise unedited.

If elected, what are the three most pressing problems you want to address, and what do you suggest to solve them?

1. The greatest threat to our republic is not that Washington is broken, but that too many in Washington serve everyone except the American people. Too often, our representatives answer to powerful corporations and special interests instead of those who elected them. Simple reforms can help restore accountability. We should ban insider trading and impose term limits, which is why I signed the U.S. Term Limits Pledge. Public service was never meant to be a lifelong career. Limits on campaign length would reduce the influence of money and ensure representatives spend more time governing than campaigning. We should also restrict the revolving door between elected office, lobbying and foreign entities. Americans should expect their elected officials to be civil servants accountable to the people, not career politicians seeking personal gain.
2. The greatest threat to our prosperity is not capitalism, but crony capitalism that rewards greed and extraction instead of competition and innovation. Too many corporations enrich a handful of executives while workers, consumers and investors pay the price. We must stop corporations from poisoning our people and the environment with chemicals banned elsewhere but still found in our food and products. Americans also deserve stronger privacy protections. Individuals should own their data, and corporations should not profit from personal information without consent. Greater separation between executives and corporate boards is needed to ensure proper oversight and accountability. Capitalism works best when competition is fair, consumers are protected and success is earned rather than extracted. Corporate leadership should answer to consumers, employees, shareholders and the communities they affect, not simply to themselves.
3. The greatest threat to our future is not a recession or foreign adversary, but a federal government that spends far beyond its means and passes the bill to future generations. Congress has not balanced the budget in more than two decades, and changing that must begin with changing the behavior of government itself. Last year, the federal government collected roughly $5 trillion and spent nearly $7 trillion. Debt is accelerating, and we are nearing a point where interest payments consume much of the budget. If this continues, the dollar and America’s global influence will be at risk. Families already feel the consequences as inflation erodes earnings and savings, making homeownership, debt repayment and financial stability harder to achieve. Instead of relying on rushed continuing resolutions and shutdown threats, Congress must return to regular order and responsible budgeting. These measures fuel instability and enable unrelated spending provisions that burden taxpayers.

According to a University of North Florida poll, Floridians say housing affordability is their top issue. What are your solutions for dealing with Florida’s affordability issue?
Owning a home has long been one of the most reliable paths to financial stability and generational wealth. For more than 25 years, I have helped Central Florida families purchase homes, and served on the Volusia Affordable Housing Advisory Committee because this issue matters deeply to me.

Congress is considering legislation to improve affordability, including a provision I support that would prevent institutional investors owning more than 350 homes from buying additional single-family homes. That would be an important first step, but it cannot be the last.

Large investment firms own significant numbers of homes in concentrated Central Florida neighborhoods, influencing prices and reducing inventory for working families. Buyers should not have to compete with corporations for their basic needs.

We must also address the economic pressures driving housing costs. A balanced federal budget can reduce inflationary pressure, while lower inflation can help bring down interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Energy costs matter as well: higher fuel prices raise the cost of materials, transportation and construction.

Homes should be stability for families — not simply assets for large corporations to accumulate.

Will you vote YES or NO on the constitutional amendment to slash property taxes, and explain your position. How would you replace lost revenue – fees and/or service reductions?
No. While I applaud the effort to reduce the tax burden on Florida homeowners, the reality is that local governments still have to fund emergency services, infrastructure and other essential community needs. If property tax revenues are reduced, many municipalities will look for other ways to make up the difference.

In many cases, that means replacing property tax revenue with flat fees and assessments. Unlike property taxes, which generally scale with a home’s value, these fees are often charged at the same rate regardless of a property’s worth. As a result, homeowners with lower-value homes can end up paying a disproportionately larger share of the cost, creating an unintended consequence for the very families these policies are intended to help.

My greater concern is that these proposals shift decision-making authority away from local communities and toward the state government. Local officials are best positioned to understand the needs and priorities of their residents. When the state takes greater control over revenue and spending decisions, it gains the power to determine which communities receive resources and which do not. I believe those decisions should remain as close to the people as possible, where local voters can hold their elected officials directly accountable.

Utility costs are rising for customers in Florida, and the proliferation of data centers is expected to exacerbate that issue. How should Florida’s utility regulators respond?
Artificial intelligence will not magically solve the world’s problems or deliver the future its biggest advocates promise. AI outputs are only as good as the information put into them. While it can create efficiencies and reduce processing times, more technology is not the answer to every challenge facing our country.

We should ask: Will this make America better? Had we asked that before allowing social media to grow largely unchecked, we might be less divided and less vulnerable to foreign influence. AI already enables convincing fake videos, images and propaganda, and those threats will only become more sophisticated.

There are also concerns about cost. Regulators are pushing energy providers to connect AI data centers more quickly, promising companies will pay for upgrades and consumers will not see higher bills. We have heard similar promises before.

The federal government should establish basic AI safeguards while allowing states to adopt stronger protections. AI is making it easier to identify and exploit weaknesses in our infrastructure, financial systems and national security.

Innovation matters, but so does caution. America should lead responsibly; not simply race to keep up.

What do you think is the biggest environmental issue the government should address in Florida?
Dwindling freshwater supplies are a growing concern for Florida. In many ways, we are becoming victims of our own success. Rapid population growth is placing increasing pressure on our aquifer, pushing this vital resource closer to its limits. Without a reliable supply of clean water, both our quality of life and our economy will suffer.

The growing demand from large-scale facilities, including data centers, could further exacerbate this challenge. While the federal government should not dictate solutions to the states, it should stand ready to support and partner with Florida in protecting our environment. Once natural resources are damaged, restoration is often extraordinarily expensive and, in some cases, impossible. Protecting what we have today is far wiser than trying to rebuild it tomorrow.

Do you agree with the current federal and state governments’ approaches to immigration enforcement? Why or why not?
I agree that our federal immigration laws should be enforced by everyone. Legal immigrants go through an expensive and rigorous process for the privilege of living and working here. There should be no line skipping, which only creates resentment and lengthens the wait for those following the proper channels.

The federal government’s first responsibility is to protect the citizens of the United States. How can it do that if we do not know who is here or what their history is? States and local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement should face consequences, beginning with the loss of federal funding. Officials who willfully refuse to uphold the law should be held accountable through the proper constitutional process.

Foreign invasion does not always come in the form of an army. Sometimes it comes through a quiet and systematic erosion of our sovereignty. We should not ignore nontraditional threats, and enforcing our immigration laws is key to ensuring our safety and protecting our nation.

Do you believe abortion restrictions in Florida should be more strict, less strict or stay the same?
Life is sacred and should be treated with the utmost respect. No one wants an abortion, but many women feel it is their only option. I would like the federal government to focus more on contraceptive research to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. In 2018, the last year I could find statistics, only $126 million was spent globally on contraceptive research. By comparison, Americans spent $4.1 billion on chewing gum that same year. If this issue affects one in three women, we should be paying far more attention to it.

I support increased funding for contraceptive research and innovation. The truth is that the more effective the contraceptive, the more expensive it often is, leaving those with the fewest resources to raise a child with the least effective means of preventing pregnancy. Sometimes problems need to be approached from a new angle. We have spent decades battling over this issue, yet we are not protecting more lives. Instead of repeating the same arguments, we should invest in better solutions that prevent unwanted pregnancies and give women and families more options. This is a goal we should be able to work toward together.

Let’s not overlook adoption. If we remove the stigma surrounding an unexpected pregnancy and recognize these women for their selflessness, we can save lives and create healing instead of shame.

Florida leads the nation in abortions. [After 2024, Florida’s abortion rate declined. Illinios, North Carolina, Kansas ans New Mexico now have the highest rates of abortion in the country] Perhaps it is time for us to be better leaders and promote solutions that work.

Do you support AI data centers being built in the community? Why or why not? What would you do to curtail or incentivize their development?

No, I do not want data centers built near me. At the same time, I am unwilling to outsource the environmental costs to someone else. If we want the purported benefits of AI, we must also be willing to accept the consequences.

As I have stated previously, AI is not the white knight it is being portrayed as, and we should be skeptical of the corporations and foreign states pushing for its rapid proliferation. Our natural resources and our unity as a country are too important to sacrifice at the altar of technology.

We would be far better served by being good stewards of the remarkable planet we already inhabit than by degrading it in the hope that we might someday escape to another. Such a world would be more of a lifeboat than a paradise. On a small scale, AI can be helpful and even entertaining, but like medicine, the dose matters. A small amount can relieve a headache, while too much can become poisonous. We should not blindly pursue technology for technology’s sake. Progress without restraint is not wisdom, and we should be careful not to sacrifice the world we have for promises about a world that may never be.

How do you balance the idea of home rule when state lawmakers preempt decisions from local governments?
The federal government was designed to protect Americans from harm, whether from foreign threats or abuses at home. Today, it is involved in far more than it was ever intended to do, and that expansion has contributed to the waste, fraud and abuse that are slowly bankrupting the very citizens it was created to protect.

Whenever possible, responsibilities should be returned to the states and, better yet, to local governments. When the people most directly affected by decisions have a greater voice in making them, policies are more responsive, more accountable, and often less costly. Government works best when it is closest to the people. Americans should retain as much agency over their own lives as possible and keep a close eye on those elected to represent them.