DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

650
Adequate
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
26/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.29 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.

Lands in the Adequate band at credit 650, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country

No military service record. Pre-congressional career in the technology sector (Microsoft executive; co-founder and CEO of Nimble Technology) and as Director of the Washington State Department of Revenue. Listed for completeness; not scored.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 7
why?
No documented process-subversion conduct. Seated January 2013, she could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, and her name does not appear on that signatory list; no fake-elector or certified-election-overturning conduct is on record. Oath-fidelity is held at upper-middle rather than the apex because the record shows no signature constitutional stand taken at personal cost, solid adherence, not a defining act. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 6
why?
Mixed. As chair of the New Democrat Coalition she positioned the bloc as the cross-aisle center of gravity, and several of her enacted bills drew bipartisan co-sponsorship (Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act, National Landslide Preparedness Act, Timber Innovation Act). Against that, the 2023 Lugar Bipartisan Index placed her below the historical House average (rank ~261, score -0.68), and as DCCC chair her institutional role is explicitly partisan. Net middle, real cross-aisle product, measured formal bipartisanship. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented anti-belonging conduct, no record of casting opponents or constituents as people who do not belong. Upper-middle on a clean record; not elevated higher absent an affirmative high-mark defense of an opponent's personhood at cost. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no criterion-class conduct. Clean record on the abuse-of-power axis, held at upper-middle rather than the top absent an affirmative instance of constraining state power at cost. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 7
why?
Career-long rhetorical restraint; no documented pattern of enemy-making, incitement, or dehumanizing language. Measured public posture even in a partisan leadership role. Upper-middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 5
why?
A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: in June 2023 she filed a STOCK Act periodic transaction report 288 days and 105 days, respectively, after two sales of her husband's Microsoft stock (combined value reported between $1.25M and $5.5M), well past the 45-day statutory deadline. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding: no charge, no sanction, the shares were governed by a pre-existing 2021 forward contract created for her husband's VA confirmation, and she states the late filing followed consultation with the House Ethics Committee. Mitigation is real; the late disclosure still drags this to the middle. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 5
why?
The higher bar here is calling out one's own side at cost. No sustained documented record of DelBene publicly challenging her own party or leadership at personal cost; as a current New Dem / DCCC leader the posture runs the other direction. Middle on absence of evidence either way. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
No documented discretion-test event, no instance where she was offered or could have taken preferential treatment and the choice is on record. Neutral-middle on absence of a clean test. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented gap between private conduct and public posture; no contradicting off-camera reporting. Middle on absence of evidence in either direction. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Represents a safely Democratic district (WA-01) and her voting record broadly tracks district preference; no documented donor-over-constituent capture pattern. Held at middle rather than higher because the alignment is partly a function of district safety rather than a demonstrated constituent-fidelity test. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 5
why?
Scoring office-attributable enrichment only. The household holds substantial wealth tied to her and her husband's Microsoft careers, that is pre/non-office wealth, NOT penalized as a breach. The genuine concern is the late-disclosed Microsoft sales (288/105 days past deadline), weighed as an appearance-concern: no finding of office-information trading or self-dealing, the sales fell under a pre-existing forward contract, and she co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act to ban member stock trading. Middle, the disclosure lapse is real, the enrichment-via-office element is not established. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Sustained institutional decorum across a long tenure; chaired the New Democrat Coalition and the DCCC with a regular-order, coalition-building posture rather than spectacle. Upper-middle. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 7
why?
No sustained documented-falsehood pattern; public statements are policy-substantive rather than misinformation-driven. Upper-middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Substantive command of tax, trade, technology, and agriculture policy with eight bills enacted as primary sponsor (Faster Access to Federal Student Aid Act, National Landslide Preparedness Act, Timber Innovation Act, Child Abuse Accountability Enhancement Act, Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act). Substance over talking points; 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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M02 2023 Lugar Bipartisan Index placed her below the historical House average (rank ~261, score -0.68); DCCC chair role is institutionally partisan
↳ formal bipartisanship below median
Several enacted bills drew bipartisan co-sponsorship; chaired the cross-aisle-positioned New Democrat Coalition
M06 June 2023 STOCK Act periodic transaction report filed 288 and 105 days after two Microsoft stock sales (well past the 45-day deadline)
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety, late disclosure
No charge or sanction; shares governed by a pre-existing 2021 forward contract; states she consulted the House Ethics Committee
M07 No documented record of calling out her own party or leadership at personal cost
↳ active-duty call-out, absence of evidence
No countervailing evidence of partisan abuse either; neutral middle
M11 Late-disclosed Microsoft sales weighed as an appearance-concern
↳ office-attributable enrichment, appearance only
Pre/non-office wealth not penalized; no self-dealing finding; co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act stock-trading ban

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
7
why?
Attributes: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Loyalty to institution, a long, decorous tenure in coalition-leadership roles with no documented collapse or self-interest breach. Held at upper-middle rather than higher absent a documented courage-at-cost moment.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
6
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, substantive policy conviction, but the STOCK Act late-disclosure is a real Integrity drag, only partly offset by the pre-existing forward contract and her co-sponsorship of a stock-trading ban. Middle.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, no documented abuse of power and a measured public posture, but no affirmative high-mark instance of constraining power at cost. The disclosure lapse is a minor Stewardship note. Middle.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
7
why?
Attributes: Integrity, Love of Truth, a durable, substance-driven legislative legacy with no documented falsehood pattern; the fiduciary appearance-concern tempers but does not erase it. Upper-middle.
TOTAL: Moderate 26/40

Total 26/40, Adequate. A solid, decorous institutional record with no severity-class conduct; held from a higher mark by the STOCK Act disclosure drag and the absence of documented courage-at-cost moments.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“Members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks. We need to rebuild trust in our institutions.”

On co-sponsoring the TRUST in Congress Act to ban member and spousal individual-stock trading · Public statement on the TRUST in Congress Act · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Suzan Kay DelBene (born February 17, 1962). U.S. Representative for Washington's 1st Congressional District since 2012. Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC); former chair of the New Democrat Coalition. Prior career: Microsoft executive; co-founder/CEO of Nimble Technology; Director of the Washington State Department of Revenue. Member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Eight bills enacted as primary sponsor, including the Faster Access to Federal Student Aid Act of 2019, the National Landslide Preparedness Act, the Timber Innovation Act, the Child Abuse Accountability Enhancement Act, and the Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act. 2023 Lugar Bipartisan Index below the historical House average (rank ~261). Policy focus on tax, trade, technology/privacy, and agriculture via Ways and Means. Coalition leadership: New Democrat Coalition chair, then DCCC chair. Partisan voting alignment and policy positions are NOT scored, only conduct and character against the oath.

3. Constitutional Moments

No documented process-subversion conduct. Seated January 2013, she is not among the 126 House signatories of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and could not have been. No fake-elector, certified-election overturning, or appointment-blocking conduct is on record. The record shows steady oath adherence without a signature constitutional stand at personal cost.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Measured public posture across a long tenure, including in partisan leadership roles. No documented pattern of enemy-making, incitement, or dehumanizing rhetoric. No single heated line rises to criterion-class conduct.

5. Fiduciary Profile

The central fiduciary concern is a STOCK Act disclosure lapse: in June 2023 DelBene filed a periodic transaction report 288 days and 105 days, respectively, after two sales of her husband Kurt DelBene's Microsoft stock (combined reported value $1.25M–$5.5M), far beyond the 45-day statutory window. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding, no charge or sanction; the sales fell under a pre-existing 2021 forward contract established for her husband's confirmation as a VA assistant secretary; she states the late filing followed consultation with the House Ethics Committee. Mitigating her exposure further, she co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act to ban member and spousal individual-stock trading. Household wealth is rooted in pre/non-office technology careers and is not penalized as office-driven enrichment.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory; no incitement or enemy-making pattern. The STOCK Act late disclosure is a fiduciary appearance-concern, not a severity flag. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

A solid, decorous institutional record. DelBene shows sustained policy substance, no documented abuse of power, no enemy-making rhetoric, and no process-subversion conduct. The honest drags are a below-median formal-bipartisanship score in a partisan leadership era and a real STOCK Act disclosure lapse, weighed as an appearance-concern with genuine mitigation (pre-existing forward contract, Ethics consultation, and her own co-sponsorship of a stock-trading ban). What is absent is a defining courage-at-cost moment that would lift the record above adequate. No severity-class conduct; honest middle.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm)

Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · GovTrack · Ballotpedia

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures (LegiStorm) · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: