Composite 6.46 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 665, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Civic background is legal and legislative: attorney; Oregon House of Representatives and Oregon State Senate before election to the U.S. House in a 2012 special election.
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 | 7 | why?No documented conduct subverting a constitutional purpose. She did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania
amicus (a Republican-only filing) and participated in the certification of electoral results, the
constitutional process working, which is not scored either direction per the contamination rule. Her
affirmative oath-fidelity acts are real but routine-institutional rather than career-defining stands at
personal cost, so this lands solidly upper-middle rather than apex. No criterion-8 conduct.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?The Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index places her in the middle-lower band among House members (ranked
~114th, score ~0.095 in the cited cycle), she does cross-aisle cosponsor on specific issues but is not
a top-quartile bridge-builder. This is a conduct-adjacent measure of willingness to let the other side
share a win; honest middle, no penalty for partisanship per se.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. Her public posture
is policy-contentious at times but argues issues rather than dehumanizing persons. Upper-middle for a
consistent record of treating opponents as legitimate adversaries, not enemies.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals; her oversight work runs toward
institutional accountability (SEC insider-trading referrals, agency oversight) rather than targeting
opponents. No criterion-class conduct.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented slur or dehumanizing-rhetoric incident. Measured
public communication; nothing rises to a weighed appearance-concern. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No ethics findings, sanctions, or open appearance-of-impropriety concerns on record. She served on the
House Ethics Committee, a peer-trust assignment, and has no personal ethics drag. Held below the apex
band only for absence of the kind of affirmative self-accountability stand that would lift it higher.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No prominent documented instance of
Bonamici breaking from her party's leadership or base at personal cost on a matter of principle. She is
a reliable institutional team member; that is not a fault, but it does not earn the higher bar. Honest
middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?Strong reliability in the discretionary use of the office, 1.5% missed votes over her tenure, better
than the chamber median, and consistent constituent-service operation. Solid-middle; no documented
abuse of discretion and no extraordinary self-sacrifice on record.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between private conduct and public posture; no credible reports of off-camera contempt
or two-faced dealing. Middle-positive for an unremarkable, consistent reputation.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Active constituent engagement through in-person and telephone town halls and a functioning casework
operation; representation tracks a safe Democratic district. No documented donor-over-constituent
capture. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-info trades, foreign-gov revenue), not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, office-information trading, or family
enrichment. The inverse appears on record: she co-led a request for an SEC insider-trading investigation
(Navient) and pressed officials on suspicious stock timing, an enforcer of the anti-enrichment norm, not
a violator. High.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional decorum and respect for process across a long tenure; ranking-member and
Ethics Committee service reflect peer trust in her institutional conduct. Honors the office over
spectacle. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Public communications are partisan-framed but not built on a
record of demonstrable factual misrepresentation. Solid middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Substantive subject-matter command in her committee lane (education, early-childhood policy, the arts in
STEM), where she serves as a ranking member of a subcommittee. 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.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Middle-lower band on the Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index (~114th, ~0.095), cross-aisle cosponsorship is selective, not top-quartile ↳ bridge-building / let-the-other-side-win willingness | Does cross-aisle cosponsor on specific issues; partisanship itself is not penalized |
| M07 | No prominent documented instance of breaking from her own party leadership/base at personal cost on principle ↳ active-duty call-out-your-own-side standard not met | Reliable institutional team member; absence of evidence, not evidence of fault |
| M08 | No extraordinary discretionary self-sacrifice on record ↳ discretion test, solid but unremarkable | 1.5% missed votes, better than chamber median; consistent casework |
| M13 | Partisan-framed public communications ↳ candor | No sustained documented-falsehood 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
| 6 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Selfless Service, Loyalty. A long, reliable record of showing up (high vote
attendance, active casework, Ethics Committee service signaling peer trust). Held at 6 by the absence of
a documented courage-at-cost moment breaking from her own side (the Trust pillar's apex evidence).
|
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Consistency. Clean ethics record and consistent public posture;
no documented integrity breach. Held at 6 for lack of a documented self-correction or principled-stand
episode that would demonstrate Teachability and Moral Courage at the high end.
|
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Used oversight power toward institutional
accountability, SEC insider-trading referrals, agency oversight, rather than self-interest. No drag
toward Exploitation. The anti-enrichment enforcement posture lifts this to 7.
|
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Love of Truth, Justice. A durable, clean institutional-service record with no
criterion-class conduct and no enrichment. Not a transformational legacy, but a creditable one a child
could be shown without asterisk.
|
| TOTAL: Moderate | 26/40 |
Total 26/40, Adequate-to-Sound range. A clean, reliable institutional record without the rare courage-at-cost or bridge-building peaks that lift the strongest dossiers higher.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“We need stronger enforcement of the laws that prohibit the use of non-public information for personal financial gain.”
Paraphrased framing of her STOCK Act / insider-trading oversight posture (Navient SEC referral with Sen. Warren) · Bonamici House office press release · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“Constituents deserve a representative who shows up, answers questions, and helps when the federal government falls short.”
Paraphrased from her constituent-services and town-hall practice · Bonamici House office, Services / Town Halls · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Suzanne Marie Bonamici. U.S. Representative for Oregon's 1st Congressional District since a January 2012 special election; running for reelection in 2026 (term through January 3, 2027). Attorney by profession; previously served in the Oregon House of Representatives and the Oregon State Senate. Serves on the House Education and Workforce Committee, including as a subcommittee ranking member; prior service on the House Ethics Committee.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index: middle-lower band among House members (ranked ~114th, score ~0.095 in the cited cycle), selective cross-aisle cosponsorship rather than top-quartile bridge-building. Vote attendance ~1.5% missed over her tenure, better than the chamber median. Committee focus on education, early childhood, and arts-in-STEM policy. Co-led oversight pressing the SEC on potential insider trading and agency conduct. Policy positions are not scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
As a Democrat first seated in 2012, she did not and could not be a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing) and participated in certification of electoral results, the constitutional process functioning, which the framework does not score. No documented process-subversion conduct. Oversight record runs toward institutional accountability rather than against rivals.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured, policy-focused public communication with no documented slur, dehumanizing-rhetoric incident, or sustained enemy-making pattern. Partisan framing appears in advocacy but argues issues rather than casting opponents as illegitimate. No criterion-10 conduct.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics findings, sanctions, or open appearance-of-impropriety concerns on record. M11 scores only office-attributable enrichment; none is documented. The record shows the inverse, co-leading a request for an SEC insider-trading investigation (Navient) and pressing officials on suspicious stock-trade timing. Service on the House Ethics Committee reflects peer trust in her institutional conduct.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (she did not sign the Texas v. PA amicus and was not seated to do so by party), no sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern, no enrichment, no ethics sanction. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A clean, reliable institutional record. Bonamici scores as a creditable, conduct-sound member: high attendance, functioning constituent service, peer-trusted Ethics Committee service, and an affirmative anti-enrichment enforcement posture that lands M11 high. The honest drags are the absence of the rare peaks the standard rewards most, top-quartile bridge-building (M02) and a documented break-from-your-own- side stand at personal cost (M07), which hold the composite in the Adequate-to-Sound band rather than the upper tier. No criterion-class conduct; no flags.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · GovTrack member page · Quiver Quantitative congressional trading
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial disclosures · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.