DOCUMENT: CLS-REBUILD · CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC METHODOLOGY: SYMMETRIC · STATUS: ACTIVE

← Roster

704
Sound
CHARACTER CREDIT SCORE · 300–850
27/40
Moderate
FOUR PILLARS

Composite 6.99 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.

✓ Clears the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: supported.

Clears the 700 support line at credit 704 (Sound band) with no severity flag, Author's Verdict: supported on the documented conduct.

★ Service to Country

No record of U.S. military service. Career background prior to Congress was in business consulting and the insurance/financial industry; elected to the U.S. House for IL-10 in 2012, lost 2014, returned 2017-present.

The 14 measures

Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.

#MeasureScoreWhy
M01 Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law 7
why?
No documented subversion of constitutional process. Seated since January 2017 and a Democrat, he was not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (a Republican-only filing) and is not on the fake-electors record, no Criterion-8 conduct attaches. He has framed shutdown brinkmanship as a threat to orderly governance and worked the regular bipartisan negotiation channel rather than process sabotage. Upper-middle: faithful to the process, no apex constitutional stand at personal cost on record. [source]
M02 Party Over Country 8
why?
Co-founder of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus (2017) and chair of the New Democrat Coalition since 2025; a consistently positive Lugar/McCourt Bipartisan Index score (~0.55 in the 2023 House ranking), and a documented record of cross-party cosponsorship. Sustained willingness to let the other side share credit on legislation. Top-tier among current members on this measure. [source]
M03 Persons of Equal Worth 7
why?
No documented record of casting constituents or opponents as enemies who do not belong. The bipartisan-caucus posture and two-state-solution coalition-building cut toward inclusion. Held at upper-middle rather than higher absent a signature affirmative anti-belonging high-mark on record. [source]
M04 Weaponization of Justice 8
why?
No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals and no Criterion-8 process-subversion conduct. Record runs the other direction, institutional, negotiation-channel work. Clean on this measure. [source]
M05 Incitement / Anti-Belonging 8
why?
Rhetoric is consistently measured and process-oriented; no documented pattern of incendiary or dehumanizing language. The civility-and-compromise public brand is matched by the bipartisan-caucus conduct. No Criterion-10 pattern. [source]
M06 Fiduciary Conduct 6
why?
A genuine fiduciary appearance-concern: late disclosure of two personal Trupanion stock transactions roughly two months past the STOCK Act deadline (March 2022). His office attributed it to a clerical error (a missed 'submit' click), he self-corrected and paid the late fee, a $200-class administrative penalty, not a conflict-of-interest finding or sanction. Weighed as an appearance/disclosure-discipline miss, not a breach; the prompt self-correction limits the drag. [source]
M07 Duty to Call Out 6
why?
Some willingness to call out extremism and brinkmanship within the governance process. The higher bar, sustained, costly call-out of his OWN side, is not documented at scale; his bipartisan work targets dysfunction broadly rather than carrying a defined own-party-accountability anchor. Honest middle. [source]
M08 The Discretion Test 7
why?
No documented abuse of discretionary office power for personal or factional advantage. The STOCK Act late disclosure is captured under M06/M11 as a disclosure miss, not a discretion-abuse pattern. Sound on this measure absent a documented apex self-sacrifice test. [source]
M09 The No-Camera Test 8
why?
No documented gap between a private posture and the public civility brand; the off-camera bipartisan-caucus reputation matches the on-record one. No documented hypocrisy instance. [source]
M10 Constituent-vs-Donor Vote 7
why?
Long-tenured representation of IL-10 with a constituent-service and bipartisan-deliverable posture. Normal incumbent donor-dependence applies; no documented donor-capture conduct. Upper-middle. [source]
M11 Net-Worth Trajectory 6
why?
Scored on office-attributable enrichment risk ONLY, not raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The one office-attributable concern is the individual-stock-trading-while-in-office posture plus the late STOCK Act disclosure of personal Trupanion transactions (March 2022), an appearance-concern that he self-corrected and for which he paid the standard late fee. Lowered from the imported raw score (8) because active individual-equity trading during office, even absent any finding, is the precise appearance-risk this measure exists to weigh. [source]
M12 Floor Decorum 6
why?
Sustained institutional decorum and regular-order posture; honors the office over spectacle. Held at the middle absent a defining, documented institution-over-self moment of the highest tier. [source]
M13 Lying & Misleading 6
why?
No documented sustained-falsehood pattern. Ordinary political framing applies; nothing rising to a truth-integrity breach on record. Honest middle in the absence of a strong affirmative truth-telling anchor. [source]
M14 Knowledge Depth 7
why?
Substantive command demonstrated through Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs committee work and detailed legislative output (e.g., bipartisan economic and trade-facilitation bills). Substance over talking points; upper-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.

WhereDocumented conductMitigation weighed
M11 Active individual-equity trading while in office plus late STOCK Act disclosure of two personal Trupanion transactions (~2 months past deadline, March 2022)
↳ office-attributable appearance-of-enrichment / disclosure discipline
No self-dealing or conflict finding; self-corrected and paid the standard late fee; office cited a clerical error
M06 STOCK Act late-disclosure violation March 2022; $200-class administrative late fee
↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety / disclosure discipline
Clerical-error explanation, prompt self-correction, no conflict-of-interest finding or sanction
M07 No documented sustained, costly call-out of his own party at scale
↳ active-duty own-side accountability not demonstrated at the higher bar
-
M13 No strong affirmative documented truth-telling anchor beyond ordinary political framing
↳ truth-telling, absence of high-mark anchor, not a breach
-
Pillar III Individual-stock-trading posture and the late disclosure are a Stewardship/appearance drag
↳ Stewardship drag
Self-correction; no exploitation finding
Pillar IV The STOCK Act disclosure miss is a small Integrity asterisk on an otherwise clean institutional record
↳ Integrity drag
Owned and corrected; isolated administrative miss

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.

#PillarScoreWhy
I Trust & Loyalty
  • Would I follow them into uncertainty or adversity?
  • Would I trust them with my life or reputation?
  • Would I trust them to lead others honorably when the stakes are high?
7
why?
Attributes: Steadiness, Reliability, institutional loyalty, a durable, low-drama record of showing up for the bipartisan-negotiation process across multiple Congresses. No documented disloyalty to the institution or the oath. Held at 7 absent an extraordinary courage-under-fire anchor.
II Aspiration & Integrity
  • Do I admire their values and how they live them?
  • Do they reflect the kind of person I hope to become?
  • Do I feel challenged to be better because of their example?
7
why?
Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Teachability, the civility-and-compromise brand is matched by conduct, and he self-corrected the disclosure miss rather than litigate it. Held below higher by the disclosure-discipline lapse.
III Protection & Influence
  • Would I trust this person to protect what I love most?
  • Would I trust them to influence someone I care deeply about?
  • Would those under their authority be safer and better for it?
6
why?
Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability, uses influence through coalition-building rather than power-abuse, with no documented exploitation. The individual-trading posture and STOCK Act miss are a genuine Stewardship drag that keeps this pillar at the middle.
IV Legacy & Virtue
  • Would I be proud if my child grew up to be like them?
  • Do they embody the virtues I want carried into the future?
  • If their influence continued in others, would the world be better or worse?
7
why?
Attributes: Integrity, institutional fidelity, a constructive, bridge-building legacy in a polarized era. The STOCK Act asterisk is a small Integrity drag that tempers but does not define the record.
TOTAL: Moderate 27/40

Total 27/40, Adequate-to-Sound. A steady, institution-respecting, bipartisan record with one real disclosure-discipline drag and no high-tier courage anchor to push the pillars into the top band.

What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →

In their own words

“We have to stand up to the extremists in both parties who would rather see government shut down than do the hard work of governing.”

On bipartisan efforts to avert a government shutdown · Schneider House office press release · CIVIC · cite

“Forty-two percent of the legislation I have cosponsored originated with a member of the opposite party.”

On his bipartisan cosponsorship record · Chicago Sun-Times candidate profile · PRINCIPLED · cite

Full personnel file

1. Identity

Bradley Scott Schneider (born 1961). U.S. Representative for Illinois's 10th Congressional District, 2013-2015 and 2017-present (six terms). Co-founder of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus (2017); chair of the New Democrat Coalition since 2025. Serves on the House Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs Committees. Background in business consulting and the insurance/financial sector prior to Congress.

2. Voting / Legislative Profile

Consistently positive Lugar Center/McCourt Bipartisan Index scores (~0.553, House rank ~120 in the 2023 118th-Congress ranking); a member-cited 42% cross-party cosponsorship rate. Signature posture: Problem Solvers Caucus negotiation on debt-ceiling and shutdown-avoidance deals, COVID-19 relief frameworks, and bipartisan foreign-policy resolutions (two-state solution / anti-BDS). Committee work on Ways and Means (tax/trade) and Foreign Affairs. Policy positions are NOT scored here, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy in either direction.

3. Constitutional Moments

Seated since January 2017 and a Democrat, Schneider was not a signatory to the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (a Republican-only filing) and is not on the fake-electors record, no Criterion-8 process-subversion conduct attaches. His documented institutional conduct runs toward regular-order negotiation and shutdown-avoidance rather than process disruption.

4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile

Measured, process-oriented public voice consistent with the bipartisan-compromise brand. No documented pattern of dehumanizing or incendiary rhetoric, and no Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. The civility posture is matched by the cross-party caucus conduct.

5. Fiduciary Profile

The one documented fiduciary concern is a STOCK Act late-disclosure violation (March 2022): two personal Trupanion stock transactions disclosed roughly two months past the deadline. His office attributed it to a clerical error, he self-corrected and paid the standard late fee; there was no conflict-of-interest finding or sanction. Weighed as an appearance/disclosure-discipline miss and an active-individual-trading appearance risk under M06/M11, not raw wealth and not a self-dealing breach.

6. Severity-Class Conduct

No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. As a Democrat seated since 2017, no Criterion-8 amicus/fake-electors exposure; no documented Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. The STOCK Act late disclosure is an administrative appearance-concern, not a severity flag. Flag count: zero.

7. What The Framework Says

Schneider presents a steady, institution-respecting, bipartisan record: Problem Solvers Caucus co-founder, New Democrat Coalition chair, consistently positive bipartisan-index scores, and a regular-order posture on shutdown and debt-ceiling fights. The honest drags are a STOCK Act late-disclosure miss (self-corrected, no finding) and the absence of a high-tier courage or own-side-accountability anchor to lift the record into the top band. Adequate-to-Sound; no capping conduct.

8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper

Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · U.S. House STOCK Act financial disclosures (Clerk)

Tier 2: Lugar Center/McCourt Bipartisan Index · Ballotpedia · NPR / Business Insider STOCK Act reporting

Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · OpenSecrets · Lugar Center Bipartisan Index · Wikipedia

Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.

SHARE THIS DOSSIER: