Composite 6.22 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 644, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Rosa DeLauro's pre-congressional career was in public service and politics, chief of staff to U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd and first executive director of EMILY's List. No service badge is scored; this note exists only to keep the field populated honestly.
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 subversion of a constitutional process, as a Democrat seated since 1991 she was not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory and has no fake-elector or election-overturn conduct on record (no crit-8). She certified results and worked within regular order. Solid baseline oath fidelity, but no affirmative high-cost constitutional stand of the apex kind documented here; held at upper-middle. Note: impeachment/Jan-6-certification VOTES are NOT scored here per the contamination rule. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Lugar BPI ~-1.02 in 2023, below the House median, a measured below-average cross-party sponsorship record (a conduct proxy, not ideology). As Appropriations Chair/Ranking Member she negotiates omnibus packages that require some cross-aisle dealmaking, which keeps this from the floor; but her individual bipartisan-output signal is genuinely below par. Middle. NOT penalized for party or caucus alignment. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as outsiders who don't belong (no crit-10). Rhetoric is sharply partisan and adversarial toward the opposing administration ('power grab,' 'unelected billionaire'), but that is policy/branch heat, not anti-belonging directed at persons' worth. Upper-middle: combative tone without a documented dehumanizing pattern. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics; no criterion-class conduct. Her appropriations posture uses the power of the purse within the normal legislative contest. Solid baseline. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Adversarial, occasionally inflammatory partisan rhetoric ('steal from the American people,' 'handed power to an unelected billionaire') aimed at policy and the opposing administration. No documented slur, threat, or dehumanizing language toward persons. Heat without a worth-denying instance; held at upper-middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No House Ethics finding or sanction across 35 years. The lone appearance item, a 2020 GOP campaign ad over a friend (then-colleague) staying in her home, was a dismissed attack, expressly permitted under ethics rules, never a finding; weighed only as a faint appearance footnote, not a violation. Strong fiduciary cleanliness. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?Active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. She has publicly criticized Democratic process choices on the appropriations 'Community Project Funding' process, but the record does not show a sustained high-cost willingness to break with her own party against its interest. Reliable institutional defender; middling on the harder own-side-accountability bar. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented abuse of discretionary authority for personal or political advantage. As a senior appropriator with substantial discretion over earmarks/Community Project Funding, she operates within the disclosed, rules-bound process with no documented self-serving steering. Solid. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap; her sharp public posture appears consistent with her known private advocacy style across a long, visible career. Consistency between the on-record and off-record persona is not contradicted by anything in the record. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Long-tenured representation of a stable D-leaning district with consistent constituent-service focus (housing, food safety, paid leave). No documented donor-over-constituent capture. Voting record tracks her district; middle-upper reflects durable alignment without a standout independent-of-district profile. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?Scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment. Net worth ~$3.2M is mid-pack and not penalized as raw wealth. ~$0 in tracked publicly traded assets, no individual stock trading, no STOCK Act concern. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, or foreign-government revenue. The 2020 spouse-pollster insinuation showed no federal contracts and never became a finding. Clean. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional decorum and regular-order commitment across decades as a senior appropriator and committee leader; defended the Office of Congressional Ethics and criticized partisan changes to the project-funding process on institutional grounds. Honors the legislative process even amid sharp rhetoric. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Her claims are heated and one-sided in framing but track to real policy disputes (CR provisions, funding impoundment litigation) rather than fabricated facts. Upper-middle: partisan spin within the bounds of contested-but-grounded assertion. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 8 | why?Deep substantive command of federal appropriations, food-safety, and labor-HHS policy across 35 years; chaired the full Appropriations Committee (116th–117th) and serves as Ranking Member. Substance and mastery of the funding process over talking points. [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 |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index ~-1.02 (2023, 118th Cong.), below the House median ↳ below-average cross-party sponsorship (conduct proxy) | Appropriations leadership requires omnibus cross-aisle dealmaking; NOT penalized for party/ideology |
| M07 | No documented sustained high-cost break with her own party against its interest ↳ own-side accountability (active-duty standard) | Has criticized Democratic project-funding process choices on institutional grounds |
| M05 | Adversarial/inflammatory partisan rhetoric toward the opposing administration ('steal from the American people') ↳ rhetorical restraint | Aimed at policy/branch conflict, not at persons' worth; no slur or threat |
| M01 | No documented apex-tier high-cost constitutional stand ↳ constitutional-fidelity ceiling | No crit-8 conduct; certified results, worked within regular order |
| M06 | 2020 GOP campaign ad over a friend/colleague residing in her home ↳ appearance footnote | Dismissed attack ad, expressly permitted under ethics rules, never a finding |
| Pillar III | Below-median bipartisan output (Reliability of cross-party cooperation) ↳ Reliability drag | Genuine Protection role via appropriations stewardship; Zero Exploitation |
| Pillar IV | Sharp partisan rhetoric as influence one might not want propagated (Justice/Love of Truth) ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | Grounded in real policy disputes; no fabrication pattern |
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
| 7 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Loyalty, a durable 35-year record of consistent advocacy and institutional defense (e.g., the Office of Congressional Ethics). No drag toward Self-Interest or Collapse; held at 7 by the absence of a documented high-cost own-side break (Courage-against-tribe). |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 7 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, long-held, openly stated convictions on food safety, paid leave, and appropriations. Held below 8 by adversarial rhetoric (Temperance) and a below-median bipartisan-output signal (Consistency of cross-party cooperation). |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, uses appropriations power within disclosed, rules-bound process; no documented Exploitation or self-dealing. Drag is the Reliability note on cross-party cooperation, not an abuse of power. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, a clean fiduciary legacy across decades with no ethics finding. Drag toward Favoritism/Ego is the sharply partisan public posture; it tempers but does not erase a substantively respected institutional record. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 28/40 |
Total 28/40, Adequate-to-Sound. A steady, clean, substantively mastered record with no criterion-class conduct; held off the top tier by below-median bipartisan output and adversarial rhetoric rather than any integrity breach.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The Office of Congressional Ethics serves as the independent investigative arm of the House, gutting it is a disgraceful attempt to reduce transparency and accountability.”
Statement opposing House Republicans' attempt to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics · DeLauro House office press release · CIVIC · cite
“I strongly oppose this full-year continuing resolution, which is a power grab for the White House and further allows unchecked billionaire and President Trump to steal from the American people.”
Statement opposing a full-year continuing resolution · Rosa DeLauro on X · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Rosa Luisa DeLauro (born March 2, 1943). U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District since January 3, 1991. Chair of the House Appropriations Committee (116th–117th Congresses, 2021–2023); Ranking Member thereafter. Founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and first executive director of EMILY's List; former chief of staff to U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd. Running for re-election in 2026 (CT-3 Democratic primary August 11, 2026).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index ~-1.02 in 2023 (118th Cong.), below the House median, a below-average cross-party sponsorship signal weighed as conduct (M02), not ideology. DW-NOMINATE places her on the Democratic left. Signature work centers on appropriations leadership, food-safety oversight (infant-formula contamination whistleblower disclosures), paid family/medical leave, and the minimum wage. As full-committee Appropriations Chair (2021–2023) she steered omnibus packages requiring cross-aisle negotiation. Policy positions are NOT scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
As a Democrat seated since 1991, she was not a Texas v. Pennsylvania (Dec 2020) amicus signatory and has no fake-elector or election-subversion conduct on record (no Criterion-8 flag). She certified election results and operated within regular order. She has defended the Office of Congressional Ethics on institutional grounds and criticized partisan changes to the Community Project Funding process. Impeachment and certification VOTES are excluded from scoring per the contamination rule.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Sharply partisan and adversarial toward opposing administrations ('power grab,' 'unelected billionaire,' 'steal from the American people'). The standard treats this as policy and branch-conflict heat, not as anti-belonging directed at persons' worth, there is no documented slur, threat, or dehumanizing pattern (no Criterion-10 flag). The drag is to rhetorical restraint (M05), weighed honestly without inventing a worth-denying instance that the record does not show.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No House Ethics finding or sanction across 35 years. Net worth ~$3.2M (mid-pack, not penalized as raw wealth); ~$0 in tracked publicly traded assets, no individual stock trading and no STOCK Act concern. The only appearance item is a 2020 GOP campaign ad insinuating benefit from a longtime friend/colleague residing in her home and from her spouse's private polling firm; it showed no federal contracts, was expressly permitted under ethics rules, and never became a finding. M11 reflects office-attributable enrichment only, and finds none.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Not a Texas v. PA signatory; no fake-elector, election-subversion, or incitement/enemy-making pattern. Sharp partisan rhetoric is policy heat, not Criterion-10 conduct. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A steady, clean, substantively mastered legislative record across 35 years, with no criterion-class conduct and no ethics finding. What holds her off the top tier is conduct the standard does weigh: a below-median bipartisan-output signal and an adversarial partisan rhetorical posture, neither an integrity breach, both honest drags. The fiduciary record is genuinely clean, and her command of the appropriations process is real. An honest middle-to-upper record: clears the bar without standing among the strongest measured.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm)
Tier 2: Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · Quiver Quantitative, congressional trading
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm) · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.