[CAPTURE PORTAL] 119TH CONGRESS

// Legislative Integrity Monitor

Goblin House Intelligence

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Democratic · Representative, FL ·25

Score Components

19 MODERATE

Connection Density 20%

0 → 0

Donor Influence 10%

0 → 0

Silence Risk 25%

0 → 0

Contradiction Risk 25%

54 → 14

Intelligence Volume 10%

59 → 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.

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Foreign-born population: 37.2%

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Black or African American alone: 22.0%

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Hispanic or Latino: 35.5%

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 38.0%

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Population (2020 Census): 799,485

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Demographic anchor: Median household income: $72,250

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Ballot measure: Amendment 2: Abolish Constitution Revision Commission (2022) — passed, margin 52.3% Yes

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Ballot measure: Amendment 2: $15 Minimum Wage (2020) — passed, margin 60.8% Yes

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Dominant industry: NAICS 54 (share 9)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Dominant industry: NAICS 72 (share 10.8)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Dominant industry: NAICS 44-45 (share 11.5)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Dominant industry: NAICS 62 (share 15.2)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Top employer: Broward County Government (6000 employees)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] Top employer: Broward County School Board (27000 employees)

secondary

[constituency_baseline] District summary: Florida's 25th Congressional District covers western Broward County, including parts of Pembroke Pines, Weston, Davie, Cooper City, and Hollywood. It is a heavily suburban, diverse, and solidly Democratic district with a significant Jewish population, a high median income, and a strong base of retirees and service-se

secondary

Voted nay on H.R. 685 (Mortgage Choice Act of 2015) on 2015-04-14: The National Association of Realtors, a major donor to Schultz, backed this bill to ease mortgage lending rules. Her vote against it defected from a top donor interest, aligning instead with consumer-protection advocates.

primary · 2015-04-14

Voted nay on H.R. 1947 / H.Amdt. 106 (Pitts Amendment to reform sugar subsidies) on 2013-06-19: Voting against the amendment maintained the sugar subsidy program, which keeps U.S. sugar prices above world levels. Constituents in her district face higher consumer costs, while the sugar industry is not a major employer there – a clear constituent-interest mism

primary · 2013-06-19

[disclosure] Her campaign committee received $10,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte PAC during the 2022 election cycle.

primary · 2022-10-15

[platform] Debbie Wasserman Schultz cosponsored H.R. 1 (For the People Act), which includes a small-dollar public financing system for congressional campaigns.

primary · 2021-01-04

American Israel Public Affairs Cmte PAC has given $109,500 in career contributions.

secondary · 2024-11-05

No connections mapped

Bill	Vote	Date	Alignment
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022	yea	2022-08-12	misaligned
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act	yea	2021-11-05	misaligned
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021	yea	2021-02-27	misaligned
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2021	nay	2020-07-21	deviating
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act	yea	2019-12-19	deviating
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act	nay	2017-12-19	misaligned
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (JCPOA)	yea	2015-09-11	aligned
Mortgage Choice Act of 2015	nay	2015-04-14	deviating
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (including swaps pu	yea	2014-12-11	aligned
Pitts Amendment to reform sugar subsidies	nay	2013-06-19	misaligned

Last contradiction analysis: Never

reversal 60/100

Platform: "Wasserman Schultz voted against the Farr-Rohrabacher amendment in May 2014, stating: 'I do not believe, regardless of the issue, that it is appropriat"

Vote: on "In May 2016, Wasserman Schultz voted in favor of the Blumenauer amendment to allow VA doctors to dis"

Wasserman Schultz voted against allowing federal non-interference with state medical marijuana in 2014, citing executive branch authority, then reversed to support VA doctor-patient marijuana discussions in 2016. Her 2014 opposition put her among onl

statement_vs_disclosure 60/100

Platform: "Wasserman Schultz's spokeswoman Mara Sloan told the Daily Beast that she supports 'holding off on new sanctions until the diplomacy plays out,' regard"

Vote: on "The same spokeswoman, Mara Sloan, told the Miami Herald that same week: 'Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schul"

In January 2014, Wasserman Schultz's spokeswoman gave contradictory statements to national press (opposing new Iran sanctions) and Florida press (supporting sanctions), reflecting tension between loyalty to the Obama White House and a heavily Jewish,

statement_vs_disclosure 60/100

Platform: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz cosponsored H.R. 1 (For the People Act), which includes a small-dollar public financing system for congressional campaigns."

Vote: on "Her campaign committee received $10,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte PAC during the "

Schultz cosponsored legislation to move toward public financing of campaigns, yet her campaign continued to accept large corporate PAC contributions, creating a gap between legislative platform and personal fundraising practice.

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:

Component	Weight	Signal
Silence Risk	25%	Topics where donors have interests but the official is silent
Contradiction Risk	25%	Stated positions contradicted by voting record (recent findings boosted)
Connection Density	20%	Mapped relationships to lobbyists, contractors, interest groups
Intelligence Volume	10%	Documented facts from verified sources (logarithmic scale)
Donor Influence	10%	Distinct donors with interests overlapping committee jurisdiction
Constituency Deviation	5%	Gap between district priorities and legislative focus
Voting Misalignment	5%	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 →