Scott Rigell Committee Assignments In The House

Analysis

Legislative Metrics

Read our 2016 Report Card for Rigell.

Ideology–Leadership Chart

Rigell is shown as a purple triangle ▲ in our ideology-leadership chart below. Each dot was a member of the House of Representatives in 2016 positioned according to our liberal–conservative ideology score (left to right) and our leadership score (leaders are toward the top).

The chart is based on the bills Rigell sponsored and cosponsored. See full analysis methodology.

Enacted Legislation

Rigell was the primary sponsor of 1 bill that was enacted:

View All »

We consider a bill enacted if one of the following is true: a) it is enacted itself, b) it has a companion bill in the other chamber (as identified by Congress) which was enacted, or c) if about one third or more of its provisions were incorporated into bills that were enacted (as determined by an automated text analysis, applicable beginning with bills in the 110th Congress).

Bills Sponsored

Issue Areas

Rigell sponsored bills primarily in these issue areas:

Armed Forces and National Security (25%)Public Lands and Natural Resources (25%)Health (19%)Economics and Public Finance (19%)Crime and Law Enforcement (13%)

Recent Bills

Some of Rigell’s most recently sponsored bills include...

View All » | View Cosponsors »

Voting Record

Key Votes

Rigell’s VoteVote Description
Nay H.R. 4889: Kelsey Smith Act
May 23, 2016. Failed 229/158.
No H.R. 3038: Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II
Jul 15, 2015. Passed 312/119.
Yea H.R. 83 (113th): Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
Dec 11, 2014. Passed 219/206.
This bill became the vehicle for passage of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 [pdf], which was approved by the House on December 11, 2014 and by the Senate on December 13, 2014. The bill was originally introduced on January 3, 2013 by ...
Aye H.J.Res. 124 (113th): Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015
Sep 17, 2014. Passed 319/108.
Nay H.R. 2848 (113th): Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014
Sep 29, 2013. Passed 384/37.
No H.J.Res. 117 (112th): Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013
Sep 13, 2012. Passed 329/91.
No H.R. 6233 (112th): Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012
Aug 2, 2012. Passed 223/197.
Aye S. 365 (112th): Budget Control Act of 2011
Aug 1, 2011. Passed 269/161.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub.L. 112–25, S. 365, 125 Stat. 240, enacted August 2, 2011) is a federal statute in the United States that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011. The Act brought conclusion to the United ...
Aye H.R. 1249 (112th): Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
Jun 23, 2011. Passed 304/117.
The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1952, and ...
No H.J.Res. 48 (112th): Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011
Mar 15, 2011. Passed 271/158.

Missed Votes

From Jan 2011 to Dec 2016, Rigell missed 32 of 4,135 roll call votes, which is 0.8%. This is better than the median of 2.4% among the lifetime records of representatives serving in Dec 2016. The chart below reports missed votes over time.

Show the numbers...

Time PeriodVotes EligibleMissed VotesPercentPercentile
2011 Jan-Mar21200.0%0th
2011 Apr-Jun28100.0%0th
2011 Jul-Sep24700.0%0th
2011 Oct-Dec20831.4%47th
2012 Jan-Mar15110.7%23rd
2012 Apr-Jun29900.0%0th
2012 Jul-Sep15210.7%33rd
2012 Nov-Dec5112.0%37th
2013 Jan-Jan500.0%0th
2013 Jan-Mar8944.5%75th
2013 Apr-Jun21510.5%25th
2013 Jul-Sep20021.0%41st
2013 Oct-Dec13721.5%43rd
2014 Jan-Mar14810.7%23rd
2014 Apr-Jun21920.9%35th
2014 Jul-Sep14742.7%70th
2014 Nov-Dec4900.0%0th
2015 Jan-Mar14400.0%0th
2015 Apr-Jun24400.0%0th
2015 Jul-Sep13900.0%0th
2015 Oct-Dec17700.0%0th
2016 Jan-Mar13721.5%32nd
2016 Apr-Jun20431.5%39th
2016 Jul-Sep23231.3%53rd
2016 Nov-Dec4824.2%68th

Primary Sources

The information on this page is originally sourced from a variety of materials, including:

Edward “Scott” Rigell is pronounced:

The letters stand for sounds according to the following table:

Capital letters indicate a stressed syllable.

Top Contributors, 2015 - 2016

ContributorTotalIndividualsPACs
Norfolk Southern$21,900$6,900$15,000
Charles Barker Automotive$10,800$10,800$0
SB Ballard Construction Co$10,800$10,800$0
Orbital ATK$9,500$0$9,500
McCleskey Assoc$8,000$8,000$0

Top Industries, 2015 - 2016

IndustryTotalIndividualsPACs
Retired$62,755$62,755$0
Real Estate$47,062$45,062$2,000
Automotive$30,600$25,600$5,000
Railroads$28,900$8,900$20,000
Misc Defense$22,950$2,950$20,000

Total Raised vs. Average Raised

{:chart=>{:showvalues=>0, :numberprefix=>"$", :formatnumberscale=>1, :showborder=>0, :bgcolor=>"ffffff", :divlinedashed=>1, :showCanvasBorder=>0, :plotGradientColor=>"", :showplotborder=>0, :showAlternateHGridColor=>0, :legendBorderColor=>"ffffff", :legendShadow=>0}, :categories=>[{:category=>[{:label=>"10"}, {:label=>"12"}, {:label=>"14"}, {:label=>"16"}, {:label=>"18"}]}], :dataset=>[{:color=>"#3d71b7", :seriesname=>"Total Raised by Scott Rigell - Campaign Committee", :data=>[{:value=>4512947.1}, {:value=>2371593.54}, {:value=>1517857.69}, {:value=>551470.01}, {:value=>8587.4}]}, {:seriesname=>"Average Raised by House Members - Campaign Committee", :renderAs=>"line", :data=>[{:value=>1616615}, {:value=>1733862}, {:value=>1693059}, {:value=>1734164}, {:value=>849095}]}]}

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2015 - 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on 05/18/17 for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average, and on 02/20/18 for Top Contributors and Industries.  ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

WHY DON'T THE NUMBERS ADD UP?

Sometimes it's hard to make apple-to-apple comparisons across some of the pages in a candidate's profile. Here's why:

Summary numbers - specifically "Total Raised and Spent" and "PAC/Individual Split" - are based on summary reports filed by the candidates with the Federal Election Commission. All other numbers in these profiles ("Quality of Disclosure," "Geography" and "Special Interests") are derived from detailed FEC reports that itemize all contributions of $200 or more.

There is also a time lag in posting the information. While summary numbers are reported almost immediately by the FEC -- and listed quickly on OpenSecrets -- processing and analyzing the detailed records takes much longer. For that reason, summary numbers are usually higher (and more current) than the numbers based on detailed records.

HOW CURRENT ARE THESE FIGURES?

The figures in these profiles are taken from databases uploaded by the FEC to the internet on the first day of every month. Those databases are only as current as the FEC has been able to compile by that date (see the note above about lag times for data entry).

The Center updates figures for "Total Raised and Spent" and for "PAC/Individual Split" a few days after the first of the month. The remaining figures - based on detailed contribution data - is updated by the Center after the 20th of every month. This gives us time to analyze the contributions and categorize them by industry and interest group.

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest. We do this in two ways:

  • First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.
  • Second, we standardize the name of the donor's employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization's name winds up on the Top Contributor list.

Of course, it is impossible to know either the economic interest that made each individual contribution possible or the motivation for each individual giver. However, the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.

In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to "bundle" contributions to the candidate. In other cases—both with private companies and with government agencies, non-profits and educational institutions—the reason for the contributions may be completely unrelated to the organization.

Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.

METHODOLOGY

The figures profiled here include money from two sources: These contributors were either the sponsors of a PAC that gave to the politician, or they were listed as an individual donor's employer. Donors who give more than $200 to any federal candidate, PAC or party committee must list their occupation and employer. Based on that information, the donor is given an economic code. These totals are conservative, as not all of the individual contributions have yet been classified by the Center.

In cases where two or more people from the same family contributed, the income-earner's occupation/employer is assigned to all non-wage earning family members. If, for instance, Henry Jones lists his employer as First National Bank, his wife Matilda lists "Homemaker" and 12-year old Tammy shows up as "Student," the Center would identify all their contributions as being related to the "First National Bank" since that's the source of the family's income.

Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info[at]crp.org

0 Replies to “Scott Rigell Committee Assignments In The House”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *