Charles 'Charlie' F. Bass
Charles 'Charlie' F. Bass's Special Interest Group Ratings
Filter by Issue:
- down
- Abortion
- Abortion and Reproductive
- Agriculture and Food
- Animals and Wildlife
- Arts and Entertainment
- Budget, Spending and Taxes
- Business and Consumers
- Campaign Finance and Elections
- Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
- Conservative
- Crime
- Death Penalty
- Defense
- Drugs
- Education
- Employment and Affirmative Action
- Energy
- Environment
- Executive Branch
- Federal, State and Local Relations
- Foreign Affairs
- Gambling and Gaming
- Government Operations
- Guns
- Health and Health Care
- Housing and Property
- Immigration
- Indigenous Peoples
- Judicial Branch
- Labor Unions
- Legislative Branch
- Liberal
- Marriage, Family, and Children
- Military Personnel
- National Security
- Science
- Senior Citizens
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
- Social
- Stem Cell Research
- Technology and Communication
- Trade
- Transportation
- Unemployed and Low-Income
- Veterans
- Women
Abortion
Agriculture and Food
| 2011 | American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions | 52% |
| 2003-2004 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 50% |
| 2001-2002 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 40% |
| 2000 | American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions | 67% |
| 1999-2000 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 58% |
| 1998 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 22% |
| 1997 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 43% |
| 1996 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 27% |
| 1995-1996 | American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions | 68% |
| 1995 | National Farmers Union - Positions | 30% |
Animals and Wildlife
Arts and Entertainment
Budget, Spending and Taxes
Business and Consumers
Campaign Finance and Elections
| 2008-2011 | Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby | 100% |
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Conservative
Crime
| 2003-2004 | Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants - Positions | 33% |
| 2001-2002 | American Bar Association - Positions | 0% |
| 1999-2000 | American Bar Association - Positions | 25% |
| 1999-2000 | Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants - Positions | 30% |
| 1997-1998 | Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants - Positions | 40% |
| 1995-1996 | Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants - Positions | 13% |
Education
Employment and Affirmative Action
| 2002 | American Benefits Council - Positions | 40% |
| 2001 | American Benefits Council - Positions | 100% |
| 2000 | American Benefits Council - Positions | 100% |
Energy
| 2005-2006 | Campaign for America's Future - Energy Score | 33% |
| 2001 | American Coalition for Ethanol - Positions | 100% |
Environment
Foreign Affairs
Government Operations
Guns
Health and Health Care
Immigration
Judicial Branch
| 2001-2002 | American Bar Association - Positions | 0% |
| 2001-2002 | American Bar Association - Positions | 0% |
| 1999-2000 | American Bar Association - Positions | 25% |
| 1999-2000 | American Bar Association - Positions | 25% |
Labor Unions
Legislative Branch
| 2008-2011 | Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby | 100% |
Liberal
Marriage, Family, and Children
| 2011 | The Children's Health Fund - Positions (House Only) | 0% |
| 2005 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 11% |
| 2005 | Family Research Council - Positions | 54% |
| 2004 | Family Research Council - Positions | 42% |
| 2003-2004 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 9% |
| 2003-2004 | School Nutrition Association - Positions | 33% |
| 2003 | American Family Association - Positions | 67% |
| 2003 | Family Research Council - Positions | 46% |
| 2002 | American Family Voices - Positions | 8% |
| 2001-2002 | Family Research Council - Positions | 50% |
| 2001 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 18% |
| 2001 | Family Research Council - Positions on Conservative Issues | 40% |
| 2000 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 40% |
| 2000 | Family Research Council - Positions | 100% |
| 1999-2000 | Home School Legal Defense Association - Positions | 80% |
| 1999 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 53% |
| 1998 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 50% |
| 1997-1998 | Home School Legal Defense Association - Positions | 80% |
| 1997 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 56% |
| 1996 | Children's Defense Fund - Positions | 0% |
Military Personnel
National Security
| 2005-2006 | ACT! for America - Positions | 94% |
| 2003-2004 | ACT! for America - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | American Security Council Foundation - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 83% |
| 2002 | American Security Council Foundation - Positions | 75% |
| 1998-2002 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 80% |
| 1997 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 65% |
| 1996 | Center for Security Policy - Positions | 71% |
Science
Senior Citizens
Social
Technology and Communication
| 2012 | TechCrunch/CrunchGov - Positions on Technology Industry | 75% |
| 2006 | CNET News - Positions | 45% |
| 2005-2006 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 50% |
| 2002 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
| 2000 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
| 1999 | Information Technology Industry Council - Positions | 100% |
Trade
| 2003-2004 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 100% |
| 2003-2004 | USA Engage - Positions | 40% |
| 2001-2002 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score | 82% |
| 2001-2002 | USA Engage - Positions | 80% |
| 1999-2000 | The Cato Institute - Trade Barrier Votes Score | 89% |
| 1999-2000 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 60% |
| 1997-1998 | The Cato Institute - Trade Subsidy Votes Score | 67% |
Unemployed and Low-Income
| 2011 | Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law - Positions | 28% |
| 2003-2004 | Bread for the World - Positions | 75% |
| 2003-2004 | The Partnership for the Homeless - Positions | 33% |
| 2003 | Bread for the World - Positions | 100% |
| 2001-2002 | Bread for the World - Positions | 33% |
| 2000 | Bread for the World - Positions | 0% |
| 1999 | Bread for the World - Positions | 0% |
| 1998 | Bread for the World - Positions | 33% |
| 1997 | Bread for the World - Positions | 50% |
| 1996 | Bread for the World - Positions on Addressing World Hunger | 17% |
Veterans
| 2011 | Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions | 100% |
| 2006 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 66% |
| 2006 | The Retired Enlisted Association - Retired Military Benefits Issues Score | 29% |
| 2005 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 0% |
| 2004 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 0% |
| 2004 | The Retired Enlisted Association - Positions | 33% |
| 2003-2004 | Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions | 38% |
| 2003 | American Veterans - Positions | 50% |
| 2003 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 0% |
| 2003 | The American Legion - Positions | 40% |
| 2001 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 100% |
| 2001 | Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions | 88% |
| 1999 | Disabled American Veterans - Positions | 0% |
| 1997-1998 | Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions | 17% |
Women
| 2011 | Federally Employed Women - Positions | 33% |
| 2005 | National Organization for Women - Positions | 43% |
| 2004 | United States Women's Chamber of Commerce - Positions | 50% |
| 2003-2004 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 38% |
| 2003-2004 | Federally Employed Women - Positions | 0% |
| 2003 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 29% |
| 2001-2002 | Business and Professional Women USA - Positions | 36% |
| 1998 | National Organization for Women - Positions | 35% |
Budget, Spending and Taxes
How to Interpret these Evaluations
Project Vote Smart displays all known interest group ratings for each candidate and official, regardless of issue or bias.
Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Website links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering performance evaluations are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.
Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. Please visit the group's website or call 1-888-VOTESMART for more specific information.
