Scorecards

Conduit for Commerce is pleased to announce their biennial Calvin Coolidge Heroes of Freedom Award winners. These awards are presented to Arkansas legislators who fought for liberty in the recent legislative session and is based solely on their voting records. Broken campaign promises and bloviating tweets net you zero Coolidge Awards. The winners represent the cream of the crop of conservative, limited government Arkansas state legislators.

The awards reflect legislators who voted to:

(1) Decrease the size of government;

(2) Decrease Dependency on Government; and

(3) Not spend money we do not have.

The complete list of Calvin Coolidge Award Winners:

The Calvin Coolidge Heroes of Freedom Awards were given to the top scorers on the Conduit for Commerce Scorecard rankings. The Freedom Bill awards were given to legislators who sponsored the best bills of the session.

The best bills of the session included:

1. SB175 – Medicaid Disclosure by Senator Bryan King
2. SB726 – Ethics Reform prohibiting legislators who are attorneys/consultants from running bills for clients – by Senator Linda Collins-Smith
3. SJR10 – Fair Ballot Titles Reform – by Senator Linda Collins-Smith
4. SB727 – Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform – by Senator Linda Collins-Smith
5. SB723 – Special Elections Reform – by Representative Justin Gonzalez
6. HB1465 – Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Freeze – by Representative Josh Miller
7. HB1222 – School Choice and Education Savings Accounts – by Representative Jim Dotson
8. HB1405 – Unemployment Insurance Tax Cut – by Representative Robin Lundstrum
9. HJR1016 – Voter I.D. Proposed Constitutional Amendment – by Representative Robin Lundstrum

Much like any specific vote, scoring of votes by Conduit for Commerce (CFC) is not an exact science as some bills have a greater impact on Arkansas if passed.  However, the weekly pre-vote publications (score cards) released during the Regular Session by Conduit for Action (CFA) referencing specific bills is reflective of the measure used in CFC’s final vote tallies.

Likewise, only bills which reflect the focus and mission of CFC are taken into account when deriving these rankings.  Therefore, our scoring is weighted for principles based upon the following preferred outcomes:

• Reduces the size of government,
• Reduces dependency on government, and/or
• Reduces spending by the government.

Votes cast by legislators on bills on the floor and during committees (when known) are all considered.  In total 30 Senate floor votes, along with three supportive committee votes, were scored.  For the members of the House of Representatives, 35-floor votes and 13 committee votes were included in the scoring.

It is believed that the methods used by CFC will ultimately yield a better assessment of the pattern of voting by a specific senator or house member.  It is our goal to assist voters as they measure differences in their expectations and results.  Ultimately our intent is that the voting pattern of these elected officials, as they relate to the above principles, is made clear.

Likewise, as the methods and results of the CFC rankings are compared to other groups, differences may be noted.  These differences should be filtered with the understanding that CFC is an Arkansas-founded and small business-focused organization, which not only understands the fiscal impact of these bills but is able to use knowledge and background regarding directly related issues that may not be apparent to national groups.

(Note: Floor votes on bills are reflected at the following government site: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/SearchCenter/Pages/historicalbil.aspx  This is the third Regular Session Report Card, starting in 2013, published by Conduit for Commerce.  For more information contact brenda@conduitforcommerce.org)

Much like any specific vote, the CFC scoring of bills, committee votes (when known) floor votes, primary sponsorships, and co-sponsorships is not an exact science or a technique which may be described as linear. Our scoring is weighted for principles based upon the following preferred likely outcomes: 1) reduces the size of government, 2) reduces dependency on government, and/or 3) reduces spending by government. It is believed that this method will ultimately yield a better assessment of the pattern of voting by a specific Legislator helpful in measuring differences in expectations by voters. Ultimately it is the intent of CFC that the voting pattern of these elected officials, as they relate to the above principles, is made clear.

July 31, 2015