Composite 5.6 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 589, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No documented U.S. military service. Cammack's pre-congressional background is in agriculture, small business, and congressional staff work (district director and deputy chief of staff to her predecessor). No service badge bears on the conduct score either way.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 6 | why?No documented use of legal-on-its-face power to defeat a constitutional purpose. Cammack was seated January 3, 2021, after December 2020, so she could not have signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and is absent from that signatory list. Her January 6/7, 2021 floor objection to the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications is the constitutional objection process and is NOT scored here as process subversion per the contamination rule (a bare floor objection alone is not criterion-8). The genuine drag is a judgment/appearance concern: after the Capitol was attacked she stated the violence 'furthermore resolved' her objection, pressing the same objection in the aftermath of an attack on the count is weighed as an appearance-concern on stewardship of the certification, not as a finding. Middle. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Lugar Center Bipartisan Index for the 118th Congress places her at roughly 177th in the House with a score near -0.245, modestly below the 20-year baseline, not a bipartisan designee but not a bottom-tier outlier either. Offsetting positives: bipartisan SEAS Act with Rep. Pallone (D) and a publicly stated view that 'both Republicans and Democrats' have engaged in unhelpful rhetoric. Honest middle. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?Routine partisan framing ('radical left,' 'far left,' campuses as 'indoctrination camps') is policy/political heat and is NOT scored as anti-belonging. No documented pattern of casting citizens or opponents as enemies who do not belong; she has affirmatively acknowledged that both parties traffic in unhelpful rhetoric, which cuts against an enemy-making finding. Upper-middle: standard partisan edge, no documented dehumanization. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or use of office to target individuals. The post-attack persistence of the January 6 objection (see M01) is a stewardship-of-process appearance-concern that lightly tempers this measure, not an abuse finding. Middle, clean of criterion-class conduct. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Combative partisan vocabulary ('fearmongering by the radical left,' 'indoctrination camps') sits within ordinary political contest and is weighed only as tone, not as documented incitement or sustained enemy-making. Mitigated by an on-record both-sides acknowledgment of unhelpful rhetoric. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Filed her annual financial disclosure 94 days late in 2023, the second consecutive year of late filing. A genuine transparency/diligence drag on the fiduciary duty to disclose, mitigated by the absence of any allegation that the delay concealed enrichment and a stated (if unconfirmed) accuracy-clarification rationale. Middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?Met the higher active-duty standard at least once: publicly called out a fellow Republican (Cory Mills), saying 'he has abused his authority... this is not a partisan issue, it is truly an issue of right or wrong,' and chaired a bipartisan Capitol Hill sexual-harassment reform effort. Genuine own-side accountability at some intra-party cost. Held at 6 rather than higher because the call-outs are episodic, not a sustained career pattern of countering her own side on core matters. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of refusing a personal advantage offered by virtue of office, and no documented abuse of discretion. Insufficient affirmative evidence of a costly discretion sacrifice to score above the middle; scored neutrally on the available record. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap and no documented hypocrisy between stated values and off-camera conduct. Absent contrary evidence, scored at the neutral middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Routine district representation and constituent casework for FL-3 with no documented neglect or donor-over-constituent capture on the record. Honest middle on available evidence. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue; tracked household assets are modest and largely tied to a spouse's pre/non-office business. Raw net-worth estimates are excluded by rule. The late-disclosure issue is a transparency concern carried at M06, not an enrichment finding here. Clean of office-driven enrichment; held just above middle. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?No documented breach of institutional decorum, censure, or sergeant-at-arms incident. Combative messaging is within normal bounds. Modest positive for leading an institutional integrity effort (the harassment-reform task force). Upper-middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No documented sustained falsehood pattern. The contested item is her causal framing of the ectopic-pregnancy care delay as 'fearmongering by the radical left' rather than the statute, a contested interpretation, disputed by physicians, but not a fabricated factual claim. Weighed as a contested framing, not a lie. Middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrated substantive command on agriculture and seafood/aquaculture policy (SEAS Act, USDA Office of Seafood) and energy/law-enforcement matters with concrete legislative product rather than talking points alone. Upper-middle. [source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | Filed annual financial disclosure 94 days late in 2023, second consecutive year of late filing ↳ Fiduciary transparency / diligence drag | No allegation the delay concealed enrichment; stated accuracy-clarification rationale (unconfirmed) |
| M01 | After the January 6 Capitol attack, stated the violence 'furthermore resolved' her objection and pressed the AZ/PA certification objection ↳ Stewardship-of-certification appearance-concern | Floor objection is the constitutional process and is NOT scored as criterion-8 subversion; seated after Dec 2020, did not sign Texas v. PA amicus |
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index ~177th in the House, score near -0.245 (118th Congress), modestly below baseline ↳ Below-average cross-aisle legislating | Bipartisan SEAS Act with Rep. Pallone (D); both-sides rhetoric acknowledgment |
| M13 | Framed the delay in her ectopic-pregnancy care as 'fearmongering by the radical left' rather than the abortion statute, disputed by physicians ↳ Contested causal framing | A contested interpretation, not a fabricated factual claim; she stated she did not blame the law itself |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 6 | why?Attributes: Loyalty to oath, Steadiness. Genuine own-side courage in calling out a fellow Republican on 'right or wrong' grounds and leading harassment reform. Drag toward Self-Interest is limited but real in the post-attack persistence of the certification objection. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity. Consistent stated convictions and an on-record acknowledgment that both parties traffic in unhelpful rhetoric (Self-Reflection). Held at middle by the contested ectopic-pregnancy framing and the both-years late disclosures (a Consistency/diligence drag). |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability. No documented exploitation of office or constituents; affirmative institutional-protection work on harassment reform. Tempered by the late-disclosure transparency lapse and the certification-stewardship concern. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 5 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice. A still-forming mid-career record with real accountability marks and real drags, the post-attack objection persistence and contested public framing keep this at the lower-middle, neither a strong legacy nor a damaged one. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 23/40 |
Total 23/40, Adequate. An honest mid-career middle: documented own-side accountability and clean-of- enrichment finances on one side; the post-January-6 objection persistence, below-average bipartisanship, late disclosures, and a contested public framing on the other.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I have been open about how I feel that he has abused his authority, and so for me this is not a partisan issue. It is truly an issue of right or wrong.”
On a fellow Republican (Cory Mills) facing misconduct allegations, calling out her own side · TIME · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“Both Republicans and Democrats for the last several years have engaged in rhetoric that is not helpful in unifying us as a nation.”
Interview acknowledging cross-partisan rhetorical responsibility · PBS NewsHour · CIVIC · cite
“Given my constitutional duty and the fact that thousands of sworn affidavits detailing specific election irregularities remain unresolved, I will object to the electoral college certification process on January 6.”
Statement announcing her objection to the 2020 electoral certification · Alachua Chronicle · CONTESTED · cite
“It was absolute fearmongering at its worst.”
Attributing the delay in her ectopic-pregnancy care to 'radical left' rhetoric rather than Florida's abortion statute · WCJB · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Katherine "Kat" Cammack (born 1988). U.S. Representative for Florida's 3rd Congressional District since January 3, 2021 (R-FL3). Prior to Congress she served as district director and deputy chief of staff to her predecessor, Rep. Ted Yoho, and worked in agriculture and small business. Re-elected through the 119th Congress; current term ends January 3, 2027; declared candidate for the 2026 Republican primary.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index for the 118th Congress places her near 177th in the House (score ~ -0.245), modestly below the historical baseline. Signature legislative product skews to agriculture and energy: bipartisan SEAS Act (with Rep. Pallone, D) supporting aquaculture/seafood producers, the USDA Office of Seafood launch, and law-enforcement and Second Amendment measures. Policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction; only conduct and character against the oath are graded.
3. Constitutional Moments
January 6/7, 2021: objected to the Arizona and Pennsylvania electoral certifications; both objections were rejected by the House. The floor objection is the constitutional process and is NOT scored as process subversion; she was seated January 3, 2021 and is absent from the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory list. The weighed appearance-concern is her statement, after the Capitol was attacked, that the violence 'furthermore resolved' her objection. Separately, a documented own-side accountability moment: publicly calling out a fellow Republican on 'right or wrong' grounds and chairing a bipartisan harassment-reform effort in 2026.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative partisan vocabulary, 'radical left,' 'far left,' campuses as 'indoctrination camps,' 'fearmongering', that sits within ordinary political contest and is weighed as tone, not as documented incitement or a sustained enemy-making pattern. The mitigating counter-evidence is an on-record statement that both parties engage in unhelpful rhetoric. No criterion-10 finding.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment: no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on the record. Tracked household assets are modest and largely tied to a spouse's pre/non-office business; raw net-worth figures are excluded by rule. The genuine fiduciary drag is procedural, annual financial disclosures filed late two years running (94 days late in 2023), a transparency lapse, not an enrichment finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. The January 6 floor objection is the constitutional process, not criterion-8 process subversion; she did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (seated after December 2020). Partisan rhetoric does not rise to a documented criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest mid-career middle. The record carries real positives, clean-of-enrichment finances, documented own-side accountability (calling out a fellow Republican, leading harassment reform), and substantive agriculture/energy legislating, against real drags: below-average bipartisanship, two consecutive years of late financial disclosures, a contested public framing of her own medical-care delay, and the appearance-concern of pressing the certification objection in the immediate aftermath of the January 6 attack. No capping conduct. Adequate, neither failing nor clearing the upper tier.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (via Florida Alligator reporting)
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · PBS NewsHour · TIME
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets personal finances · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.