Composite 5.94 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Adequate band at credit 619, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service on record. Career background is private-sector: corporate attorney and manufacturing executive (Charter Manufacturing) in southeastern Wisconsin prior to Congress. Listed here for completeness; no service record is 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?On the defining constitutional-fidelity test of his tenure, Steil voted AGAINST the Republican objections
to Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes on January 6, 2021, helping certify the result, the
constitutional process working as designed, and a refusal to subvert it. He did NOT sign the Texas v.
Pennsylvania amicus (his certify vote is inconsistent with it; he is absent from the signatory coverage),
so no process-subversion flag applies. Held at upper-middle rather than higher because there is no
affirmative, costly defense of the constitutional order beyond the certify vote itself, and his
election-administration posture as committee chair is conventional partisan advocacy rather than
institution-over-side stewardship. Impeachment/certification votes are not themselves scored here.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?Member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, which signals a willingness to work across the aisle on
some issues, a genuine, if modest, mark above pure party-line conduct. The broader sponsorship record is
mixed: much of his signature work (election-administration bills) is sharply partisan in framing. Net
slightly-above-middle: real cross-party affiliation, no standout bipartisan authorship at McCain scale.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies who do not belong; rhetoric is largely
conventional partisan advocacy rather than anti-belonging incitement. Held at middle, not higher, because
there is also no affirmative high-mark defense of an opponent's personhood on record. No criterion-10
conduct.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against political rivals. He declined to join the effort to
overturn certified results (certify vote, no amicus), which cuts against any process-subversion concern.
As House Administration chair his oversight (e.g., the Architect of the Capitol matter) followed
institutional process. Middle-to-upper: clean on abuse, without an affirmative power-constraining stand.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?Career rhetoric is measured and conventional, no documented slurs, dehumanizing language, or sustained
enemy-making. Restraint is the norm. Held at middle rather than higher for lack of a documented high-mark
civility moment under pressure.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 6 | why?No House Ethics Committee findings, sanctions, or sustained personal ethics complaints on record. A minor
candor concern exists, criticism for claiming credit for lead-pipe cleanup funding he had voted against, which is a routine credit-claiming/messaging issue, not an ethics breach. Net solid-middle: clean
institutional record, one small candor asterisk.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. Steil's certify vote on Jan 6 is the
clearest instance of declining to follow his party into overturning the result, but he then voted against
impeachment and has not built a documented pattern of confronting his own side at political cost. Middle:
one quiet act of independence, no sustained costly call-out.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 6 | why?No documented instances of using private discretion or insider position for personal advantage; the
discretion test produces a clean but unremarkable middle. No standout self-sacrificing discretionary act
on record to lift it higher.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 6 | why?No documented gap between a public persona and private contempt; no leaked-conduct or hypocrisy scandal of
that kind. The lead-funding credit-claiming is a messaging inconsistency, not a public/private-contempt
gap. Solid middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Conventional constituent service for a competitive Wisconsin district, with a voting record that at points
diverges from district-level need (the lead-pipe funding vote drew local criticism). Middle: ordinary
representation, one documented constituent-interest divergence, nothing approaching abandonment.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 7 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign-government revenue), never raw wealth. No documented self-dealing, suspicious office-timed trades, family-payroll, or foreign-government income on record. Above middle: clean on office-driven enrichment, held below the apex only by absence of an affirmative anti-corruption stewardship record.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 6 | why?As House Administration chair he operates within institutional process and decorum; oversight actions
(the Architect of the Capitol matter) proceeded through committee channels rather than spectacle. His
election bills are partisan but pursued through ordinary legislative process. Solid middle, institutional
respect without a distinguishing institution-over-self moment.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. He acknowledged Biden's win via his certify vote and did not
promote stolen-election claims. The lead-funding credit-claiming is a spin/candor asterisk that keeps this
at a solid rather than high middle. No pattern of demonstrable falsehood.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 7 | why?Demonstrates working substantive command in his lanes, House Administration (election administration, Capitol operations) and Financial Services, engaging with policy detail rather than pure talking points.
A corporate-attorney and manufacturing background informs substance. Above middle for competence; not at
the apex reserved for decades-deep, field-defining expertise.
[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 |
|---|---|---|
| M07 | Aside from the Jan 6 certify vote, no documented pattern of confronting his own side at political cost; voted against impeachment ↳ active call-out duty, one quiet act, no sustained costly stand | - |
| M10 | Voted against infrastructure lead-pipe cleanup funding later flowing to his district, then claimed credit for the cleanup ↳ constituent-interest divergence + candor | - |
| M01 | No affirmative, costly defense of the constitutional order beyond the Jan 6 certify vote; election-administration posture is conventional partisan advocacy ↳ constitutional fidelity, clean but not affirmative | - |
| M06 | Credit-claiming for lead-cleanup funding he voted against ↳ candor asterisk | Routine messaging issue, not an ethics finding; no sanctions on record |
| M02 | No standout bipartisan authorship; signature legislative work (election bills) is sharply partisan in framing ↳ bipartisan production below the Problem-Solvers affiliation it signals | - |
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, Loyalty to the constitutional process. The Jan 6 certify vote, declining to join the overturn effort, is the strongest single piece of evidence, but it stands largely alone; no broader pattern of costly courage or self-sacrifice to lift the pillar above a solid middle. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity. Conventional consistency between stated principles and votes, with one candor drag (the lead-funding credit-claiming). No documented self-correction events, but no integrity scandal either, a stable, unremarkable middle. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 6 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability through committee process. Operates within institutional channels and has not abused power against rivals; held at middle by the absence of any affirmative power-constraining or constituent-protecting stand of note. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 6 | why?Attributes: Integrity, ordinary institutional fidelity. A clean-but-conventional legacy in progress: no enrichment, no subversion, no scandal, and no defining act of moral courage. An honest middle. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 24/40 |
Total 24/40, an honest middle. The record is clean on the gravest tests (no overturn participation, no enrichment, no enemy-making) but carries no extraordinary, costly act of conscience to lift it higher.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Steil voted against the Republican-sponsored objections to Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes, helping to certify the result.”
January 6, 2021 electoral-count proceedings · Wikipedia, Bryan Steil · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Bryan George Steil (born March 3, 1981). U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district since 2019; chair of the Committee on House Administration since 2023 and chair of the Joint Committee on the Library since 2025; member of the House Financial Services Committee and of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. Before Congress: corporate attorney and manufacturing executive in southeastern Wisconsin; University of Wisconsin (BBA) and University of Wisconsin Law School (J.D.). Succeeded former Speaker Paul Ryan in WI-1.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Center-right House Republican, in office since 2019. Committee footprint: chair of House Administration (election administration, Capitol operations oversight) and of the Joint Library Committee; Financial Services member. Signature legislative themes center on election administration (e.g., the MEGA Act proof-of-citizenship and mail-voting bills; campaign-finance transparency and foreign-interference measures). Problem Solvers Caucus membership signals selective cross-party engagement. Partisan policy positions are NOT scored here in either direction; only conduct against the oath is graded.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining moment of his tenure is January 6, 2021: Steil voted AGAINST the objections to Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes, helping certify the 2020 result, and he did not join the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus seeking to throw those votes out (his certify vote is inconsistent with the amicus, and he is absent from its signatory coverage). He condemned the Capitol attack but voted against the subsequent impeachment, a vote that is part of the constitutional process and is not itself scored. Net: declined to participate in subverting the certified result, without an affirmative costly defense beyond the vote.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Measured, conventional partisan advocacy. No documented pattern of slurs, dehumanizing language, or enemy-making, and no documented high-mark defense of an opponent's dignity. The one candor blemish is local criticism for claiming credit for lead-pipe cleanup funding he had voted against, a messaging/spin asterisk rather than a falsehood pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment: no self-dealing, suspicious office-timed trades, family-payroll arrangements, or foreign-government income on record across his House financial disclosures. No House Ethics findings or sanctions. The only fiduciary-adjacent note is the lead-funding credit-claiming, treated as a candor concern, not a breach.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. He did not sign the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and voted to certify the 2020 result, so no Criterion-8 process-subversion flag applies; rhetoric shows no Criterion-10 enemy-making pattern. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle. Steil's record is clean on the gravest tests the standard cares about: he declined to join the effort to overturn the certified 2020 election (certify vote, no amicus), shows no office-driven enrichment, no ethics sanctions, and no enemy-making rhetoric. What it lacks is the affirmative, costly act of conscience that lifts a record into the Sound tier, his independence on Jan 6 stands largely alone, and his signature work is conventional partisan advocacy. Adequate: a stable, unremarkable record with no capping conduct and no distinguishing courage.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · House Clerk financial disclosures
Tier 2: Wikipedia, Bryan Steil · Ballotpedia, Bryan Steil
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.