How TrueVote works
Every score is computed from the same federal databases that campaigns, lobbyists, and journalists use — just made readable for everyone.
The overall grade
Each candidate receives an Overall Grade — a weighted average of their five category scores. Each category is scored A through F on a 4-point scale (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0). The overall grade is rounded to the nearest letter.
Important: These grades reflect structural patterns in public disclosures — not character judgments. A candidate with a low Donor Mix grade has received a high share of money from PACs; that's a financial fact, not a verdict on their motives.
Donor Mix
What share of direct campaign contributions came from corporations, PACs, and organizations vs. individual citizens.
How it's scored
- ▸A (0–15%): Nearly all money from individuals — low corporate influence
- ▸B (15–30%): Mostly individuals with some PAC/org money
- ▸C (30–50%): Significant corporate or PAC concentration
- ▸D (50–65%): Majority of funds from special interests
- ▸F (65%+): Primarily funded by corporations, PACs, and organizations
Why this matters
When corporations and PACs make up most of a candidate's donor base, those groups gain access and leverage that individual citizens don't have. Candidates who are primarily funded by individuals have less financial obligation to special interest groups.
Dark Money
What percentage of the total money ecosystem supporting this candidate comes from outside groups — Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s that don't require full donor disclosure.
How it's scored
- ▸A (0–5%): Minimal outside spending — candidate is largely self-funded through disclosed contributions
- ▸B (5–20%): Some outside support but direct contributions still dominate
- ▸C (20–40%): Significant portion of total support is from outside groups
- ▸D (40–60%): Outside groups account for nearly half the total money
- ▸F (60%+): Majority of total support comes from undisclosed or Super PAC sources
Why this matters
Super PACs can accept unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals — without coordinating with campaigns. 501(c)(4) 'social welfare' organizations don't have to disclose their donors at all. High outside spending means powerful interests are heavily invested in this candidate's election, without transparency about who they are.
Conflicts of Interest
Whether the industries that fund this candidate's campaign overlap with the congressional committees they sit on — creating potential conflicts of interest.
How it's scored
- ▸A: No overlapping industry funding and committee assignments detected
- ▸C: 1 industry overlap detected (same industry funds campaign AND the member sits on a committee that regulates it)
- ▸D: 2 overlapping industry conflicts detected
- ▸F: 3 or more conflicts detected
Why this matters
A lawmaker who regulates an industry while receiving significant funding from it faces a structural conflict of interest. They may write rules, approve mergers, or set oversight priorities that affect their donors' bottom lines. This score surfaces those overlaps — voters can decide how to weigh them.
Note: Presidential candidates don't hold committee assignments, so the congressional overlap model doesn't apply. Executive branch candidates receive a C by default and are directed to OGE Form 278 financial disclosures, where business interests and asset holdings are listed.
Stock Trading
STOCK Act compliance — did this member file trade disclosures on time, and how many trades did they make in industries they oversee?
How it's scored
- ▸A: No stock trades on record
- ▸B: Trades disclosed, all filed within 45-day legal deadline
- ▸C: 1–5% of trades were filed late (minor compliance issues)
- ▸D: 5–20% of trades were filed late (pattern of violations)
- ▸F: More than 20% of trades filed late (systematic non-compliance)
Why this matters
The STOCK Act was passed in 2012 because Congress members have access to non-public information about policy changes, regulatory decisions, and government contracts. Trading on that knowledge is the definition of insider trading when anyone else does it. Late filing — which carries only a $200 fine — is a low-cost way to delay public disclosure.
Note: Presidential candidates use OGE Form 278 disclosures, which show asset ranges but not individual trade dates. We give these a B by default and note the disclosure limitation.
Legislative Activity
Participation in the job — recent voting record and legislation introduced.
How it's scored
- ▸A: 8+ recent votes on record
- ▸B: 5–7 recent votes
- ▸C: 3–4 recent votes
- ▸D: 1–2 recent votes
- ▸F: No recent voting record found
Why this matters
Members who skip votes are not doing the core job voters elected them to do. High absenteeism often correlates with time spent on fundraising. This metric is a simple proxy — it doesn't measure the quality of votes, only whether the member showed up.
Note: Presidential candidates have no congressional voting record. They receive a B by default with an explanation that activity is measured through executive orders, vetoes, and legislation signed or blocked rather than congressional votes.
Known limitations
- • FEC data has a 48-hour lag — very recent filings may not yet appear
- • Congress.gov data may not match exactly — name matching between FEC and Congress.gov is fuzzy and may occasionally surface the wrong member
- • Dark money by definition can't be fully measured — 501(c)(4) groups don't disclose all donors, so our outside money figure is a floor, not a ceiling
- • Conflict detection is structural, not conclusive — we can only flag that a financial relationship exists, not prove quid pro quo
- • Presidential trading data is limited — OGE Form 278 doesn't include trade dates or amounts at the level STOCK Act requires of Congress
Have a suggestion for how to improve the methodology?
Share your feedback