Composite 6.41 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 661, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military or uniformed service on record. Pre-congressional career in business (Maine knitting/crafts company), Maine State Senate (2002-2008, including Majority Leader), and as president/CEO of Common Cause (2003-2007), a government-accountability advocacy organization.
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 subversion of a constitutional process, no Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Democrat, not on
the December 2020 signatory list), no fake-elector involvement, no election-certification obstruction. The
record is ordinary legislative service across nine terms. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because
there is no documented affirmative high-mark stand for the oath at personal cost; impeachment and
certification votes are excluded from scoring as the constitutional process working.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Middling-to-modest cross-aisle conduct. Ranked 164th in the Lugar Bipartisan Index for the 117th Congress
(down from 125th), with a 2023 BPI of ~0.358, below the median bipartisan posture for a long-tenured
member. Progressive Caucus vice chair; the legislative posture skews intra-party. Scored on the
cross-aisle co-sponsorship behavior itself, NOT on party or ideology. Honest middle.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong. Town-hall conduct
in 2025 was confrontational toward the administration on policy but stayed within policy heat, not
anti-belonging rhetoric. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. Upper-middle: civil baseline, no high-mark
defense-of-an-opponent anchor on record.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; no abuse-of-office pattern. The record includes
co-sponsorship of ethics/transparency measures (TRUST in Congress Act, Supreme Court ethics bills) aimed at
constraining rather than expanding the discretionary use of power. No criterion-class conduct.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Career-long rhetorical restraint; no documented slurs, threats, or sustained dehumanizing language. Public
remarks are pointed on policy but stay within ordinary political contest. Upper-middle on conduct, no
documented break.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Two resolved fiduciary appearance-concerns. (1) A 2015 FEC ruling fined her $9,750 for 2010 private-jet
travel with her then-fiancé, ruled an illegal in-kind campaign contribution (resolved, paid). (2) A 2025
STOCK Act late disclosure, six Treasury securities ($90K-$300K) reported ~3 months past deadline; she paid
the standard $200 penalty and called it a "paperwork error." Both are weighed as APPEARANCE-concerns, not
findings of corruption, but each is sharpened by her own public advocacy for transparency and trading
rules (TRUST in Congress Act). The recurrence across years keeps this at the middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?No strong documented instance of calling out her OWN side at political cost (the higher bar). Ethics
advocacy is largely directed across the aisle (Supreme Court ethics push). Did acknowledge her own STOCK
Act violation rather than deny it, minor own-conduct accountability. Net middle: honest about her own
lapse, but no costly intra-party call-out on record.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented abuse of discretionary perks for personal benefit beyond the resolved jet matter (scored at
M06/M11). The 2010 jet travel is the one discretion-test blemish, she initially relied on a favorable
ethics letter before the FEC later ruled against the arrangement. Otherwise ordinary. Middle.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap; the constituent-facing posture (regular town halls) matches the
public record. No evidence of an off-camera reputation diverging from the on-camera one. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 7 | why?Sustained constituent engagement across nine terms in a stable district; regular town halls and casework
(constituent ICE-detention advocacy in 2025). The one historical drag is heavy reliance on a single
wealthy donor network (then-fiancé's employees ~$209K), a donor-concentration concern weighed as
appearance, not penalized as the median scoring axis. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Scored ONLY on office-attributable conduct, not raw wealth. The 2025 STOCK Act late filing (Treasury
securities, ~3 months late, $200 penalty paid) is the office-information / disclosure-discipline concern;
no evidence the trades themselves exploited non-public office information, Treasury securities are a
market-broad instrument, weakening any self-dealing inference. The 2010 jet matter resolved as a campaign
finance, not enrichment, issue. No documented family-payment scheme, foreign-government revenue, or
office-info trading. Weighed as appearance, kept at the middle by the disclosure recurrence and the
transparency-advocacy contrast.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Sustained institutional participation across nine terms, but lifetime missed-vote rate of 2.9% (313 of
10,746) runs slightly worse than the ~2.1% median for currently-serving members, a modest reliability
note, not a pattern of absenteeism. No documented decorum breaches or spectacle conduct. Middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 8 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern; no record of election-denial claims or fabricated assertions.
Characterizing the 2025 STOCK Act lapse as a "paperwork error" is self-serving framing but accompanied by
acknowledgment of the violation, not denial. Honest baseline.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive command in her domains, Appropriations, agriculture/food policy, climate, with a long
legislative footprint. Competent rather than singularly authoritative; no record of substituting talking
points for substance, but no field-defining policy command at the McCain/Armed-Services tier. 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.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M06 | 2015 FEC $9,750 fine for 2010 private-jet travel with then-fiancé (ruled illegal in-kind campaign contribution) and 2025 STOCK Act late disclosure ($200 penalty paid) ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety, recurring | Both resolved; STOCK Act violation acknowledged, not denied; penalties paid |
| M11 | 2025 STOCK Act late filing of $90K-$300K Treasury securities, ~3 months past deadline ↳ Disclosure-discipline / office-information concern | Treasury securities are market-broad (weak self-dealing inference); $200 penalty paid; no family-payment or foreign-revenue scheme on record |
| M02 | Lugar Bipartisan Index 164th in the 117th Congress (2023 BPI ~0.358), below median cross-aisle posture ↳ Cross-aisle co-sponsorship behavior (NOT party/ideology) | - |
| M12 | Lifetime missed-vote rate 2.9% (313 of 10,746), slightly worse than the ~2.1% median for currently-serving members ↳ Attendance reliability | - |
| M07 | No documented costly call-out of her own side; ethics advocacy directed largely across the aisle ↳ Active call-out duty (higher bar) unmet | - |
| M10 | Heavy historical reliance on a single wealthy donor network (then-fiancé's employees ~$209,900) ↳ Donor-concentration appearance | Sustained district casework and town-hall engagement offset |
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: Selfless Service, Steadiness, Loyalty, a steady nine-term service record with no documented betrayal of office or constitutional process. Held at the middle by the absence of any high-mark stand at personal cost and a modest reliability drag (attendance slightly below median). |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, consistent progressive conviction and acknowledgment of her own STOCK Act lapse rather than denial. Dragged toward the opposite by the contrast between her transparency advocacy (Common Cause, TRUST in Congress Act) and two personal disclosure/finance appearance-concerns; the acknowledgment keeps the drag moderate. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, used legislative power within ordinary bounds, including ethics/transparency measures constraining power; no documented exploitation. Held at the middle by donor-concentration appearance and the resolved fiduciary concerns. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice, a durable, scandal-light institutional record across nine terms. The recurring finance/disclosure appearance-concerns are real drags toward Favoritism that temper but do not define the legacy; no criterion-class conduct. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. A steady, conduct-clean-in-the-main record whose ceiling is held down by the transparency-advocacy-versus-personal-disclosure contrast and the absence of any documented high-mark stand at personal cost. No floor-driving severity conduct.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“A paperwork error caused the issue.”
Acknowledging her STOCK Act late-disclosure violation to the Portland Press Herald · Portland Press Herald / Bangor Daily News · CONTESTED · cite
“Lobbyists are not the problem, the jets are. Public perception is critical.”
Testimony before Congress as president of Common Cause, on members' use of corporate jets, later in tension with her own 2010 private-jet travel · Sunlight Foundation / contemporaneous reporting · CONTESTED · cite
“Co-sponsored the TRUST in Congress Act and Supreme Court ethics legislation to bring accountability and transparency to government.”
Ethics/transparency advocacy record · House office release · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Chellie Marie Pingree (born April 2, 1955). U.S. Representative for Maine's 1st congressional district since 2009 (nine terms; up for a tenth in 2026). Previously Maine State Senate 2002-2008 (Majority Leader); 2002 U.S. Senate nominee (lost to Susan Collins); president and CEO of Common Cause 2003-2007. Vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Background in small business (knitting/crafts) on North Haven, Maine.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Long-tenured progressive; Appropriations Committee, with a legislative footprint in agriculture, food policy, and climate/environment. Lugar Bipartisan Index middling (164th in the 117th Congress; 2023 BPI ~0.358), below the median cross-aisle posture, consistent with Progressive Caucus leadership. Co-sponsor of ethics and transparency measures (TRUST in Congress Act; Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act). Policy positions are not scored in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
No documented process-subversion conduct: not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory (Democrat, absent from the December 2020 list), no fake-elector or certification-obstruction involvement. Impeachment and election-certification votes are excluded from scoring as the constitutional process functioning. The affirmative side of the ledger is ordinary: ethics/transparency co-sponsorships rather than a singular oath-at-cost stand.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Career-long rhetorical restraint with no documented slurs, threats, or sustained dehumanizing language. Public remarks, including a contentious 2025 town hall, stay within ordinary policy contest. No criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. The one self-serving rhetorical note is framing the 2025 STOCK Act lapse as a "paperwork error," softened by her acknowledgment of the underlying violation.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two resolved appearance-concerns, both sharpened by her own transparency advocacy. (1) 2015: a $9,750 FEC fine for 2010 private-jet travel with her then-fiancé (financier S. Donald Sussman), ruled an illegal in-kind campaign contribution; she also reimbursed ~$13,500. (2) 2025: a STOCK Act late disclosure, six Treasury securities ($90K-$300K) filed ~3 months past deadline; $200 standard penalty paid, called a "paperwork error." Historical donor concentration via the Sussman network (~$209,900 from his employees) is an additional appearance note. None is a finding of self-dealing or office-driven enrichment; weighed as appearance, counted honestly.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. No process-subversion (Criterion 8), no Texas v. PA amicus, no fake electors, no certification obstruction. No sustained enemy-making or incitement pattern (Criterion 10). The sustained concerns are fiduciary appearance-matters (two resolved finance/ disclosure lapses), not capping conduct. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A steady, largely scandal-light nine-term record that lands in the honest middle. What holds the ceiling down is not any single severe act, there is none, but the recurring contrast between Pingree's career as a transparency advocate (Common Cause, TRUST in Congress Act) and two personal appearance-concerns the standard must count: the 2015 FEC jet fine and the 2025 STOCK Act late disclosure. Both were resolved and the latter acknowledged rather than denied; neither is a finding of corruption. With no documented high-mark stand at personal cost and a middling cross-aisle posture, the record reads Adequate, clean in the main, unexceptional at the top end, with no floor-driving conduct.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · U.S. House financial disclosures (legistorm mirror)
Tier 2: GovTrack, attendance & profile · Lugar Center / McCourt Bipartisan Index · Portland Press Herald, STOCK Act & FEC fine coverage
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack profile · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.