Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category
 

Mark Steven Kirk's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Environment

Office: U.S. Senate (IL) - Jr, Republican

2010 Endorsements

Environment

2014 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score 1%
2014 Environment America - Positions 0%
2014 Food Policy Action - Positions 17%
2014 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 59%
2013-2014 League of Conservation Voters - Positions (113th Congress, full session) 22%
2013 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 0%
2013 Environment America - Positions 42%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 17%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 23%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 61%
2012 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 64%
2011-2012 Environment America - Positions 0%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 33%
2011-2012 League of Conservation Voters - Session Score 18%
2011 Environment America - Positions 45%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 64%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 18%
2010-2011 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 25%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 70%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 67%
2009-2010 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 67%
2009-2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 68%
2009-2010 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 67%
2009 ConservAmerica - Positions 86
2009 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 75%
2009 Environment America - Positions 73%
2009 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2008 Environment America - Positions 92%
2007-2008 ConservAmerica - Positions 102
2007-2008 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 88%
2007-2008 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 82%
2007 ConservAmerica - Positions 100
2007 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 80%
2007 League of Conservation Voters - First Session Score 90%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 86%
2006 ConservAmerica - Positions 71
2006 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 75%
2006 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 50%
2005-2006 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 41%
2005-2006 American Lands Alliance - Positions 89%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 66%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 56%
2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 37%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 67%
2005 ConservAmerica - Positions 75
2005 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 39%
2004 Center for International Policy - Positions 0%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 60%
2003-2004 American Lands Alliance - Positions 90%
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 82%
2003-2004 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2003-2004 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 84%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 32%
2003 American Lands Alliance - Positions 88%
2003 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 80%
2003 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 80%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 88%
2002 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 33%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 60%
2001-2002 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 59%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and WILL - Positions 33%
2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 50%

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.

Skip to top
Back to top