Pennsylvania’s 4th Congressional District, which includes communities in Montgomery County, parts of Berks County in Philadelphia’s western suburbs, and encompasses Collegeville and Ursinus College, is holding a congressional election between Democratic incumbent Madeleine Dean and Republican challenger Aurora Stuski. The candidates offer voters two different approaches to the economy, higher education, and the role of the federal government.
Madeleine Dean: (Democrat)
Dean has represented the district since winning the seat in 2019. Before becoming a congresswoman. Dean was a Pennsylvania state representative, lawyer, and a professor at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. Her campaign emphasizes lowering everyday costs, protecting access to healthcare, defending reproductive rights, and increasing education funding,
Aurora Stuski: (Republican)
Stuski is a West Norriton resident and small-business owner challenging Dean. Her campaign focuses on reducing taxes and living costs, limiting government spending and regulation, border enforcement, supporting law enforcement, and increasing government accountability. She also highlights housing affordability and protecting seniors.
The race comes amid ongoing national debates over the cost of living, college affordability, immigration and the future of federal assistance programs. The election has particular relevance for younger voters, many of whom face rising education costs, uncertainty about student debt and challenges entering the housing market. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported first-time homebuyers accounted for just 21% of all homebuyers, the lowest share recorded since NAR began tracking the data in 1981. Although the candidates differ in their approaches to addressing these concerns, both have made economic issues a part of their campaigns.
I reached out to the Dean and Stuski campaign and spoke to some of the staffers on both campaigns. My conversations with them helped me determine the prevalent issues facing both campaigns, which are listed below.
Addressing the cost of living crisis
The difference between the candidates’ economic philosophies represents one key issue in the race.
Dean has run on a platform focusing on affordability and lifting the financial burdens facing families. Her campaign states she’s “fighting to lower costs for families and businesses in Montgomery and Berks counties.” Her proposals include investing in supporting American manufacturing and funding education. She stated in a talk with Abington Family Medicine she wishes to “ increase access to affordable insulin.”
Stuski has argued for reducing the burden of taxes and excessive regulation, while emphasizing support for small businesses. Her approach centers on the idea that limiting government spending and reducing regulatory barriers can help businesses grow and ease financial pressures on households. Her economic platform, per her website, specifically calls to “fight inflationary spending, support small businesses, and make it easier for families to get ahead.” The economic platform outlined on her website also calls to “reduce unnecessary permitting delays” as part of an effort to increase housing supply in her official campaign platform.
These differences raise questions about how each candidate would address everyday expenses, including housing, groceries, utilities and transportation. While both approaches are intended to improve economic conditions, they differ in the federal government’s role in achieving that goal.
College affordability and student debt
Dean has supported student debt relief and free community college. These policies reflect her broader position that the federal government should help make higher education accessible to students regardless of their financial circumstances. Her campaign, per the website, argues that students pursuing higher education “should not be burdened by life-long debt.” She has emphasized protections for student borrowers ,stating on her policy platform that “Students shouldn’t have to sign away basic legal protections in order to borrow money and claim their education.”
Stuski has proposed changes to the student loan system that emphasize affordable repayment, protections for lower income borrowers. Her proposal also includes income based repayment and an eventual forgiveness endpoint for borrowers who meet specified repayment conditions. Her campaign website describes its goal as creating “a student-loan system in which borrowers have an affordable path to repayment.”
Although the candidates approach the issue differently, both candidates have made it a point to emphasize supporting students in making higher education more attainable and affordable
Social Security and Medicare
The future of Social Security and Medicare is another ever-prevalent issue facing Congress. Both programs provide essential financial and health support to millions of Americans, including older residents of Pennsylvania.
Dean has emphasized protecting Social Security and Medicare while supporting affordable health care and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. According to her website’s policy platform. Dean’s approach generally favors maintaining access to federal assistance programs. Her official healthcare platform, per the website, states she is in favor of “expanding Social Security and Medicare and defending against attacks to these programs in the name of more tax cuts for the wealthy.”
Stuski has also said she supports protecting Social Security especially for seniors who continue to work after age 65. Her official campaign website states “seniors who choose to remain active in the workforce shouldn’t be punished for doing so.”In her Campaign outline She has highlighted the financial pressures facing seniors, including housing expenses and property taxes, and has proposed allowing older Americans to continue working without the same retirement-related penalties. Her website says “Social Security should reflect the economic realities facing today’s retirees.”
Immigration
Beyond economic concerns, the candidates’ approaches to immigration policy offer another important point of contrast. Madeleine Dean emphasizes a strong legal immigration system and giving pathways to citizenship to undocumented immigrants. Dean describes her position in her campaign priorities via the website as “supporting a strong, legal immigration system and humane treatment for anyone seeking citizenship.”
Republican challenger Aurora Stuski, by contrast, places greater emphasis on border security, immigration law enforcement and public safety. Her campaign’s “Secure Border, Secure Pennsylvania” initiative states immigration should be “legal, orderly, and secure, with strong background checks and enforcement.” Her campaign website states she hopes to “enforce immigration law, stop trafficking, and put Pennsylvania’s security first.”
Overall
Dean favors using federal programs and legislation to expand access to healthcare, education, and economic support. Stuski emphasizes fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less regulation, border enforcement, and local accountability, while also proposing targeted protections for families and seniors. These are broad differences in approach; the specifics matter on individual issues.
As Election Day approaches, voters will need to look beyond broad political labels and examine the details of each candidate’s proposals. The central question is not simply which candidate promises to address the country’s challenges, but which policies each would pursue and how those policies would affect the people they seek to represent.
