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

Special Interest Groups

Rating Group: Michigan National Federation of Independent Business

2009-2010 Positions

State Office District Name Party Rating
MI U.S. House 3 Justin Amash Republican 100%
MI Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley Republican 93%
MI State House 5 Fred Durhal, Jr. Democratic 14%
MI State House 18 Sarah Roberts Democratic 14%
MI State Senate 1 Coleman Young II Democratic 14%
MI State Senate 2 Bert Johnson Democratic 23%
MI State Senate 10 Tory Rocca Republican 29%
MI State Senate 11 Vincent Gregory Democratic 14%
MI State Senate 12 James Marleau Republican 91%
MI State Senate 13 Martin Knollenberg Republican 93%
MI State Senate 18 Rebekah Warren Democratic 14%
MI State Senate 21 John Proos IV Republican 93%
MI State Senate 24 Rick Jones Republican 100%
MI State Senate 25 Phil Pavlov Republican 100%
MI State Senate 29 Dave Hildenbrand Republican 100%
MI State Senate 30 Arlan Meekhof Republican 100%
MI State Senate 32 Kenneth Horn Republican 86%
MI State Senate 34 Goeff Hansen Republican 93%
MI State Senate 35 Darwin Booher Republican 93%
MI State Senate 36 Jim Stamas Republican 92%
MI State Senate 37 Wayne Schmidt Republican 100%
MI Commissioner 3 Martha Scott Democratic 20%
MI Commissioner 5 Irma Clark-Coleman Democratic 20%
MI Commissioner 9 Fred Miller Democratic 15%
MI Commissioner 12 Richard LeBlanc Democratic 29%
MI Commissioner 14 Raymond Basham Democratic 22%
Dave Agema 100%
Jason Allen 100%
Glenn Anderson 40%
Kathy Angerer 21%
Richard Ball 93%
James Barcia 33%
Vicki Barnett 15%
Joan Bauer 14%
Douglas Bennett 31%
Patricia Birkholz 100%
Michael Bishop 100%
Timothy Bledsoe 21%
Jase Bolger 100%
Elizabeth Brater 20%
Cameron Brown 100%
Lisa Brown 14%
Terry Brown 14%
Pam Byrnes 21%
Barbara Byrum 14%
Nancy Cassis 100%
Bill Caul 93%
Deborah Cherry 20%
Hansen Clarke 30%
Ed Clemente 21%
Bob Constan 21%
Marc Corriveau 23%
Andrew Coulouris 20%
Hugh Crawford 93%
Alan Cropsey 100%
George Cushingberry, Jr. 17%
Kevin Daley 100%
Robert Dean 14%
Cynthia Denby 93%
Larry DeShazor 100%
Andy Dillon 15%
Marie Donigan 14%
Kate Ebli 14%
Kevin Elsenheimer 100%
John Espinoza 23%
Valdemar Garcia 100%
Douglas Geiss 14%
Bob Genetski 100%
Tom George 100%
Judson Gilbert II 100%
John Gleason 20%
Lee Gonzales 14%
Kevin Green 86%
Martin Griffin 29%
Jennifer Haase 14%
Gail Haines 93%
Richard Hammel 21%
Bill Hardiman 90%
Harold Haugh 14%
Joseph Haveman 100%
Michael Huckleberry 15%
Tupac Hunter 33%
Shanelle Jackson 15%
Gilda Jacobs 20%
Mark Jansen 90%
Ron Jelinek 100%
Robert Jones 21%
Roger Kahn 100%
Andrew Kandrevas 14%
Deb Kennedy 14%
Eileen Kowall 93%
Wayne Kuipers 100%
Kenneth Kurtz 100%
Michael Lahti 14%
Gabriel Leland 15%
LaMar Lemmons, Jr. 17%
Steven Lindberg 14%
Ellen Lipton 14%
Lesia Liss 21%
Matt Lori 100%
Pete Lund 100%
Jeff Mayes 14%
Gary McDowell 14%
Michelle McManus 100%
Tom McMillin 100%
Mark Meadows 14%
Tim Melton 21%
Kim Meltzer 100%
Tim Moore 92%
Chuck Moss 93%
David Nathan 29%
Judy Nerat 21%
Andy Neumann 15%
Dennis Olshove 20%
Paul Opsommer 93%
John Pappageorge 100%
Bruce Patterson 100%
Thomas Pearce 100%
Gino Polidori 14%
Michael Prusi 20%
Randy Richardville 100%
Bill Rogers 100%
Alan Sanborn 100%
Roy Schmidt 29%
Tonya Schuitmaker 100%
Bettie Scott 21%
Paul Scott 93%
Daniel Collins Scripps 21%
Kate Segal 14%
Joel Sheltrown 21%
Mike Simpson 20%
Dian Slavens 14%
Jim Slezak 29%
Alma Smith 15%
Dudley Spade 23%
Tony Stamas 100%
Woodrow Stanley 14%
Jonathan Switalski 14%
Mickey Switalski 40%
Samuel Thomas III 44%
Rashida Tlaib 15%
Sharon Tyler 93%
Mary Valentine 14%
Gerald Van Woerkom 100%
John Walsh 93%
Gretchen Whitmer 20%
Jimmy Womack 21%

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