What About That Freedom Score?

The Idaho Freedom Foundation has a scoring system where they rate bills with pluses or minuses based on whether they determine the bill will create less freedom or more freedom, using 14 specific metrics tied to ideas like limited government, individual liberty, and free markets. A legislator’s score comes from how their votes match those ratings. I want to say this upfront: this is not meant as an attack on the IFF, nor is it meant to cause anyone to think ill of them. It’s simply meant to point out human limitation and simple disagreement.

I would like to point out upfront areas of agreement that we find ourselves in much of the time. We believe in limited government, individual freedoms and responsibilities. We both believe in the sanctity of life, and that God is creator. And among many other points, we will find much agreement.

I would also like to point out that they were very supportive and encouraging to me in my race for Senate, and I have much appreciation for them.

Let’s talk about human limitation. The IFF has a small group of people faithfully and vigorously reading and analyzing hundreds of bills each session—though they don’t rate them all. These folks are tackling multiple bills a day. That’s really hard to do if you’re doing a deep dive on every one. You don’t have time to gain fuller context; you don’t have time to look at each bill in a multi-dimensional way. When you’re left with a simple, one-dimensional method—running bills through a simple metric system—you do what you can. But as you might have guessed, there’s generally more to the story. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.”

One thing to note is that if you were analyzing the bills, you’d likely come up with a different position than I would because it isn’t just the metrics that gives you the result, but it’s the interpretations of the individual or individuals reading and understanding a bill. One thing I’ve learned—if I’ve learned anything else—is that none of us agree on everything. Perhaps it would be helpful to work through some examples of my disagreement with the IFF on some different bills. Please ask yourself: how would you have voted on these bills if you had the opportunity?

House Bill 109: This bill directed the Department of Health and Welfare to apply for a waiver with the federal government to not allow SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) to be used for soda pop and candy. The reason is that since it’s a taxpayer-funded nutritional program, it seems responsible to limit it to items with nutritional value—especially when we’re fighting an obesity crisis in our state and nation, and junk food only makes it worse. This was probably one of the easier votes I took last session. If I give my child a $20 bill to go purchase some grocery items, I have a say in what they buy. But if they’d like to purchase junk food and use their own money that they’ve earned, even as their parent, I’d allow them the freedom to do that. If someone wants to buy junk food—soda, pop, or candy—they can earn their own money and purchase those items. But if they’re asking the taxpayer to support them, it makes good sense that it be nutritional food. The IFF rated this a -1. As a legislator trusted to be a good steward of what’s entrusted to us, I couldn’t in good conscience vote against the bill. One could argue whether we should even have this program, but nevertheless, we do. It’s a federal program, and it makes sense to put some sideboards on it so it’s not abused—or adding to our health problems. Because I voted for the bill, I received a minus rating on my freedom index. Their metric misses the real-world context: since SNAP exists, we need responsible measures, not just a blind push for less rules.

Another bill I’d like to bring up is Senate Bill 1034, the Doug Cameron Act. This bill recognizes that the federal regulatory bodies, which were supposed to regulate mRNA vaccinations, failed to do their job, and it’s really Idaho stepping up and filling the gap as the regulatory body. The bill would place a 10-year moratorium on human gene therapy products to force these pharmaceutical companies to pull their harmful products until they could be adequately studied, since the federal government failed to do so even though adverse effects and even death have gone way beyond what’s standard during a testing period. Working with a wonderful nurse out of Cambridge and with many good doctors and scientists, we put together a bill that would place a 10-year moratorium on mRNA vaccinations. This would allow us to take a closer look at these products that have caused so much harm to people—with no liability for the harm caused and no incentive to produce long-term studies of their potential harmful effects. For example, there was no emergency for children with COVID, yet these products were authorized under an emergency authorization to be given to kids. The IFF rated this bill a -1, claiming it limits personal freedom. But there’s no genuine informed consent on these products—so the question is not one of freedom, but one of informed consent. In the real world, Idaho had to act where the feds didn’t, and their metric skips that bigger picture.

Another bill worth noting is House Bill 398, which places higher expectations on paid lobbyist transparency. As everyone knows, paid lobbyists have a lot of influence when it comes to legislation. They have the right to lobby, but citizens deserve to know who’s being paid to lobby and who they’re influencing. The IFF rated this bill a -3, and as you might have guessed, a lobbyist organization isn’t going to be favorable toward greater lobbyist transparency. My constituents want more paid lobbyist transparency, so it made good sense for me to support the legislation. It’s worth noting this bill placed zero restrictions on any citizen lobbying for a particular piece of legislation as a citizen—it just provides more transparency if you’re a paid lobbyist. The IFF’s focus on “less government” ignores what people actually want here.

Another bill worth speaking about is House Bill 173. This bill increased the cost per hundredweight of seed from one-quarter of a cent to one cent—a 300% increase—and so it received a negative rating from the IFF. What they failed to account for is the broader context. What this simply does with the Alfalfa and Clover Seed Commission is provide a little more funding for the work the seed commission does, such as putting on winter meetings and promoting alfalfa and clover seed from Idaho. All of this money is dedicated funds that the farmers pay into and then use collectively as a group. The board is primarily made up of seed growers in Idaho. Furthermore, there used to be several hundred thousand acres of alfalfa and clover seed production in Idaho, but for various reasons, that has shrunk to 10,000 to 15,000 acres of production. So, if you can imagine, with the amount of seed produced before, the bank account for the seed commission would have a few hundred thousand dollars in it, no problem, even at a quarter cent per pound. But because there are so few acres producing now, they needed to increase the amount just to have any money for the commission to function at all. The growers themselves were asking for this increase because this rate is only adjusted in statute, so the legislature needed to make the adjustment for the seed commission. Yet it was rated negatively, and so it appears because of this negative rating a number of legislators voted against it, even though it made good sense to vote for it. The IFF’s metric doesn’t see the real need behind the numbers.

Article I, Section 18 of the Idaho Constitution: “Justice to be freely and speedily administered. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury of person, property, or character, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.” The district judges in Idaho were severely backed up on court cases, so people weren’t able to get justice swiftly. We ran a bill to establish two more district judges, which comes with a cost. Yet we have a constitutional obligation to ensure we have sufficient judges and that they’re sufficiently paid. The IFF gave this a negative rating because it’s seen as growing government, even though I swore to uphold the Idaho Constitution, which demands that we, as the legislature, provide this. Their “no growth” metric trumps our duty to ensure justice for the people.

I believe the IFF score has value. It’s an easy, quick way for someone to look at a bill and get a general sense of its direction through those 14 metrics. But the IFF isn’t perfect. They have human beings behind their rating system, and those humans pick what fits their lens. Are they biased? Yes. Do their own personal interests and politics get in the way of their rating system? Yes. (Check out H 1 or H 93.) Do they always have the whole picture? No, they don’t. I think we have to keep in mind that a freedom score isn’t infallible, nor is it gospel truth. It’s a group of people doing their best to rate bills with a metric that’s man-made and thus fallible, (we can talk about the metrics all day, but someone must interpret what a bill is doing or isn’t doing) and often one-dimensional. I think the IFF has its place in our political dialogue, but it often misses the real-world context—like Idaho stepping in on mRNA vaccines or keeping SNAP from fueling obesity. Should legislators vote 100% with the IFF score? No. Due to human limitations, those metrics might only get it right for good legislation 75%-80% of the time. Legislators should always rely on their own reasoning. They should try to educate themselves on an issue as much as possible, and by reading good books on economics like Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson or The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, studying the Constitution, and listening to the voice of the people.

It's important to note that the freedom score ratings do not account for any of the hard work done in committees. Legislators could kill ten bad bills in committee, and that effort would never appear on their freedom score. Similarly, they could vote for good bills in committee that fail to advance, and those votes would also go unrecognized. Some bills may pass the House but never emerge from a Senate committee. The point is, evaluating whether someone is a good legislator requires looking far beyond a simple scorecard. Furthermore, a 100% freedom score doesn’t reveal how a legislator arrives at his/her votes, whether they think independently, whether they can articulate their positions, or how they analyze bills. It doesn’t indicate whether they ask insightful questions in committee or if they prioritize listening to their constituents over special interests. It also doesn’t show how hard they work for the people who elected them or whether they serve in a way that honors God through their attitude and actions.

I am always open to discussing any bill that I have voted on and explaining my vote to any of my constituents who would like a fuller explanation. I try to be very transparent and forthright. I want anyone and everyone to always feel free to approach me.