SCORECARD · MICHAEL LAWLER accountability readout

Michael Lawler dossier →

Republican U.S. House · NY-17 full conduct profile →
80/100
HIGH CAPTURE-RISK INDEX
How this number is built ↓
Silence risk25%
69
Contradiction risk25%
91
Connection density20%
62
Donor influence10%
96
Fact density10%
74
Constituency deviation5%
100
Voting misalignment5%
0

Weighted composite, 0–100. Identical to the figure on the Congress monitor. Each bar is the component's normalised 0–100 contribution before weighting.

01

Silence on donor-funded topics 6

Topics where donors have documented interests but the official has no public statement on record. Silence is the absence of expected speech — not proof of intent.

All silence flags for Michael Lawler →
02

Vote-vs-platform contradictions 0

Roll-call votes that contradict the official's own stated platform commitments. Each links to the bill and the contradiction rationale.

No platform-contradicting votes among 1871 votes on file. 4 aligned, 4 related.

03

Broken promises 0

Documented public commitments paired with the documented action that broke them. Each carries a primary-source citation for the violation.

No documented broken promises on file.

04

Documented contradictions 5

Stated-position-vs-revealed-conduct contradictions analysed against the official's commitments, scored by strength of the contradiction.

  • platform_vs_vote SCORE 90
    Lawler brands himself as a bipartisan moderate but a September 2025 scorecard found he voted with Trump 100% of the time, and VoteView showed his partisan voting rose from 81% to 92%. The American Journal News reported: 'Mike Lawler supported President Donald Trump's agenda 100% of the time last year, a record that could undermine his claims of bipartisanship.'
  • reversal SCORE 90
    Lawler and three other NY Republicans publicly rejected the $30,000 SALT cap as 'insulting' and demanded $100,000/$200,000. He ultimately voted for the bill with a $40,000 cap — less than half what he said was acceptable. While he secured a partial concession, his vote contradicted his own public red line.
  • platform_vs_vote SCORE 60
    Lawler signed a letter voicing 'major concerns' about the OBBB's clean energy rollback and urged the Senate to preserve those credits. He then voted for final passage of a bill that killed the very credits he said needed saving. As Environmental Advocates NY noted: he 'voted for the bill knowing full well it would kill clean energy tax credits. Then...begged the Senate to save them. That didn't happen.'
  • same_source_inconsistency SCORE 30
    Both quotes — that the Minneapolis deaths were 'preventable' (NYT op-ed) and 'sadly inevitable' (official statement) — come from Lawler himself within a two-week span. The contradiction was flagged in a lohud.com op-ed: 'Was it inevitable or preventable? The hypocrisy is sickening.' The NYT op-ed and the prior official statement represent inconsistent messaging from the same source about the same events.
  • same_source_inconsistency SCORE 30
    [auto-downgraded: both claims come from the same source host] Lawler explicitly promised constituents he 'will not vote for a bill that cuts Medicaid benefits for a single New Yorker.' He then voted for the OBBB, which the CBO projected would cause 7.8 million Americans to lose health insurance — including an estimated 211,500 NY-17 residents at risk of losing Medicaid coverage, and 860,000 middle-income New Yorkers statewide. This is a direct contradiction between a clear public pledge and a subsequent vote on the same policy question.
Contradictions ledger →

What this scorecard does and doesn't claim

Every figure above is a count of records the platform already holds, each click-through-able to its source. The scorecard adds no inference, no forecast, and no narrative — it aggregates what is documented.

A populated scorecard is not a finding of corruption. It documents the volume of stated-vs-revealed tension, donor-adjacent silence, and broken commitments on the public record for this official. Silence in particular is the absence of an expected statement; it can have innocent explanations and is never presented as proof. Read each item's source before drawing conclusions.

⌗ Cite this
Permalinkhttps://www.goblinhouse.net/scorecard/congress-l000599
CitationGoblin House. "Michael Lawler — Responsibility Scorecard" (accountability scorecard). Goblin House — The Architecture of Secrecy. Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.goblinhouse.net/scorecard/congress-l000599.

Sourced from public records and content-hashed; verify via /attestation, standard at /methodology.