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

← Roster

682
Sound
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
27/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.67 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

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

Lands in the Sound band at credit 682, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)

★ Service to Country

No military service on record. Career public service: Cook County Commissioner 1998-2009 (transparency and ethics reforms); U.S. Representative, Illinois 5th District, 2009-present. Service is context, not a score.

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?
Affirmative fidelity to the constitutional process: returned to session the night of January 6, 2021 to complete the certification of the electoral count, and defended the 2020 result as administered (citing the prior administration's own DHS "most secure in American history" finding). No process-subversion conduct; the record runs the other direction. Career built on opening government proceedings to the public (Transparency in Government Act). Upper-middle, solid oath conduct without an apex sacrifice-at-cost moment. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 6
why?
Conduct shows genuine cross-aisle institution-building on process: founded and co-chairs the bipartisan Congressional Transparency Caucus and co-authored the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act with Republican James Comer (passed the House unanimously in the 116th). His Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score is negative (vote-pattern based), but that is a policy/voting metric, not a conduct measure and is not scored here. The conduct, reaching across the aisle to strengthen institutions, supports a steady middle. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as people who do not belong. Issued a public call to end political violence after the Kirk shooting even while opposing the honoring resolution on substantive grounds. Partisan disagreement is grounded in policy and conduct claims, not identity exclusion. Upper-middle. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 7
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals. His oversight posture has been institutional (transparency, ethics-watchdog defense) rather than retaliatory. No criterion-class conduct. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 6
why?
Rhetorical restraint is real but imperfect. He has used sharp partisan language about the sitting opposition (e.g., calling Trump "an absolute monster" in July 2024 remarks), heated political speech, not a sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern, and counterbalanced by an explicit call to end political violence. The standard weighs the heat honestly without treating policy combat as a character flag. Middle. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 7
why?
Career as a transparency and ethics reformer, sponsored property-tax-appeal ethics reforms as a Cook County Commissioner, defended the Office of Congressional Ethics as an independent watchdog. No ethics findings, no STOCK Act violation, and no appearance-of-impropriety concern surfaced in disclosures. Clean fiduciary conduct. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 7
why?
Met the higher bar of the active call-out duty: on July 5, 2024 he became one of the first House Democrats to publicly call on a sitting president of his own party to withdraw from the race, at real intra-party cost. Calling out one's own side when it is costly is the load-bearing form of this measure. Strong. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 6
why?
No documented discretion test in which he chose preferential treatment over principle, nor a clear sacrifice-of-advantage moment. The reformer record is consistent but the measure lacks a defining anchor event. Default middle. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 6
why?
No documented gap between private conduct and public posture; the transparency-advocate persona is consistent across decades with no surfaced contradiction. Middle, absent a stronger documented anchor. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 6
why?
Sustained constituent service to IL-5 across eight terms with no documented abandonment of the represented community in favor of donors or self-interest. Solid, ordinary fidelity, middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 7
why?
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family-payment, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue surfaced. (An SEC fraud case involving different individuals named Quigley is unrelated to the Congressman.) Raw wealth is not scored. Clean. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 7
why?
Honors the institution over the spectacle: returned to certify the count the night of the Capitol attack, commemorated the police who defended the building, and works through regular-order oversight and transparency channels. Upper-middle institutional decorum. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 7
why?
No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. His public posture affirmatively favors verifiable information (defended third-party fact-checking, transparency-of-records legislation). Sharp partisan framing exists but is opinion, not fabricated fact. Upper-middle. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Substantive command of his portfolio: serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (ranking member, Emerging Threats subcommittee) and Appropriations, and authored detailed transparency and election-administration legislation. 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
M05 Used sharp personal characterizations of the sitting opposition (e.g., calling Trump 'an absolute monster' in July 2024 remarks)
↳ rhetorical-restraint drag
Heated political speech, not an enemy-making or incitement pattern; paired with an explicit call to end political violence
M02 Generally party-line voting profile; negative Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score
↳ institution-over-party (voting pattern)
Score is a policy/vote metric not scored as conduct; offset by founding the bipartisan Transparency Caucus and the Comer-Quigley ACMRA
M08 No documented discretion-test or sacrifice-of-advantage anchor event
↳ absence of a defining discretion moment
-
M09 No strong documented public/private-consistency anchor either direction
↳ thin evidentiary record for the measure
-
M10 Ordinary constituent-fidelity record without a standout anchor
↳ steady but unremarkable representation
-

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: Courage, Steadiness, Loyalty to oath over party, returned to certify the count on Jan 6 night, and called on his own sitting president to withdraw in 2024 at intra-party cost. Drag toward Self-Interest is minimal; the costly same-side call-out is the strongest evidence.
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?
7
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, a consistent decades-long transparency/ethics-reform identity from county board to Congress with no surfaced contradiction. Held at 7 by a thin sacrifice-record rather than any documented integrity breach.
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, uses oversight and transparency tools institutionally, not retaliatorily; no documented exploitation of power. Held at middle-upper by sharp partisan rhetoric (a Temperance note) and the absence of a defining protection anchor.
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 record of opening government to public view and defending ethics watchdogs. Real partisan heat tempers but does not erase a generally clean, institution-respecting legacy.
TOTAL: Moderate 27/40

Total 27/40, Adequate-to-Sound. A clean, institution-respecting record whose strongest conduct marks are the Jan 6 certification return and the costly 2024 same-side call-out; held below the top tier by the absence of a defining sacrifice moment and by partisan rhetorical heat.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“Congress returned to session that night and followed through on our constitutional responsibility to certify the election.”

On completing the electoral-count certification the night of the Capitol attack · quigley.house.gov, Protecting Democracy · CIVIC · cite

“Good government is rooted in openness, honesty, and integrity.”

On defending the Office of Congressional Ethics as an independent watchdog · quigley.house.gov press release · PRINCIPLED · cite

“We must end political violence.”

Statement after the Kirk shooting, issued alongside his vote against the honoring resolution · quigley.house.gov press release · CIVIC · cite

“A second Trump term would be worse, but the President should pass the torch.”

Among the first House Democrats to publicly urge President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 race · Slate, July 2024 · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Michael Bruce "Mike" Quigley (born October 17, 1958). U.S. Representative for Illinois's 5th Congressional District since the April 7, 2009 special election succeeding Rahm Emanuel. Cook County Commissioner 1998-2009. Founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Transparency Caucus. Serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Appropriations. Won the March 2026 Democratic primary with ~66%.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score negative in recent Congresses (a vote-pattern metric, recorded here as context, NOT scored as conduct). Signature work is transparency and oversight: the Transparency in Government Act, the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act (with Rep. James Comer, R, unanimous House passage in the 116th), and election-administration oversight via Appropriations. Intelligence Committee service across multiple Congresses, including ranking member of the Emerging Threats subcommittee.

3. Constitutional Moments

January 6, 2021: returned to the floor that night to complete certification of the electoral count and later supported commemoration of the police who defended the Capitol; defended the 2020 result as administered. No involvement in the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, fake-electors effort, or any process-subversion conduct, the record is the inverse. July 2024: publicly urged a sitting president of his own party to withdraw, at intra- party cost.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Generally institutional and transparency-focused, with documented partisan heat toward the opposition (e.g., the July 2024 "absolute monster" characterization of Trump). That is heated political speech, not a sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern, and is counterbalanced by an explicit call to end political violence. Weighed honestly at M05 as a restraint drag, not treated as a character flag for ordinary policy combat.

5. Fiduciary Profile

No documented office-attributable enrichment, ethics finding, or STOCK Act violation. A career built on transparency and ethics reform, county-level ethics reforms and federal records-disclosure legislation. Raw wealth is not scored. (An SEC enforcement case involving unrelated individuals named Quigley is not the Congressman.) Clean fiduciary conduct.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (Criterion 8): he upheld certification and did not sign the Texas v. PA amicus. No sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10): partisan heat exists but does not rise to a documented pattern of casting opponents as people who do not belong, and is paired with an anti-violence call. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

A clean, institution-respecting record. The strongest conduct marks are the January 6 certification return and the costly 2024 call for his own party's president to step aside; the transparency-and-ethics-reform career reinforces the fiduciary and oath measures. The record is held below the top tier by the absence of a defining sacrifice-at-cost moment and by genuine partisan rhetorical heat, weighed honestly rather than waved away. An honest, sound-leaning middle.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Office of the Clerk

Tier 2: Ballotpedia · Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index

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.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: