Filter by Issue
How To Interpret These Evaluations

Foreign Affairs

2006 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score D 2006 Peace Action West - Positions 22% 2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur B 2005-2006 ACT! for America - Positions 83% 2005-2006 Council for a Livable World - Positions 8% 2005-2006 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 17% 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score D 2005 Latin America Working Group - Positions 25% 2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 74% 2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 0% 2005 Peace Action - Positions 11% 2005 PeacePAC - Positions 13% 2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2004 Latin America Working Group - Positions 0% 2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 39% 2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 60% 2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 0% 2004 Peace Action - Positions 0% 2003-2004 ACT! for America - Positions 100% 2003-2004 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -3 2003-2004 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 100% 2003-2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2003-2004 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -5 2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 60% 2003-2004 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 0% 2003 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2003 Latin America Working Group - Positions 0% 2003 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 78% 2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 0% 2003 Peace Action - Positions 0% 2003 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -2 2002-2003 Citizens for Global Solutions - Positions 0% 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 93% 2001-2002 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -9 2001-2002 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2001-2002 USA Engage - Positions 40% 2001 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 15% 2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 36% 2001 Peace Action - Positions 29% 2001 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 0% 2000 Council for a Livable World - Positions 13% 2000 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0% 2000 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 15% 2000 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 84% 2000 Peace Action - Positions 0% 1999-2000 PeacePAC - Positions 13% 1999 Council for a Livable World - Positions 14% 1999 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50% 1999 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 84% 1999 Peace Action - Positions 38% 1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 90% 1998 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 7% 1998 National Journal - Liberal on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 12% 1998 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 75% 1998 Peace Action - Positions 8% 1997-1998 Council for a Livable World - Positions 10% 1997 Center for Security Policy - Positions 64% 1997 Council for a Livable World - Positions 17% 1997 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 14% 1997 Peace Action - Positions 8% 1996 Center for Security Policy - Positions 86% 1996 Council for a Livable World - Positions 9% 1996 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign\Defense Policy 0% 1996 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 74% 1996 Peace Action - Positions 9% 1995-1996 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Peace and Justice Score 0% 1995 Peace Action - Positions 8% 1990-1999 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions on Armenian American Issues 0%

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.