[ Enter Database → ]
[CAPTURE PORTAL] 119TH CONGRESS
// Legislative Integrity Monitor
Goblin House Intelligence
CongressOfficials → Jefferson Van Drew

Jefferson Van Drew

Republican · Representative, NJ ·2
Score Components
31 ELEVATED
Connection Density 20%
0 → 0
Donor Influence 10%
0 → 0
Silence Risk 25%
0 → 0
Contradiction Risk 25%
100 → 25
Intelligence Volume 10%
55 → 6
Constituency Deviation 5%
0 → 0
Voting Misalignment 5%
0 → 0
% = weight in composite score · Raw component 0–100 × weight = weighted contribution (→) · Sum of contributions = overall score. Hover a row for details.
Two other House Republicans—Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)—moved from nay in July to yea in December on H.R. 8404, demonstrating that the Senate amendment did satisfy some Republican religious liberty concerns, making the seven GOP flips more anomalous.
secondary · 2022-12-08
Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly suggested at a December 8, 2022 press conference that GOP members who flipped on H.R. 8404 did so because their July votes were cast for pre-election advantage and their December votes reflected their true preferences once the midterms had passed.
secondary · 2022-12-08
The Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 that Van Drew cited as the basis for his reversal added explicit protections for religious organizations' tax-exempt status — language that 12 GOP senators, including Mike Lee who previously opposed the bill, voted to approve. The amendment made the bill more conservative; Van Drew voted against the more conservative version
primary · 2022-11-29
Van Drew did not publish a press release on his House website explaining his initial July 2022 yea vote on H.R. 8404, nor did he issue a standalone statement explaining his December 2022 reversal—limiting the public accountability record to a single quote given to NorthJersey.com.
secondary · 2022-12-10
NJ state health officials estimated the OBBBA would cause approximately 350,000 New Jerseyans to lose NJ FamilyCare coverage and result in a loss of $3.3 billion per year in hospital and public health funding.
secondary · 2025-07-17
More than 100 constituents rallied outside Van Drew's Northfield office on July 17, 2025 to protest the OBBBA Medicaid cuts, with organizers reporting they were told by Van Drew's staff that 'he understands how critical Medicaid is.'
secondary · 2025-07-17
Van Drew's district (NJ-2) has 176,849 total Medicaid enrollees including 82,185 children under age 19, per CMS data cited by Rep. Frank Pallone's office. Over 66,000 children — 40% of all children in the district — depend on NJ FamilyCare/Medicaid.
secondary · 2025-02-24
On June 16, 2025 — 17 days before his final yea vote — Van Drew publicly acknowledged that the Senate version of the OBBBA 'could unintentionally hurt the people Medicaid is meant to help,' yet voted for the final bill.
primary · 2025-06-16
Van Drew signed an April 14, 2025 letter with 11 other House Republicans to Speaker Mike Johnson pledging they 'cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations' — a coalition pledge he later broke by voting yea on H.R. 1.
primary · 2025-04-14
When asked by NJ Spotlight News if he could identify any bills he voted for that contained his earmarks, Van Drew replied 'I'd have to look at my record on some of those,' and his spokeswoman did not respond to follow-up questions about the voting record.
primary · 2024-08-28
NJ Spotlight News identified the three largest Van Drew earmarks as $32 million for an Army Corps of Engineers project in Ocean County, $10 million for a federal sea wall in Cape May County, and $6.9 million for a drone project at Woodbine Municipal Airport.
primary · 2024-08-28
The Cape May County Herald reported that the $1.7 trillion FY2023 omnibus contained $15.6 million specifically for Cape May County projects, including $2 million for a general aviation hangar at Cape May County Airport, and Van Drew voted against the final legislation.
primary · 2023-01-20
Van Drew's own campaign website published a statement on December 23, 2022 titled 'Van Drew Says NO to Biden's $1.7 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill,' explicitly confirming he voted against legislation containing his earmarks.
primary · 2022-12-23
On March 9, 2022, the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (H.R. 2471) by a recorded vote of 260-171; only 9 Republicans voted in favor, and Van Drew was not among them according to contemporaneous news reports.
secondary · 2022-03-09
[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Hispanic population share: 18%
secondary
[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: bachelor's degree or higher: 31.3%
secondary
[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: homeownership rate: 74.8%
secondary
[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: poverty rate: 8.3%
secondary
[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: median household income: $85,261
secondary
[constituency_baseline] Ballot measure: New Jersey Public Question 1 — Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2023) — passed, margin 62%-38%
secondary
No connections mapped
BillVoteDateAlignment
One Big Beautiful Bill Act yea_unverified 2025-07-03 mixed
Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 nay 2024-04-20 misaligned
Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 yea 2024-04-20 aligned
Respect for Marriage Act (Final Passage) nay_unverified 2022-12-08 misaligned
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (containing $92.3M in Van Drew-requested e nay_unverified 2022-03-09 mixed
Objection to Arizona Presidential Electoral College Results — Joint Session of C yea 2021-01-06 misaligned
Last contradiction analysis: Never
reversal 90/100
Platform: "Van Drew left a voicemail to a constituent on November 30, 2019 saying 'I haven't voted for him, I didn't support him, I will not vote for him,' in re"
Vote: on "Less than three weeks later, Van Drew announced he was switching from Democrat to Republican and ple"
Van Drew told a constituent on November 30, 2019 that he would not vote for or support Trump. Less than three weeks later, he switched parties, visited the Oval Office, and pledged 'undying support' to Trump. This was a complete reversal of his state
reversal 90/100
Platform: "Van Drew voted 'Yea' on the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) in July 2022 to codify same-sex marriage protections."
Vote: on "Van Drew flipped to vote 'Nay' on the final version of the Respect for Marriage Act in December 2022"
Van Drew voted for the Respect for Marriage Act in July 2022, then reversed to vote against the identical bill in December 2022. He cited religious liberty protections, but the December bill included the same religious liberty amendments that had ear
statement_vs_disclosure 90/100
Platform: "Van Drew stated 'I will never support any legislation that cuts benefits to eligible, legal Americans' regarding Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Securi"
Vote: on "Van Drew voted 'Yea' on H.R. 1 (the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act') in July 2025, which the CBO projec"
Van Drew repeatedly pledged never to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security, including in an April 2025 press release, but voted for H.R. 1 in July 2025. The nonpartisan CBO projected $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts from the bill. His defense that t
Last silence detection: Never
No active silences
No donor interests mapped
No constituency baseline modelled
No platform commitments archived
No committee memberships recorded
Scoring Methodology

The Capture Risk Score is a composite 0–100 index measuring potential regulatory capture of elected officials. It is computed from seven weighted components:

ComponentWeightSignal
Silence Risk25%Topics where donors have interests but the official is silent
Contradiction Risk25%Stated positions contradicted by voting record (recent findings boosted)
Connection Density20%Mapped relationships to lobbyists, contractors, interest groups
Intelligence Volume10%Documented facts from verified sources (logarithmic scale)
Donor Influence10%Distinct donors with interests overlapping committee jurisdiction
Constituency Deviation5%Gap between district priorities and legislative focus
Voting Misalignment5%Floor votes contradicting stated platform positions

Each component produces a raw score 0–100. The weighted sum yields the overall score. Tier thresholds: Critical ≥ 45, High ≥ 36, Elevated ≥ 22, Moderate ≥ 10, Low < 10.

Officials without at least 2 documented facts, 1 contradiction analysis, 1 voting record, or 1 constituency baseline are marked Insufficient Evidence and excluded from numeric ranking.

Contradiction findings from the last 180 days receive a recency boost. High-severity contradictions (score ≥ 70) receive additional weight.

Full methodology: /congress/methodology

View Full Entity Profile →