The infrastructure bill recently passed by Congress is a rare example of bipartisanship in government. But the Common Ground Committee, which strives to find a central point from which the parties can work together, is hoping its ratings system will provide guidance for more cross-partisan collaboration.
The Common Ground Scorecard rates the president, vice president, governors, and members of the House of Representatives and Senate on their willingness to collaborate across partisan lines. First released in September 2020, the data updated last month.
Bruce Bond, co-founder and CEO of the Common Ground Committee said the scorecard provided some unexpected results. He said the group was surprised by "how many people are actually good common grounders, and how they come from both parties and are at all levels of government."
Among the 20 politicians with the highest scores, 17 are members of the House, two are senators and one is a governor. Seven are Republicans (including the top four) and 13 are Democrats.
Officials were judged in five categories:
- Sponsorship of bipartisan bills (for legislators) or bipartisan job approval (for executives).
- Having a public conversation across the political divide, visiting a district with a member of the opposite party and joining a legislative caucus that promotes working together.
- Using communications tools to urge people to find common ground.
- Affirmation of a commitment to a set of common ground principles.
- Winning any of a set of awards for behavior that promotes finding common ground.
The maximum score is 110, and the average among all elected officials was 29. But because negative points were assessed for insulting a member of the opposing party, a handful of officials ended up with a final score below zero.
Two House Republicans, Nebraska's Don Bacon (108) and Pennsylvania's Brian Fitzpatrick (100) were the only people to earn at least 100 points. Utah's GOP governor, Spencer Cox, had the third highest rating, earning 95 points. The highest scoring Democrats were a pair of House members: New York's Antonio Delgado (94 points) and Virginia's Elaine Luria (93).
Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, had the highest score among senators, earning 80 points, two ahead of her home-state colleague, Joe Manchin, who has a higher profile as one of two Democrats critical to passing legislation in the Senate. The other, Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, earned 70 points, the minimum to be labeled a "champion" by the Common Ground Committee.
Of the seven lowest scores, six belong to House members, including one member of the informal group of progressives known as "the squad" and some of former President Donald Trump's most controversial supporters:
- Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.): -20
- Democratic Rep. Norma Torres (Calif.): -19
- Republican Rep, Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.): -16
- Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela (Texa)s: -13
- Republican Sen. John Kennedy (La.): -13
- Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.): -13
- Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz): -11
President Biden earned 41 points, placing him in the "somewhat above average" range. President Trump left office with a score of -20.
Nine of the 13 highest scoring House Republicans voted in favor of the infrastructure bill last week, including the top five. But some Republicans at the low end of the scale supported the bill as well, including a pair of New Yorkers, Nicole Malliotakis (4 points) and Andrew Garbarino (14).
Among the six House Democrats who opposed the bill, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts tied for the highest score (20 points).
The Common Ground Committee hopes the scorecard will encourage more elected officials and candidates to work across party lines. Bond identified two specific goals: "Spotlighting those who are 'demonstrating what good looks like' and "informing voters who care about the degree to which a candidate (incumbent or challenger) is a common grounder."
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.