Share
Kim Gardner
Score adjustments
Foreign-lobby money compromises America First. The U.S. has no formal mutual-defense treaty with Israel; AIPAC operates a super-PAC (United Democracy Project) that spent over $100M during the 2024 cycle on independent expenditures against U.S. candidates who criticize Israeli government policy. A candidate who has accepted that money has, in their own revealed preference, accepted a foreign-policy filter on their congressional vote. The same logic covers China-linked donations, where federal law also prohibits CCP members from contributing.
For every candidate with a documented donor record, two things happen: (1) the specific category question is marked False (foreign_policy_restraint[q4] for AIPAC + China; economic_stewardship[q5] — the WEF/ESG/Davos capture question — for Soros-network donors), so the per-category subscore drops by 2 points; (2) an additional dollar-bracket adjustment is applied to the total, making the penalty proportional to the magnitude of the funding. Both impacts are visible on this page.
- Open Society / Soros donor network-30Former St. Louis Circuit Attorney; received $300K+ from Soros-funded Missouri Justice & Public Safety PAC across her two elected terms.The Open Society Foundations and the Democracy PAC vehicles tied to George Soros / Alex Soros are direct funding rails for the WEF / ESG / Davos capture agenda — Soros is a founding World Economic Forum attendee and OSF is one of its largest civil-society partners. RESOLUTE Citizen treats documented Soros-network contributions as a failure on economic_stewardship/q5, the question that asks whether the candidate opposes WEF/ESG/Davos economic capture and supports anti-trust action against monopolistic financial cartels — accepting money from the architect of that capture is a revealed preference against it. The same Soros DA network is documented to decline prosecution of attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and refuse to enforce state abortion restrictions; that pattern is tracked separately under sanctity_of_life claims. A dollar-bracket adjustment is also applied to the total score.
Contact This Official
Reach out directly. Your voice matters. Proverbs 29:2 — When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.
Official Profile
Category Breakdown
Sources & Evidence
Bias ratings sourced from AllSides and Ad Fontes Media. Classifications for government, reference, and advocacy domains are maintained by U.S.M.C. Ministries; see source_bias.json.
References & footnotes
Every answer above with a [n] marker corresponds to one of the footnotes below. Wayback-archive links preserve the page as it read at our access date so a reader can verify the citation even if the original URL changes or disappears.
- [1]Party-default scoring heuristic — see rationale card below
This answer was scored via the party-default heuristic. See the "Scoring rationale" card below for the full methodology. Individual voting-record review is pending.
Scoring rationale
Party-default scoring (D) for a Soros-funded prosecutor. These records can be promoted to evidence-reviewed via the claim pipeline as specific charging-policy decisions and case-disposition records are documented.
This record was seeded from the St. Louis, MO roster using the RESOLUTE Citizen party-default heuristic, documented in seed-state-assemblies.py. Individual voting-record review is pending; when specific claims are promoted via the apply-claims.py pipeline, this confidence label will update and the per-claim evidence will surface in the category breakdown above. If you have evidence that a specific answer above is wrong, please file a dispute using the form below.
Have Information About This Official?
Help us improve this scorecard. If you have evidence of this official's positions — voting records, social media posts, public statements, or corrections — submit it below and we'll review and update the profile.