Secretary Charles 'Chuck' T. Hagel's Special Interest Group Ratings

Office: U.S. Secretary of Defense, Republican
Filter by Issue
How To Interpret These Evaluations

Foreign Affairs

2008 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions on Armenian American Issues C 2008 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C+ 2008 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 45% 2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 53% 2008 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental Spending Score 67% 2007-2008 ACT! for America - Positions 75% 2007-2008 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 83% 2007-2008 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights 0 2007-2008 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions +1 2007 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C- 2007 Council for a Livable World - Positions 59% 2007 Latin America Working Group - Positions 50% 2007 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 51% 2007 Peace Action West - Positions 27% 2007 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights +1 2007 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur B 2007 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Positions on Iraq War Amendments 75% 2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 100% 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C+ 2006 Latin America Working Group - Positions 33% 2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 76% 2006 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 18% 2006 Peace Action - Positions 44% 2006 Peace Action West - Positions 44% 2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur F 2006 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 83% 2005-2006 ACT! for America - Positions 67% 2005-2006 Council for a Livable World - Positions 16% 2005-2006 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50% 2005-2006 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 100% 2005-2006 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 16% 2005-2006 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -2 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C 2005 Latin America Working Group - Positions 50% 2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 35% 2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 64% 2005 Peace Action - Positions 22% 2005 PeacePAC - Positions 25% 2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2004 Latin America Working Group - Positions 0% 2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 47% 2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 51% 2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 0% 2004 Peace Action - Positions 13% 2003-2004 ACT! for America - Positions 50% 2003-2004 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 100% 2003-2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 6% 2003-2004 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 83% 2003-2004 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights +1 2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 80% 2003-2004 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 71% 2003 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2003 Latin America Working Group - Positions 67% 2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 22% 2003 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 68% 2003 Peace Action - Positions 0% 2003 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights +1 2002-2003 Citizens for Global Solutions - Positions 10% 2002 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 75% 2002 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 76% 2002 Peace Action - Positions 20% 2001-2004 Council for a Livable World - Positions 0% 2001-2002 American Foreign Service Association - Positions 87% 2001-2002 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -2 2001-2002 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2001-2002 National Foreign Trade Council - Postions 100% 2001-2002 USA Engage - Positions 100% 2001 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 23% 2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 7% 2001 Peace Action - Positions 14% 2001 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 100% 2000 Council for a Livable World - Positions 13% 2000 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 9% 2000 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 100% 2000 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 53% 2000 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 43% 2000 Peace Action - Positions 11% 1999-2000 PeacePAC - Positions 13% 1999 Council for a Livable World - Positions 29% 1999 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 58% 1999 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 44% 1999 Peace Action - Positions 23% 1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 65% 1998 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 13% 1998 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 52% 1998 National Journal - Liberal on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 45% 1998 Peace Action - Positions 17% 1997-1998 Council for a Livable World - Positions 10% 1997 Center for Security Policy - Positions 50% 1997 Council for a Livable World - Positions 17% 1997 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 14% 1997 Peace Action - Positions 8%

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.