Composite 6.06 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 630, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record. Prior public service as a Massachusetts state legislator, Norfolk County District Attorney (1999-2011), and U.S. Representative for MA-9 since 2013. Public-service context only; 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.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 6 | why?No documented oath-defying conduct and no process-subversion: a Democrat seated in 2013, he is not a
signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no fake-elector or
certification-defeat record. Conversely, no apex constitutional stand at personal cost against his own
side is on record either, his institutional work (NATO Article 5 resolutions, foreign-affairs oversight)
is solid governance rather than a self-sacrificing defense of the oath. Honest upper-middle for clean
hands without a defining stand. NOT scored on any impeachment, confirmation, or certification vote.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?A genuine cross-aisle worker on foreign affairs: co-led the bipartisan NATO Article 5 reaffirmation
resolution and the No Funds for NATO Invasion / NO NATO for Purchase bills with Republican co-leads
(Wilson, Turner, Kean, Bacon). Described as a consensus-builder who attracted the most bipartisan
co-sponsors in the Massachusetts delegation in 2022. Held below the top tier because his overall Lugar
Index ranking sits down in the 200s, real reaching across, not a standout institutional bridge-builder.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong, and no
criterion-10 enemy-making conduct on record. His public posture is policy-focused rather than
personality-attack. Middle-range: clean on the anti-belonging axis but without a signature
dignity-defense high-mark of the kind that earns the upper tier.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals, no abuse-of-office investigation, and no
criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. As a former district attorney and current oversight-committee
member his power has been exercised through ordinary legislative and investigative channels. No
criterion-class conduct found.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Rhetorical record is restrained and substance-oriented with no documented dehumanizing or
enemy-making lines. Neither a high-mark for exceptional rhetorical leadership nor a drag for inflammatory
speech, solid middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: repeated late filings under the STOCK Act (reported 48-102 days
after several 2022 transactions; named among lawmakers who failed to timely disclose) and a February
sale of up to $65,000 in Boeing holdings while serving on Armed Services as Boeing faced federal safety
scrutiny. Weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding: his office attributes trades to a third-party
manager, there is no insider-trading charge or ethics sanction, and the late-disclosure penalties are
administrative. The recurrence and the defense-committee overlap keep this at the midpoint.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Keating
breaking with his party at real political expense on a matter of principle is on record; his
cross-aisle work is collaborative rather than confrontational toward his own caucus. Clean conduct, but the higher accountability bar is not met, honest middle. NOT scored on caucus alignment as such.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?The discretion test, declining preferential treatment when offered. No documented self-aggrandizing
use of discretionary advantage, but also no documented instance of refusing a benefit at personal cost.
Middle, reflecting an ordinary clean record without a standout discretion event.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between a private posture and public statements, no contradicting hot-mic or
reversal pattern on record. Scored at a clean middle in the absence of either a confirming high-mark or
a documented inconsistency.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Long-serving representative of MA-9 with a constituent-service and district-aligned legislative record
(fisheries, coastal/national-security issues relevant to the South Shore and Cape). No documented
donor-over-constituent capture; the STOCK Act recurrence is scored under M06/M11, not here. Solid
middle for ordinary representational alignment.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment, not raw wealth. The documented concern is the overlap
between active securities trading (Boeing holdings, Treasury notes, retail equities) and his seat on the
Armed Services Committee, combined with chronic late disclosure that frustrates the transparency the
STOCK Act exists to provide. Weighed as appearance, not a finding: no insider-trading charge, trades
attributed to a third-party manager, no ethics sanction. The pattern is real enough to hold the
midpoint; the absence of any self-dealing finding keeps it from going lower.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 7 | why?Sustained institutional decorum across a long House tenure, regular-order committee work on Foreign
Affairs and Armed Services, no documented floor or hearing misconduct, no censure or sanction. Honors
the institution; held just above the middle by the genuine work, below the top tier reserved for
standout institutional stewardship.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern on record. The honesty drag that exists is procedural rather
than rhetorical, the repeated failure to disclose trades on time is a transparency lapse scored under
M06/M11. On the truthfulness-of-public-statements axis specifically, the record is clean middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrated substantive command in his domain: senior member of Foreign Affairs and Armed Services,
ranking member / former chair of the Europe subcommittee, with detailed work on NATO, counterterrorism
financing, foreign-fighter tracking, and cultural-property trafficking. Substance over talking points;
held below the apex tier reserved for field-defining mastery.
[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 | Repeated late STOCK Act filings (48-102 days after several 2022 transactions) and a ~$65K Boeing sale while on Armed Services amid Boeing federal safety scrutiny ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety / disclosure discipline | Trades attributed to a third-party manager; no insider-trading charge or ethics sanction; penalties administrative, weighed as appearance, not a finding |
| M11 | Active securities trading overlapping his Armed Services seat, with chronic late disclosure frustrating STOCK Act transparency ↳ Office-overlap appearance concern | No self-dealing or insider-trading finding; third-party-managed; not raw-wealth penalized |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own party at real political cost on principle ↳ Active call-out duty not affirmatively met | Clean conduct; bipartisan work is collaborative rather than confrontational, middle, not a drag for wrongdoing |
| M02 | Overall Lugar Bipartisan Index ranking sits down in the 200s ↳ Bridge-building reach is real but mid-pack | Genuinely attracted the most bipartisan co-sponsors in the MA delegation in 2022; NATO bills co-led with Republicans |
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, stable tenure with consistent institutional service on foreign affairs and national security. Held at a clean middle by the absence of a courage-at-cost moment that would lift it, and a modest drag from the recurring disclosure-discipline lapses. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, a substantive, policy-grounded record with no documented inauthenticity. The drag is the repeated STOCK Act late filings (a Consistency/Stewardship lapse), partly mitigated by third-party management and the absence of any insider-trading finding. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, used committee power through ordinary oversight channels with no documented exploitation. The Armed-Services-overlap trading is a genuine Stewardship appearance-concern that tempers but does not breach; no Exploitation finding. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a durable, workmanlike institutional record. The disclosure-discipline pattern is an asterisk on the legacy rather than a defining stain; no criterion-class conduct, no enemy-making, no process subversion. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. A solid, clean institutional record without a defining high-mark and with a recurring disclosure-discipline drag. Honest middle on all four pillars.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“We must reaffirm, in the clearest possible terms, the United States' ironclad commitment to NATO and to the Article 5 principle of collective defense.”
On co-leading the bipartisan NATO Article 5 reaffirmation resolution · House Foreign Affairs press release · CIVIC · cite
“I first learned of the February sale as I was preparing my disclosure filing.”
Spokesperson statement on the Boeing stock sale and late STOCK Act disclosure · Raw Story investigation · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
William Richard Keating (born 1952). U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 9th congressional district since 2013 (formerly MA-10, 2011-2013). Democrat. Senior member of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees; ranking member / former chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe. Prior service: Massachusetts House and Senate (1977-1999), Norfolk County District Attorney (1999-2011). Attorney by training (J.D., Suffolk University Law School). Running for re-election in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
DW-NOMINATE center-left within the Democratic caucus. Lugar Bipartisan Index ranking sits in the 200s overall, but with genuine cross-aisle output on foreign affairs: co-led the bipartisan NATO Article 5 reaffirmation resolution and the No Funds for NATO Invasion / NO NATO for Purchase bills with Republican co-leads. Domain focus: European security, counterterrorism financing, foreign-fighter tracking, cultural-property trafficking, and coastal/fisheries issues for the South Shore and Cape. Noted as attracting the most bipartisan co-sponsors in the Massachusetts delegation in 2022.
3. Constitutional Moments
No process-subversion conduct: a Democrat seated in 2013, he is not a signatory of the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and has no fake-elector or certification-defeat record. No documented oath-defying conduct under any severity criterion. Equally, no apex constitutional stand against his own side at personal cost is on record. His institutional fidelity shows in ordinary regular-order committee work rather than a defining crisis moment.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Restrained, policy-oriented public posture with no documented dehumanizing or enemy-making pattern and no criterion-10 incitement conduct. Neither an inflammatory drag nor a signature dignity-defense high-mark, a clean middle on the rhetoric axis.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The principal fiduciary concern is disclosure discipline, not wealth. Keating has repeatedly filed STOCK Act periodic transaction reports late (48-102 days after several 2022 trades; named among House members who failed to timely disclose), and sold up to $65,000 in Boeing holdings while serving on Armed Services as Boeing faced federal safety scrutiny. His office attributes trades to a third-party manager and there is no insider-trading charge or ethics sanction; the recurrence is weighed as a genuine appearance-concern rather than a finding. Scored under M06 and M11; NOT penalized as raw wealth.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory; no process-subversion, no fake-elector activity, no documented enemy-making/incitement pattern. The only sustained ethics concern is the recurring STOCK Act late-disclosure pattern, an administrative / appearance matter, not a criterion-class flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A solid, clean institutional record without a defining high-mark. Keating's genuine bipartisan foreign-affairs work and long, decorous House tenure carry the middle of the scorecard; the recurring STOCK Act late-disclosure pattern and the Armed-Services-overlap trading are weighed honestly as appearance-concerns rather than findings, holding the fiduciary measures at the midpoint. No process subversion, no enemy-making, no criterion-class conduct. Adequate, an honest middle, neither a standout nor a failing record.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · U.S. House financial disclosure (STOCK Act PTRs)
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · CapitolTrades / Raw Story disclosure reporting
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House financial / trade disclosures (CapitolTrades) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.