Composite 6.56 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Clears the bar on a conduct-only reading. The affirmative ethics-reform leadership (congressional stock- trading ban), genuine bipartisan national-security work, and substantive command of his portfolio carry the record. The two honest drags, the 2022 lobbyist-fundraiser appearance-concern tied to an active probe and the 2025 fundraising emails misrepresenting a colleague's endorsement, are weighed as appearance/ communications concerns, not findings or capping conduct. Adequate-to-Sound, pending the human gate.
- No military service on record
No military service record. Civilian background: small-business owner and policy adviser before Congress; Princeton (engineering) and Harvard Law School. Listed for completeness; 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 | 7 | why?No documented conduct subverting a constitutional purpose: not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory
(a Democrat seated in 2017, he could not and did not sign the December 2020 brief), no fake-electors
involvement, no documented process-subversion. Oversight and select-committee work proceeded through
regular institutional channels. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because the record is one of
ordinary institutional fidelity, not a documented stand for the oath against his own side at personal cost.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 7 | why?A genuinely bipartisan working record: co-led the China Select Committee with Republican chair Moolenaar
on joint Taiwan-deterrence products, the bipartisan/bicameral ETHICS Act with Rep. Cloud (R-TX) and earlier
with Rep. Gallagher (R-WI), and the Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act that passed the House unanimously.
Worked across the aisle on national-security and ethics matters where it would have been easier to posture.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of denying opponents' personhood or casting citizens as enemies who do not belong.
Committee rhetoric on the CCP is directed at a foreign government and its policies, not at Americans by
identity. Sharp partisan oversight of the opposing administration is policy heat, not anti-belonging
conduct. Upper-middle: restrained on the belonging axis, no documented high-mark defense of an opponent.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals and no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct.
His oversight letters and investigation requests (DHS/FEMA, Wilbur Ross, the Commanders inquiry) are
ordinary congressional oversight directed at executive-branch and private actors, conducted through
committee process. No abuse-of-power finding on record.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric with no documented incitement or slur pattern. The drag is a December
2025 episode in which the campaign sent fundraising emails styled as written by Rep. Ted Lieu (with his
photo) when he had not endorsed and had no knowledge, a misleading communications practice rather than a
heated-speech problem. Net middle: no enemy-making, but a documented honesty-of-communications lapse.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?A genuine appearance-concern: in May 2022, while leading the Washington Commanders inquiry, he was the
subject of an outside ethics complaint over a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser pitched around that investigation.
He canceled the event "out of an abundance of caution," citing unauthorized lobbyist outreach. Uncharged
and unadjudicated, weighed as an appearance-of-impropriety, not a finding. The prompt cancellation is
mitigation; the proximity of money to an active probe is the real drag.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?Vigorous oversight of the opposing administration is on record, but the higher bar here is calling out
one's OWN side at real cost. There is little documented instance of him publicly breaking from his own
party or leadership when it was costly to do so. Middle: aisle-crossing on legislation exists, but the
active self-critique duty is only partially met.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?The discretion test, using private latitude well when no one compels it. He stepped down from the China
Select Committee ranking-member role on launching his Senate bid, a reasonable separation of campaign from
a sensitive national-security post. Offsetting it is the December 2025 unauthorized-email choice, where the
campaign's discretion fell short until exposed. Upper-middle, tempered.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No broad documented private-vs-public contempt gap, but the impersonation-style fundraising emails are a
gap between the public posture (a colleague's endorsement) and the private reality (no endorsement, no
knowledge). The campaign attributed it to internal miscommunication and retracted it. Counted as a real
integrity-of-representation drag, not erased by the explanation.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Routine constituent-facing legislative work (skills-based contracting, distracted-driving grants, animal-
welfare enforcement) indicates attention to district and institutional duty. No documented donor-over-
constituent capture finding, though he is a prolific national fundraiser. Middle, solid service, nothing
that elevates to a documented high mark.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 8 | why?Scores only office-attributable enrichment. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-info
trades, or foreign-government revenue on record. Affirmatively led the bipartisan congressional stock-
trading ban (ETHICS Act / Restore Trust in Congress Act) extending the STOCK Act to members, spouses, and
dependent children, voluntarily constraining the very advantage measured here. High; raw wealth is not
penalized.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Honors institutional process in committee work, the bipartisan, regular-order posture of the China
Select Committee is a point in favor. The campaign's unauthorized use of a colleague's identity for
fundraising is a lapse in the kind of institutional courtesy and decorum the office implies. Net middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented pattern of sustained public falsehood. The single documented truthfulness drag is the
December 2025 fundraising-email episode, in which donor-facing communications conveyed an endorsement that
did not exist. Acknowledged and corrected by the campaign as an internal miscommunication. One documented
instance, owned and retracted, counted, not waved away. Middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 8 | why?Substantive command of his portfolio: ranking member on the China Select Committee with detailed
bipartisan deliverables (Taiwan-deterrence reports), credentialed background (Princeton, Harvard Law),
and a legislative record of specific, enacted bills. Substance over talking points, a genuine strength.
[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 | May 2022: outside ethics complaint over a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser pitched around his active Washington Commanders inquiry; he canceled it citing unauthorized lobbyist outreach ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Uncharged/unadjudicated, appearance-concern, not a finding; canceled promptly 'out of an abundance of caution' |
| M13 | December 2025: campaign sent fundraising emails styled as written by Rep. Ted Lieu (with his photo) when he had not endorsed and had no knowledge ↳ Truthfulness / honesty of donor-facing communications | Campaign attributed it to internal miscommunication, retracted it, and resolved it with Lieu's team |
| M05 | Same December 2025 unauthorized-email episode, misleading communications practice ↳ Communications integrity (not heated speech) | No incitement or slur pattern; isolated and corrected |
| M09 | Gap between the represented endorsement and the reality (no endorsement, no knowledge) in the Lieu emails ↳ Integrity-of-representation gap | Explained as internal miscommunication; retracted |
| M07 | Little documented instance of breaking from his own party/leadership at personal cost ↳ Active call-out duty only partially met | Genuine bipartisan legislating and a bipartisan committee posture |
| Pillar II | The Lieu-email episode is a break from a clean-communications standard (Authenticity/Consistency) ↳ Authenticity/Consistency drag | Prompt correction and acknowledgment temper it |
| Pillar IV | The Commanders appearance-concern and the email episode are asterisks on an otherwise clean integrity record ↳ Integrity/Justice drag | Affirmative anti-self-dealing leadership (stock-ban bills) dominates the fiduciary legacy |
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
| 7 | why?Attributes: Reliability, Steadiness, Institutional Loyalty, a steady, substantive committee leader who worked across the aisle on national security and ethics. No documented disloyalty to the constitutional order. Held at 7 by the absence of a documented costly stand on principle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, credible policy conviction and credentialed substance, drawn down by the December 2025 unauthorized-email episode, an authenticity lapse the campaign corrected rather than defended. The correction keeps the drag modest. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, Anti-Exploitation, affirmatively led the congressional stock-trading ban, constraining the office's own advantage; ordinary, channeled oversight with no documented abuse. The Commanders appearance-concern is a minor stewardship note, not an abuse. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, Love of Truth, a substantive, mostly clean record with two real asterisks (the 2022 fundraiser appearance-concern and the 2025 email episode) that temper but do not define a legacy of bipartisan national-security work and ethics-reform leadership. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 26/40 |
Total 26/40, Adequate-to-Sound. Real bipartisan substance and affirmative anti-self-dealing leadership, honestly drawn down by two documented appearance/communications concerns.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Members of Congress should not be allowed to use their positions to enrich themselves through stock trading.”
Introducing the bipartisan ETHICS Act to ban congressional stock trading · Krishnamoorthi House office press release · PRINCIPLED · cite
“A previous version of this email was approved, and there was a miscommunication internally. We have rectified this with Rep. Lieu's team, and the email copy is no longer being sent.”
Campaign statement after fundraising emails styled as written by Rep. Ted Lieu drew scrutiny · NBC News · CONTESTED · cite
“We released a bipartisan report on strengthening deterrence against the CCP's aggression toward Taiwan.”
Joint 'Ten More for Taiwan' report with Republican Chairman Moolenaar · House Select Committee on the CCP · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Subramanian Raja Krishnamoorthi (born July 1973). U.S. Representative for Illinois's 8th Congressional District since 2017. Born in New Delhi, India; raised in Peoria, Illinois. Princeton University (mechanical engineering), Harvard Law School. Former Illinois deputy treasurer and small-business owner. Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party until January 2026; member of the House Oversight and Intelligence committees. Announced a 2026 run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Dick Durbin; still a sitting House member.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-left Democrat (DW-NOMINATE roughly center of the Democratic caucus; see Voteview profile). Signature bipartisan work: co-leadership of the China Select Committee with Republican Chairman Moolenaar, including joint Taiwan-deterrence reports; the bipartisan/bicameral ETHICS Act and Restore Trust in Congress Act to ban congressional stock trading; the Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act (unanimous House passage); the SAFE TO DRIVE Act with Reps. Gallagher (R) and Cohen (D). Active oversight role on DHS/FEMA management, the Washington Commanders inquiry, and earlier Trump-administration ethics matters. Policy positions are not scored here.
3. Constitutional Moments
Not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (a Democrat seated in 2017, he was ineligible and did not sign), and no fake-electors or election-subversion conduct on record. His constitutional-fidelity footprint is the affirmative ethics-reform leadership (congressional stock-trading ban) and a bipartisan committee posture on national security. No documented criterion-class process subversion.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public communication with no documented incitement or slur pattern. The one documented rhetorical/communications drag is the December 2025 fundraising-email episode, in which donor-facing emails were styled as written by Rep. Ted Lieu without his endorsement or knowledge, a misleading communications practice the campaign acknowledged as an internal miscommunication and retracted. Counted as an honesty-of- communications lapse, not enemy-making.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-driven enrichment, self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign- government revenue. He affirmatively led the bipartisan congressional stock-trading ban, voluntarily seeking to constrain the advantage this measure guards. The genuine fiduciary appearance-concern is the May 2022 lobbyist-hosted fundraiser pitched around his active Washington Commanders inquiry; he canceled it "out of an abundance of caution" after learning of unauthorized lobbyist outreach. Uncharged and unadjudicated, an appearance-concern, not a finding.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Not a Texas v. Pennsylvania signatory; no process-subversion (criterion 8); no documented sustained enemy-making or incitement (criterion 10). The two sustained concerns, the 2022 fundraiser appearance-complaint and the 2025 unauthorized-email episode, are appearance/communications drags weighed in the measures, not capping flags. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An Adequate-to-Sound record with real bipartisan substance: co-leadership of the China Select Committee, affirmative leadership of the congressional stock-trading ban, and a credentialed command of national-security policy. The standard records the honest drags, the May 2022 lobbyist-fundraiser appearance-concern tied to an active investigation, and the December 2025 fundraising emails that misrepresented a colleague's endorsement, as appearance/communications concerns, not findings or capping conduct. No process-subversion, no enemy-making. The composite lands near the Sound/Adequate boundary, pending the human verification gate.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Select Committee on the CCP (official)
Tier 2: NBC News, Dec 2025 fundraising-email episode · Fox News, 2022 Commanders-fundraiser ethics complaint · GovTrack legislative statistics
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack profile · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.