Filter by Issue
How To Interpret These Evaluations

Agriculture and Food

2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidates: Overall Grade 17% 2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidate Scorecard: EPA 75% 2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidate Scorecard: Trade 25% 2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidate Scorecard: Transportation 0% 2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidate Scorecard: Energy 33% 2012 Iowa Corn Growers Association - Presidential Candidate Scorecard: Farm Programs 0% 2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 30% 2011 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 44% 2009-2010 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 66% 2009-2010 National Farmers Union - Positions 0% 2008 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 4% 2007-2008 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 0% 2007-2008 Grassroots Netroots Alliance - Positions 8% 2007-2008 National Farmers Union - Family Farm Advocacy Score 0 2007 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 12% 2007 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 100% 2007 United Fresh Produce Association - Positions 0% 2005-2006 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 41% 2005-2006 National Farmers Union - Positions 66% 2005 National Association of Wheat Growers - Positions 42% 2005 National Council of Agricultural Employers - Positions 66% 2003-2004 National Farmers Union - Positions 20% 2002 Vote Hemp - Positions on Industrial Hemp Policy Pro Hemp 2001-2002 Minnesota Farm Bureau - Positions 57% 2001-2002 Minnesota Farm Bureau - Positions 62% 2001-2002 National Farmers Union - Positions 40% 2001 American Coalition for Ethanol - Positions 0% 2000 American Farm Bureau Federation - Positions 33% 1999-2000 National Farmers Union - Positions 33% 1998 National Farmers Union - Positions 22% 1997 National Farmers Union - Positions 29%

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.