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

Susan M. Collins's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Environment

Office: U.S. Senate (ME) - Sr, Republican
On The Ballot: Running, Republican for U.S. Senate

2014 Endorsements

Environment

2013 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 25%
2013 Environment America - Positions 75%
2013 Food Policy Action - Positions 67%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 67%
2013 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 69%
2012 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2012 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 67%
2011-2012 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 57%
2011-2012 Environment America - Positions 100%
2011-2012 Food Policy Action - Positions 72%
2011-2012 League of Conservation Voters - Session Score 64%
2011 Environment America - Positions 72%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 55%
2011 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 66%
2010-2011 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 25%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 0%
2010 League of Conservation Voters - Lifetime Score 67%
2009-2010 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 33%
2009-2010 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 39%
2009-2010 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 67%
2009 ConservAmerica - Positions 95
2009 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50%
2009 Environment America - Positions 71%
2009 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 64%
2008 Environment America - Positions 100%
2007-2008 ConservAmerica - Positions 105
2007-2008 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 82%
2007-2008 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 100%
2007 ConservAmerica - Positions 104
2007 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 80%
2007 League of Conservation Voters - First Session Score 100%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 67%
2006 ConservAmerica - Positions 79
2006 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%
2005-2006 American Forest and Paper Association - Positions 85%
2005-2006 American Lands Alliance - Positions 0%
2005-2006 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 50%
2005-2006 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 37%
2005-2006 Partnership for America - Positions 40%
2005 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 50%
2005 ConservAmerica - Positions 67
2005 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 70%
2005 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 33%
2004 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 50%
2003-2004 American Lands Alliance - Positions 11%
2003-2004 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 100%
2003-2004 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 64%
2003-2004 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 60%
2003-2004 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 47%
2003 American Lands Alliance - Positions 0%
2003 Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund - Positions 55%
2003 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 68%
2003 Sierra Club - Positions 60%
2001-2002 American Wilderness Coalition - Positions 40%
2001-2002 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 64%
2001-2002 National Parks Conservation Association - Positions 67%
2001-2002 Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and-WILL - Positions 43%
2001 Californians for Population Stabilization - Positions 0%
1999-2000 American Lands Alliance - Positions 0%
1999-2000 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 56%
1999 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 67%
1998 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 60%
1997 League of Conservation Voters - Positions 71%

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