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

Special Interest Groups

Rating Group: Michigan Chamber of Commerce

2009-2010 Positions

State Office District Name Party Rating
MI U.S. House 3 Justin Amash Republican 95%
MI Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley Republican 86%
MI State House 18 Sarah Roberts Democratic 19%
MI State Senate 1 Coleman Young II Democratic 10%
MI State Senate 2 Bert Johnson Democratic 17%
MI State Senate 10 Tory Rocca Republican 38%
MI State Senate 11 Vincent Gregory Democratic 14%
MI State Senate 12 James Marleau Republican 83%
MI State Senate 13 Martin Knollenberg Republican 86%
MI State Senate 18 Rebekah Warren Democratic 10%
MI State Senate 19 Michael Nofs Republican 83%
MI State Senate 21 John Proos IV Republican 81%
MI State Senate 24 Rick Jones Republican 90%
MI State Senate 25 Phil Pavlov Republican 95%
MI State Senate 29 Dave Hildenbrand Republican 95%
MI State Senate 30 Arlan Meekhof Republican 95%
MI State Senate 32 Kenneth Horn Republican 95%
MI State Senate 34 Goeff Hansen Republican 76%
MI State Senate 35 Darwin Booher Republican 90%
MI State Senate 36 Jim Stamas Republican 90%
MI State Senate 37 Wayne Schmidt Republican 95%
MI Council Member At-Large Bob Constan 19%
MI Council Member At-Large George Cushingberry, Jr. 24%
MI Council Member At-Large Gabriel Leland 20%
MI Commissioner 3 Martha Scott 9%
MI Commissioner 5 Irma Clark-Coleman 9%
MI Commissioner 6 Eileen Kowall 86%
MI Commissioner 9 Hugh Crawford 90%
MI Commissioner 9 Fred Miller Democratic 11%
MI Commissioner 12 Richard LeBlanc Democratic 38%
MI Commissioner 14 Raymond Basham 9%
Dave Agema 100%
Jason Allen 96%
Glenn Anderson 29%
Kathy Angerer 24%
Richard Ball 71%
James Barcia 30%
Vicki Barnett 14%
Joan Bauer 14%
Douglas Bennett 31%
Patricia Birkholz 88%
Michael Bishop 100%
Timothy Bledsoe 33%
Jase Bolger 90%
Elizabeth Brater 9%
Cameron Brown 100%
Lisa Brown 14%
Terry Brown 24%
Pam Byrnes 29%
Barbara Byrum 14%
Nancy Cassis 92%
Bill Caul 95%
Deborah Cherry 13%
Hansen Clarke 9%
Ed Clemente 21%
Marc Corriveau 24%
Andrew Coulouris 16%
Alan Cropsey 96%
Kevin Daley 95%
Robert Dean 24%
Cynthia Denby 86%
Larry DeShazor 81%
Andy Dillon 21%
Marie Donigan 20%
Fred Durhal, Jr. 19%
Kate Ebli 14%
Kevin Elsenheimer 95%
John Espinoza 33%
Valdemar Garcia 100%
Douglas Geiss 20%
Bob Genetski 95%
Tom George 92%
Judson Gilbert II 100%
John Gleason 9%
Lee Gonzales 25%
Kevin Green 86%
Martin Griffin 43%
Jennifer Haase 24%
Gail Haines 81%
Richard Hammel 29%
Bill Hardiman 91%
Harold Haugh 24%
Joseph Haveman 90%
Michael Huckleberry 25%
Tupac Hunter 13%
Shanelle Jackson 11%
Gilda Jacobs 8%
Mark Jansen 92%
Ron Jelinek 91%
Robert Jones 21%
Roger Kahn 96%
Andrew Kandrevas 19%
Deb Kennedy 19%
Wayne Kuipers 100%
Kenneth Kurtz 100%
Michael Lahti 24%
LaMar Lemmons, Jr. 20%
Steven Lindberg 14%
Ellen Lipton 10%
Lesia Liss 29%
Matt Lori 90%
Pete Lund 100%
Jeff Mayes 24%
Gary McDowell 19%
Michelle McManus 96%
Tom McMillin 95%
Mark Meadows 14%
Tim Melton 24%
Kim Meltzer 90%
Tim Moore 89%
Chuck Moss 90%
David Nathan 19%
Judy Nerat 19%
Andy Neumann 25%
Dennis Olshove 8%
Paul Opsommer 81%
John Pappageorge 92%
Bruce Patterson 91%
Thomas Pearce 85%
Gino Polidori 19%
Michael Prusi 13%
Randy Richardville 96%
Bill Rogers 95%
Alan Sanborn 100%
Roy Schmidt 38%
Tonya Schuitmaker 76%
Bettie Scott 20%
Paul Scott 76%
Daniel Collins Scripps 24%
Kate Segal 24%
Joel Sheltrown 24%
Dian Slavens 24%
Jim Slezak 43%
Alma Smith 15%
Dudley Spade 33%
Tony Stamas 96%
Woodrow Stanley 14%
Jonathan Switalski 19%
Mickey Switalski 21%
Samuel Thomas III 17%
Rashida Tlaib 19%
Sharon Tyler 81%
Mary Valentine 15%
Gerald Van Woerkom 100%
John Walsh 90%
Gretchen Whitmer 8%
Jimmy Womack 38%

How to Interpret these Evaluations

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