Composite 5.28 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 562, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record. Fields' background is in law and elective politics. This field is recorded for structural completeness only and carries no scoring weight either direction.
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 | 5 | why?Constitutional-fidelity baseline. No documented process-subversion conduct: Fields returned to the House Jan 2025 after a 28-year absence (LA-4 1993-1997) and so was not in office in Dec 2020, he is NOT a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory and cast no fake-elector or election-overturn conduct. No criterion-8 hit. Conversely, the short current tenure shows no standout institutional-cost stand for the oath either. Scored on conduct, not on certification or impeachment votes (contamination excluded). Ordinary middle. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Co-led the Reforms to Housing Counseling and Financial Literacy Programs Act of 2025 and supported the bipartisan Housing for the 21st Century Act in his first term back. Genuine cross-aisle legislative work, but a thin current record (sworn in Jan 2025) keeps this an honest upper-middle rather than a sustained Lugar-Index-grade mark. Scored on cross-aisle conduct, not party alignment. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong. The May 2026 call for Black athletes to boycott colleges in redistricting states is heated POLICY advocacy on voting rights, explicitly NOT scored as enemy-making (criterion 10 excludes policy heat). No criterion-10 hit. Middle: no anti-belonging pattern, no standout affirmative belonging anchor. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-class abuse-of-power conduct on record. Clean middle. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric across a long career. The redistricting-boycott remark is pointed but issue-directed, not dehumanizing. No documented sustained incitement. Middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Two converging fiduciary appearance-concerns weighed honestly. (1) The 1997 FBI surveillance videotape (released at Edwin Edwards' racketeering trial) shows Fields accepting roughly $20,000-$25,000 in cash from Edwards; Fields was named an UNINDICTED co-conspirator, never charged, weighed as an appearance-concern, never a finding, but he publicly promised a 'humorous explanation' and then refused to deliver it, a candor drag layered on the appearance. (2) A documented pattern of campaign-finance late filings (1995, 1997, 1999, 2019) plus a Dec 2025 LA Ethics Board $2,500 fine for a missing report. Diligence and appearance both drag this below middle. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard here is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Fields publicly breaking with his party or allies at personal cost. Absence of the harder stand, not the presence of misconduct, scored low-middle accordingly, not floored. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test asks what one does when given an improper advantage with no one watching. The 1997 cash-handoff videotape, Edwards advising Fields to be 'careful how that's handed out' as Fields pocketed the bundle, is the documented inverse of the discretion ideal, and his post-hoc refusal to explain compounds it. Uncharged, so weighed as a heavy appearance-concern rather than a finding (no conviction). No countervailing positive-discretion anchor on record. Low. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private contempt and a public posture; also no strong affirmative consistency anchor. Thin record on this axis, honest middle. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Sustained, visible advocacy for fair representation of his district and constituents through the Louisiana redistricting fight. Constituent-facing conduct present; scored on representation diligence, not on policy outcome. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 4 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable enrichment concerns (per contamination rule, raw wealth is not penalized). Active appearance-concern: Sept 2025 disclosures show $80K-$200K in Oracle purchases days before the TikTok/Oracle federal deal became public, plus Netflix/Paramount-merger-adjacent buys, while Fields sits on House Financial Services, which oversees CFIUS. This is an office-information-trade appearance-concern. No STOCK Act charge or finding has issued; Fields denies inside knowledge, so weighed as an active appearance-concern, NOT a conviction. The 1997 cash predates his current seat and is handled at M06/M08. Low on the office-info-trade appearance alone. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?No documented breaches of institutional decorum in his current term; ordinary regular-order conduct. Middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. But two candor drags weigh against a clean mark: the publicly promised 1997 'humorous explanation' he then declined to give, and a flat denial of any inside knowledge on the 2025 trades that the appearance-record sits in tension with. Honest middle, neither a liar's record nor a transparent one. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Attorney with decades of state and federal legislative experience; substantive engagement on housing and financial-services policy. The short current-term record holds this at a competent middle rather than a demonstrated mastery mark. [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 | 1997 FBI videotape (Edwards racketeering trial) shows Fields accepting ~$20,000-$25,000 cash from Gov. Edwin Edwards; named unindicted co-conspirator, never charged; promised a 'humorous explanation' he then refused to give ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety + candor drag | Never charged, weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding; cash transfer occurred while he held no federal office |
| M06 | Pattern of campaign-finance late filings (1995, 1997, 1999, 2019) and a Dec 2025 LA Ethics Board $2,500 fine for a missing report ↳ Diligence / reporting-stewardship drag | - |
| M08 | Cash-handoff videotape is the documented inverse of the discretion test; refused to explain afterward ↳ Discretion-test failure | Uncharged, heavy appearance-concern, not a conviction; no countervailing positive anchor on record |
| M11 | Sept 2025 disclosures: $80K-$200K Oracle buys days before the TikTok/Oracle deal went public, plus Netflix/Paramount-adjacent buys, while seated on House Financial Services (oversees CFIUS) ↳ Office-information-trade appearance-concern | No STOCK Act charge or finding; Fields denies inside knowledge, weighed as active appearance-concern only |
| M07 | No documented instance of calling out his own side at personal cost ↳ Absence of the harder accountability stand | Absence of the stand, not presence of misconduct, low-middle, not floored |
| M13 | Unfulfilled 1997 'humorous explanation' + categorical denial of inside knowledge on 2025 trades ↳ Candor / transparency drag | No sustained falsehood pattern established |
| Pillar IV | Two appearance-concerns separated by 28 years (1997 cash; 2025 office-info trades) form a recurring proximity-to-money pattern on the legacy axis ↳ Integrity drag | Neither resulted in a charge or finding; both weighed as appearance, not proof |
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
| 5 | why?Attributes: Loyalty, Steadiness, Selfless Service. A long political survival arc and visible constituent advocacy on redistricting weigh positive; the absence of any documented own-side call-out at cost (M07) and the discretion-test concern (M08) hold this at a flat middle rather than higher. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Genuine conviction on representation, but the refusal to deliver the promised 1997 explanation and the categorical 2025 denials show a candor gap rather than self-correction. Middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability. Constituent-facing representation present; the office-information-trade appearance-concern (M11) and reporting-diligence lapses are stewardship drags. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. Two money-proximity appearance-concerns 28 years apart, neither charged but both real on the record, plus a candor pattern, pull the legacy axis just below middle. Weighed as appearance, not as findings. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 19/40 |
Total 19/40, Adequate-to-thin. The pillars sit at a flat middle: real constituent advocacy and a survival record on one side, recurring money-proximity appearance-concerns and a candor gap on the other. Nothing here is a proven finding; everything contested is weighed as appearance per the evidentiary rule.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“There's not a single stock that I've purchased because I had some inside information. And I've been doing this for years.”
Responding to reporting on Oracle/TikTok-timed stock purchases while seated on House Financial Services · Red River Radio / Louisiana Radio Network · CONTESTED · cite
“At the time of the cash transfer I was not an elected official, and therefore under no obligation to explain publicly.”
Declining to deliver the previously promised 'humorous explanation' for the 1997 Edwards cash videotape · Las Vegas Sun (Edwards trial coverage) · CONTESTED · cite
“State demographics and history demand fair representation.”
Vowing to fight Louisiana's redistricting plan on behalf of his constituents · WAFB · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Cleo Fields (born November 22, 1962). U.S. Representative for Louisiana's 6th congressional district since January 3, 2025, returning to the House after a 28-year absence. Previously represented Louisiana's 4th congressional district 1993-1997. Long Louisiana state legislative career (State Senate) between and around his federal service. Attorney by background; member of the House Financial Services Committee. Democrat.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
119th Congress (2025-2026), first term back after 28 years. Sponsored measures including the Supporting Teachers Through Tax Fairness Act (H.R.7157) and the DPA Advanced Procurement Act of 2026 (H.R.8136). Co-led the bipartisan Reforms to Housing Counseling and Financial Literacy Programs Act of 2025 with Republican and Democratic colleagues; supported the bipartisan Housing for the 21st Century Act. Seated on House Financial Services. Record is short and still forming; cross-aisle work is present but not yet a sustained index-grade pattern. Policy positions are NOT scored either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
Fields was out of federal office from 1997 to January 2025 and therefore took no part in the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, the Jan 6 certification, or any 2020-2021 election-process conduct, he is NOT a Texas v. PA signatory, and no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct attaches. In his current term his most visible constitutional-adjacent posture is litigation/advocacy around Louisiana redistricting and the Louisiana v. Callais line of cases, framed as a voting-rights representation matter for his district.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured public rhetoric across a long career. The sharpest recent moment, a May 2026 call for Black athletes to boycott colleges in states using contested congressional maps, is pointed issue advocacy on voting rights, not dehumanizing enemy-making, and is excluded from criterion-10 scoring as policy heat. No documented sustained incitement or anti-belonging pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two money-proximity appearance-concerns anchor the fiduciary picture, separated by 28 years, neither resulting in a charge or finding. (1) 1997: an FBI surveillance videotape, surfaced at Edwin Edwards' racketeering trial, shows Fields accepting roughly $20,000-$25,000 in cash from Edwards; Fields was named an unindicted co-conspirator and never charged, promised a public 'humorous explanation,' then declined to give it. (2) 2025: financial disclosures show $80K-$200K in Oracle purchases days before the TikTok/Oracle federal deal became public, plus merger-adjacent Netflix/Paramount buys, while Fields sits on House Financial Services (which oversees CFIUS); no STOCK Act charge has issued and Fields denies inside knowledge. Layered on these is a documented pattern of campaign-finance late filings and a Dec 2025 LA Ethics Board $2,500 fine. All contested items are weighed as appearance-concerns per the evidentiary rule, not as findings.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class (criterion 8 or 10) conduct. Fields is not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory (he held no federal office in Dec 2020), engaged in no fake-elector or election-overturn conduct, and shows no documented pattern of enemy-making or incitement, the redistricting-boycott remark is policy heat, expressly excluded. The record's weight is fiduciary/appearance, not constitutional subversion. No capping flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle-to-thin record dominated not by any proven wrongdoing but by a recurring proximity to money that the standard must weigh as appearance. The 1997 Edwards cash videotape and the 2025 committee-adjacent stock trades are both uncharged and are scored as appearance-concerns, never as findings, but they are real, documented, and 28 years apart, and the refusal to explain the first compounds the second on candor. Against that sit genuine constituent advocacy on redistricting and early bipartisan housing work. No constitutional subversion, no enemy-making, no capping flag. The conduct composite lands below the support bar on the fiduciary drags alone.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures (fields.house.gov)
Tier 2: Las Vegas Sun, Edwards trial videotape coverage · Louisiana Illuminator, LA Ethics Board fine Dec 2025 · NOTUS, 2025 stock-trade reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · Wikipedia · House financial disclosures
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.