💡 U.S. Capitol switchboard — ask for Representative Fred Clark.
Reach out directly. Your voice matters. Proverbs 29:2 — When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.
As a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly from 2009 to 2015, Clark built a pro-choice legislative record that included votes in favor of abortion-access legislation — in direct conflict with the rubric's life-at-conception standard. Running again in 2026 as a Democrat in a district where Wisconsin's partial abortion ban remains a live legislative issue, Clark continues to align with the pro-abortion caucus.
Clark's 2026 campaign described the Republican budget reconciliation bill as 'a massive handout to billionaires that will add $3.4 trillion to our national debt while taking health care away from 270,000 Wisconsinites,' opposing the legislation's Medicaid cuts while simultaneously campaigning to expand health-care coverage through federal programs — a position that favors increased government expenditure over the deficit-reduction and balanced-budget standard the rubric requires.
As a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly (2009–2015), Clark voted against 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 — the photo-voter-ID law requiring government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot — on a strict party-line Assembly vote in which all Democrats voted Nay and all Republicans voted Aye. Act 23 embodies the voter-ID standard the rubric's election-integrity dimension endorses; Clark's Nay vote aligned him against it.
Clark has publicly stated he supports 'maintaining secure borders while providing a pathway for immigrants to live and work in the country' — endorsing a form of legal status for those already present illegally rather than mandatory deportation, directly contrary to the rubric's mandatory-deportation standard.
While claiming to support the Second Amendment for 'law abiding people,' Clark has expressed concern about 'semi-automatic weapons used in mass shootings' — a position that opens the door to assault-weapon restrictions and magazine limits, contrary to the rubric's standard of opposing all AWB/mag-limit/red-flag schemes and defending fully uninfringed Second Amendment rights.
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.
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.