Composite 6.21 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 643, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
- No personal military service
Andrea Salinas has no personal military service. Her father, Roberto Salinas, served as a U.S. Marine during the Vietnam War; family service is noted as biographical context only and is not attributable to or scored for the officeholder.
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?Seated January 2023, could not have signed the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is absent from the 126-signatory list. No documented process-subversion conduct: no fake-elector involvement, no attempt to defeat a certified election, no run-out-the-clock obstruction of constitutional functions. Routine oath adherence within ordinary order, but no extraordinary documented stand for constitutional limits at personal cost. Honest middle. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Ranked 222nd on the Lugar Center Bipartisan Index for the 118th Congress, mid-pack, below Oregon Democratic colleagues Bonamici (114) and Blumenauer (178) but above Hoyle (333). Roughly half of her introduced bills carry bipartisan co-sponsorship, and her Grand Ronde tribal land-restoration bill was enacted with cross-party support. Genuine but not exceptional cross-aisle work. Middle. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented anti-belonging conduct, no pattern of casting opponents or constituents as enemies who do not belong, and no criterion-10 enemy-making pattern on record. Upper-middle on absence of documented violations. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 7 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals; no criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. Clean on this measure. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Generally measured public rhetoric within ordinary partisan norms; no documented sustained incitement or dehumanizing pattern. Partisan framing present but within the bounds the standard tolerates. Middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?The 2024 La Mota matter is a weighed appearance-concern, not a finding: an outside watchdog (FACT) filed an FEC complaint alleging a $1,000 campaign contribution from a cannabis chain under separate criminal scrutiny was improperly accepted/reported. Salinas's campaign asserts a single donation mis-entered as two (data-entry error) and that the $1,000 was given to a food bank once the committee could not return it. No FEC finding, charge, or sanction on record. Weighed as a fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety drag, not a violation. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?Called for the resignation of a fellow Democratic House member (Swalwell) amid allegations, a modest instance of calling out her own side, which is the higher bar. Beyond this the own-side-accountability record is thin. Middle. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented failure of the discretion test, no record of seeking preferential treatment or abusing position for private advantage. Record is thin rather than exceptional. Honest middle. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented public/private contempt gap; off-camera reputation not shown to diverge from on-camera posture. Absence of evidence keeps this at the middle rather than high. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Represents a competitive-to-Democratic-leaning district (OR-6) and her voting record broadly tracks constituent preference; no documented donor-over-constituent capture. Standard alignment. Middle. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue on record. The La Mota matter is a campaign-finance reporting question, not personal enrichment, and is scored under M06 rather than here. Raw wealth is explicitly NOT penalized. Upper-middle. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?Ordinary institutional decorum; no documented breach of floor or committee norms, but no standout institution-over-spectacle conduct either. Middle. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. The disputed 'data-entry error' explanation in the La Mota matter is contested by critics but uncharged and unadjudicated, weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding of dishonesty. Middle. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Serves on Agriculture and Science, Space, and Technology committees with substantive engagement (e.g., CFTC oversight questions, enacted tribal land-rights legislation). Solid working substance over talking points; not a marquee policy command. 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 | 2024 FACT FEC complaint alleging a $1,000 La Mota campaign contribution was improperly accepted and reported ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Campaign asserts a single mis-entered donation (data-entry error) and gave the $1,000 to a food bank; no FEC finding, charge, or sanction, weighed as appearance-concern, not violation |
| M02 | 222nd of 435 on the Lugar Bipartisan Index (118th Congress), mid-pack cross-aisle output ↳ bipartisanship below the high mark | ~Half her introduced bills are bipartisan; Grand Ronde land bill enacted with cross-party support |
| M01 | No documented extraordinary stand for constitutional limits at personal cost ↳ routine-only oath fidelity | Clean of any process-subversion conduct; seated after Dec 2020, not an amicus signatory |
| Pillar III | La Mota appearance-concern is a Stewardship drag on the fiduciary line ↳ Stewardship/appearance drag | No documented exploitation; matter uncharged and funds redirected to charity |
| Pillar IV | Short two-term record limits the evidentiary base for a durable virtue legacy ↳ thin-tenure confidence drag | No criterion-class conduct on record to weigh against |
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 to the oath. A clean but unremarkable record, no documented courage-at-cost moment, but also no drag toward Self-Interest or Collapse. Honest middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity. Consistent stated positions; the La Mota appearance-concern is a modest Integrity drag pulling against an otherwise clean record, held at the middle by the absence of any adjudicated breach. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability. Ordinary use of office; the La Mota fiduciary appearance-concern is a Stewardship drag, offset by no documented exploitation and the uncharged status of the matter. Middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Justice. A short two-term record with no criterion-class conduct and no marquee virtue moment, the evidentiary base is thin in both directions. Middle. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, Adequate. The pillars track the conduct composite closely: a clean, unremarkable record with one weighed fiduciary appearance-concern and no extraordinary stand in either direction.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Eric Swalwell should resign.”
Calling for the resignation of a fellow Democratic House member amid allegations, calling out her own side · Quiver Quantitative press-release aggregation · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“Half of the bills I've introduced are bipartisan, and one, restoring land rights for the Grand Ronde Tribe, was signed into law.”
Response to the Lugar Center Bipartisan Index ranking · Oregon Capital Chronicle · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Andrea Rose Salinas. U.S. Representative for Oregon's 6th congressional district since January 2023, serving her second term. First-generation American, daughter of a Mexican immigrant; first in her family to graduate from a four-year university. Prior service: Oregon House of Representatives (District 38) 2017–2022, where she served as House Majority Whip and chaired the House Health Care Committee. Earlier career as a congressional aide and policy advisor. One of the first two Hispanic women to represent Oregon in Congress.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index: 222nd of 435 in the 118th Congress, mid-pack. Roughly half of her introduced bills carry bipartisan co-sponsorship; her Grand Ronde tribal land-restoration measure was enacted into law. Committee assignments: Agriculture; Science, Space, and Technology. Voting record is broadly Democratic and tracks her Willamette Valley district. Policy positions are not scored in either direction per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated in January 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and the January 6, 2021 certification, neither of which she could have participated in; she is absent from the 126-signatory amicus list. No documented process-subversion conduct (no fake-elector involvement, no attempt to defeat a certified result). The record shows routine adherence to constitutional order without an extraordinary, costly stand to point to in either direction.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Generally measured public rhetoric within ordinary partisan norms. No documented sustained pattern of enemy-making, incitement, or dehumanizing language toward opponents or citizens. Partisan framing is present but stays within the bounds the standard tolerates.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The principal fiduciary item on record is the 2024 La Mota matter: the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed an FEC complaint alleging her 2022 campaign and joint fundraising committee improperly accepted/reported a $1,000 contribution from a cannabis dispensary chain then under separate criminal scrutiny. Her campaign asserts there was a single donation mis-entered as two (a data-entry error) and that the $1,000 was donated to a food bank when the terminated committee could no longer return it. No FEC finding, charge, or sanction is on record. Weighed as an appearance-of-impropriety concern, not a violation. No documented office-attributable personal enrichment.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. Seated after December 2020, she is not a Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus signatory and has no process-subversion or sustained enemy-making pattern on record. The La Mota FEC complaint is an uncharged, unadjudicated appearance-concern, not a Severity flag. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
A clean but unremarkable two-term House record. The standard finds no criterion-class conduct, no process subversion, no enemy-making pattern, no documented enrichment, and also no extraordinary, costly stand for the oath in either direction. The one real drag is the 2024 La Mota campaign-finance appearance-concern, which is weighed honestly as an uncharged allegation rather than a finding. Mid-pack bipartisanship and substantive committee work round out an Adequate profile. The imported M01=10/M02=10 raw scores were inflated and have been corrected to conduct-anchored middles; the composite lands below the support threshold on an honest accounting, not on any disqualifying conduct.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · FEC candidate record
Tier 2: Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Oregon Capital Chronicle · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · OpenSecrets · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.