Composite 4.31 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 491 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11, 2020), one of 126 House Republicans, asking the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states won by the opposing candidate. This is legal-on-its-face power (an amicus filing) used to defeat a constitutional purpose, a completed, certified presidential election. Verified against the published 126-signatory list. Drives M01 to the 2-3 floor, hits M04, and forecloses author-verdict support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives (Supreme Court docket)
A capping flag forecloses an Author's Verdict of "supported" regardless of the composite; a terminal flag suspends the number entirely. Conduct is weighed on documented evidence, applied symmetrically. How flags work →
No record of U.S. military or uniformed service. Service to country is honored as context where present and is never scored as conduct; none applies here.
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 | 3 | why?Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020) urging the Supreme Court to invalidate certified
electoral results in four states won by the opposing candidate, a legal-on-its-face filing aimed at
defeating the constitutional purpose of a completed election. That is documented Criterion-8 process
subversion, which drives this measure to the 2-3 floor. The bare Jan-6 floor objection that followed is
itself part of a working constitutional process and is NOT separately penalized here; it is the amicus, asking a court to throw out other states' certified votes, that fixes the floor. Held at 3 rather than 2
because the conduct was a one-time post-election episode, not a sustained multi-year campaign.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Lugar Bipartisan Index sits well below the median (negative score, bottom tier among House members), and
the observed working pattern as Ways and Means Chair has been near-uniformly party-line. This measures
demonstrated cross-aisle collaboration as conduct, NOT ideology or party, which are never scored. The low
mark reflects a documented thin record of building across the aisle, not where he sits on the spectrum.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 5 | why?No documented pattern of casting citizens or whole groups as enemies who do not belong. His sharpest
rhetoric ("shameless cover-up," "influence-peddling scheme") targets specific named officials in the course
of formal oversight, partisan heat, not anti-belonging directed at the public. Middle: no high-mark
defense-of-an-opponent anchor on record either, so neither credit nor a documented belonging breach.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The amicus signature is also weighed here under Criterion 8: lending official standing to an effort to use
the courts to nullify another state's lawfully certified electors is power deployed to defeat a
constitutional outcome. Outside that episode his use of committee subpoena and referral power has run
through ordinary process channels (subpoenas enforced via contempt, criminal referrals to DOJ rather than
extrajudicial action), so this is held in the lower-middle, not at floor, the abuse is the certification
episode, not the routine oversight tools.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 5 | why?Rhetoric is combative within the bounds of partisan oversight, accusatory toward political adversaries but
not a documented pattern of dehumanizing language or incitement toward citizens. No "they are not real
Americans" register on record. Middle: heated, not restrained, but not a belonging-class breach.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No ethics findings, no sanctioned conduct, no documented appearance-of-impropriety scandal on the
fiduciary side. Absence of a documented breach earns an upper-middle, not a high mark, since there is no
affirmative accountability anchor (e.g., owned mistakes) to push it higher.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. There is no documented instance of Smith
breaking with his party leadership or the dominant faction on a matter of principle when it would have cost
him, and the central conduct event (the amicus) is the opposite: aligning with the post-election effort
rather than resisting it. Low: no costly self-call-out on record.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented test of voluntary discretion where he surrendered a personal advantage for the public good,
and no documented abuse of discretion for personal gain either. Neutral middle in the absence of a
defining episode in either direction.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and public statements, no leaked off-record contradiction of
on-record positions. Also no affirmative anchor showing private/public consistency under pressure. Neutral
middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Funding is majority-PAC (~53%) with leading securities/realtor industry sources, a common structural
donor-dependence rather than a documented vote-for-donor quid pro quo. Represents a rural, lower-income
district; no documented systematic abandonment of constituent interest for donors on record. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?This measure scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-info
trades, foreign-government revenue. No such documented conduct: no STOCK Act violation finding, no family
payroll scandal, no foreign revenue stream on record. Raw wealth and ordinary campaign finance are
explicitly excluded. Upper-middle for a clean enrichment record without an affirmative transparency anchor.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional decorum is mixed. As Chair he has run formal process (regular hearings, subpoenas through
proper channels), but the amicus episode treated a certified-election outcome as contestable through
litigation, which cuts against fidelity to the institution's settled processes. Lower-middle: process
observed in committee, undercut by the certification episode.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Aligning with the post-2020 effort to overturn certified results, premised on election-fraud claims that
courts repeatedly rejected, is a documented drag on truthfulness conduct. It is one episode rather than a
pervasive multi-year falsehood pattern, so lower-middle rather than floor.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Demonstrates real substantive command of tax and trade policy as the youngest Ways and Means Chair in
generations, substance over pure talking points within his domain. Held at upper-middle, not high, because the depth is concentrated in his committee lane and paired with the conduct drags scored elsewhere.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 2020) urging the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in four states ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, legal power used to defeat a constitutional outcome | One-time post-election episode rather than a sustained multi-year campaign; floor held at 3 not 2 |
| M04 | Same amicus signature, official standing lent to nullifying another state's certified electors ↳ Capacity/power deployed against a constitutional outcome | Routine committee oversight tools used through proper channels (contempt, DOJ referral) outside this episode |
| M07 | No documented costly break with his own side; aligned with the post-election effort rather than resisting it ↳ Active-duty call-out standard unmet | - |
| M02 | Bottom-tier Lugar Bipartisan Index; near-uniform party-line working pattern as Chair ↳ Thin demonstrated cross-aisle collaboration (conduct, not ideology) | - |
| M13 | Aligned with overturning certified 2020 results premised on court-rejected fraud claims ↳ Truthfulness drag | Single episode, not a pervasive falsehood pattern |
| M12 | Treated a certified-election outcome as contestable through litigation ↳ Institutional-fidelity drag | Ran proper committee process otherwise |
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
| 4 | why?Attributes weighed: Courage, Selfless Service, Loyalty to the oath. The defining trust event, the Dec 2020 amicus, shows loyalty directed to a faction's post-election goal over fidelity to the certified constitutional outcome, a drag toward Self-Interest/Collapse. No countervailing costly-courage anchor on record. Lower-middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. Genuine policy conviction in his tax/trade domain, but no documented self-correction or owned-mistake record, and the certification episode cuts against integrity-of-process. Lower-middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, Courage in Conflict. Power exercised through formal committee process most of the time, but the amicus used influence to attack a constitutional outcome rather than protect it. No documented exploitation for personal gain. Lower-middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The post-2020 conduct is the dominant legacy drag toward Favoritism over Truth; substantive committee competence partially offsets. Lower-middle. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 16/40 |
Total 16/40, below the midline. The Four Pillars track the conduct composite: a competent committee operator whose defining character event (the certified-election amicus) pulls every pillar down.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“The Hunter Biden pardon is a shameless cover-up of the Biden family's illegal influence-peddling scheme.”
Statement as Ways and Means Chair on the Hunter Biden pardon · Ways and Means Committee · CONTESTED · cite
“A congressional subpoena is not a suggestion.”
On enforcing Hunter Biden's deposition obligation through proper process · Ways and Means Committee · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Jason Thomas Smith (born June 16, 1980). U.S. Representative for Missouri's 8th congressional district since a 2013 special election; previously a Missouri state representative. Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means since 2023, the youngest person to hold that chair in well over a century. Attorney by training; represents a rural, lower-income southeast Missouri district.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
DW-NOMINATE places Smith firmly on the right of the House Republican conference; Lugar Bipartisan Index ranks him in the bottom tier of bipartisanship (a conduct observation about demonstrated collaboration, not a partisan penalty). As Ways and Means Chair he has driven the conference's tax agenda and led high-profile oversight (Hunter Biden / IRS-whistleblower matters). Policy positions themselves are not scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional-conduct moment is the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, signed by 126 House Republicans including Smith, which asked the Supreme Court to invalidate certified electoral results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He also objected to certification of certain electors on Jan 6-7, 2021; that floor objection is part of a working constitutional process and is weighed separately and more leniently than the amicus, which sought to defeat a completed election through the courts.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative in the partisan-oversight register, "shameless cover-up," "influence-peddling scheme", aimed at specific named officials rather than at citizens or groups as non-belonging. No documented pattern of dehumanizing language or incitement directed at the public. Heated, not restrained; not a Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No ethics findings, no STOCK Act violation finding, no documented family-payroll or foreign-revenue enrichment. Campaign funding is majority-PAC with securities and real-estate industry leaders among top sources, ordinary structural donor-dependence, explicitly NOT scored as office enrichment. Raw wealth is excluded by rule. The fiduciary record is clean of documented self-dealing.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One confirmed Severity-class flag: Criterion 8 (process subversion / capping), for signing the Dec 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to nullify another state's certified electors. Verified against the 126-Representative signatory list. This drives M01 to the 2-3 floor and hits M04, and forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite. No Criterion-10 enemy-making/incitement pattern is documented, his sharp rhetoric is partisan oversight heat, not sustained casting of citizens as enemies.
7. What The Framework Says
Smith is a substantively capable committee operator whose record carries one confirmed capping flag. The December 2020 amicus, lending official standing to an effort to have the courts throw out four states' certified electors, is the kind of legal-on-its-face power used to defeat a constitutional purpose that the standard treats as disqualifying for support, independent of any composite. His clean fiduciary record and real command of tax and trade policy are weighed and credited, but they do not offset a documented attempt to unwind a completed election. The bare Jan-6 floor objection is treated as the constitutional process working and is not double-counted. Support is foreclosed by the capping flag.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): U.S. Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps) · Congress.gov member profile · House financial disclosures
Tier 2: Ballotpedia · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · OpenSecrets
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Reps)
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.