or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Steny H. Hoyer

Steny H. Hoyer's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Agriculture and Food

Full Name: Steny H. Hoyer
Current Office: U.S. House - District 5, Democratic
First Elected: 05/19/1981
Last Elected: 11/06/2012
Next Election: 2014
On The Ballot: Running, Democratic for U.S. House - District 5
General Nov. 4, 2014
Primary June 24, 2014

Agriculture and Food

2014 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 50%
2014 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 92%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 92%
2013 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions 0%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 93%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 93%
2011-2012 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions (House) 12%
2011-2012 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2011 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 35%
2009-2010 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 33%
2009-2010 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions 0%
2009-2010 National Farmers Union - Positions 100%
2008 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 96%
2007-2008 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 92%
2007-2008 Grassroots Netroots Alliance - Positions 53%
2007-2008 International Foodservice Distributors Association - Positions 0%
2007-2008 National Farmers Union - Family Farm Advocacy Score 100
2007-2008 The National Mining Association - Positions 33%
2007-2008 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2007 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 93%
2007 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 0%
2007 United Fresh Produce Association - Positions 100%
2005-2006 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 35%
2005-2006 National Farmers Union - Positions 100%
2005 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 50%
2005 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 33%
2003-2004 National Farmers Union - Positions 67%
2002 Vote Hemp - Positions on Industrial Hemp Policy Fence Sitter
2001-2002 National Farmers Union - Positions 80%
2001 American Coalition for Ethanol - Positions 100%
2001 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
2000 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 50%
1999-2000 National Farmers Union - Positions 75%
1998 National Farmers Union - Positions 89%
1997 National Farmers Union - Positions 86%
1997 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 92%
1996 National Farmers Union - Positions 93%
1996 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 100%
1995-1996 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 43%
1995 National Farmers Union - Positions 90%
1995 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions on Workplace Rights 90%
1994 Competitive Enterprise Institute - Positions on Agriculture 100%
1994 National Farmers Union - Family Farm Advocacy Score 78%
1994 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions 75%
1993-1994 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 36%
1993 National Farmers Union - Positions 78%
1993 United Food & Commercial Workers - Positions on Workplace Rights 88%
1991-1992 National Farmers Organization - Positions 60%

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.

Back to top