Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

House · Democrat

Michelle L. Badger

Current member · 1st Plymouth

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Plymouth

First elected

House 2024

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
194th (2025–26)House1st Plymouth2021 lines

Posts and stipends

No stipend payments to Michelle L. Badger are recorded for 2016–2026.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
194th (2025–26)No post recorded$0$0 (to date)

Posts: the Legislature’s leadership and roster records as compiled for this project; where those name no post, the member’s committee chair, vice-chair and ranking roles from the Legislature’s member profiles. Stipends: additional compensation in the Comptroller’s payroll data (CTHRU dataset 9ttk-7vz6), 2016–2026; 2026 is the year to date. Stipends for 2015 are not available. Base salary is not included.

The district

1st Plymouth on its 2021 lines: 1 city or town, 44,291 residents (2020).

Plymouth

Percentages are each place’s share of the district’s 2020 residents; for a town split between districts, the share of the town inside this one follows.

Population-weighted Fairness Index of the district’s cities and towns: 28 for all state aid and 37 for discretionary money (50 is a fair share).

Local earmarks are counted three ways. District money uses the first, clauses that name a place in the district; the second table adds organizations located in the district (placed in the district) and state facilities located there (everything placed). Three ways to count a local earmark.

District money, first measure: enacted earmarks in clauses naming a place in the district, by session (district money, not the member’s)
SessionDistrictDollarsIn corrective clausesPer resident per budget, rankWithout corrective clauses, rank
194th (2025–26)1st Plymouth$174,000$0$3.92 · 130th of 160$3.92 · 129th of 160

District money is where enacted earmarks land, by the place a clause names, mapped to districts by 2020 population; it is not attributed to the member and does not include leadership’s base-text money that names no place. Ranks are of district money per resident among the chamber’s districts, 1 = most. “In corrective clauses” is the part carried by a Ways and Means chair’s corrective amendments, which is leadership’s money; the last column gives the per-resident figure and rank without it. Sessions are labeled by the General Court that enacted each budget. Per-resident figures use the district as drawn for each session (2011 lines through the 192nd General Court, 2021 lines from the 193rd), so they will not equal a session’s dollars divided by the resident count above.

The same district on the other two measures, by session (enacted; includes any corrective-clause money)
SessionDistrictPlaced in the districtPer resident per budget, rankEverything placedPer resident per budget, rank
194th (2025–26)1st Plymouth$210,000$4.74 · 125th of 160$210,000$4.74 · 129th of 160

Budget amendments

Michelle L. Badger sponsored eight budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $182,000 in all.

Amendments sponsored

8

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

50%

3 of 6

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

64%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the six with a known outcome, three were adopted (50%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about four (64%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Michelle L. Badger filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2026$50,000“the police department in the town of Plymouth to purchase deployable traffic safety barriers for use during public events”H4000 #1142
FY2026$15,000“the High Point Treatment Center, Inc. for the purpose of providing outpatient substance use disorder and mental health services, and programs aiding…”H4000 #1146
FY2026$11,000“the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe to construct a traditional Wetu, or Wampanoag longhouse, on the historic Pondville Meetinghouse lands, a site…”H4000 #1144

Strong matches: 3 enacted items, $76,000 (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

3 outcomes are inferred by matching amendment text to the House’s consolidated amendments, because the House records most amendments only as “Consolidated A–G.” Ask size is the larger of the earmark dollars and the line-item change an amendment requests; bands: no dollar amount, under $50,000, $50,000–$250,000, $250,000–$1 million, $1–5 million, $5 million or more. Leadership’s unattributed base-text and corrective-amendment money is never assigned to a member. The comparison describes outcomes; it is not a measure of merit.

Bills sponsored

Michelle L. Badger filed 26 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; two were enacted on their own. Only the 194th General Court, still in session, is covered, so no enacted rate is given.

Most bills die in every legislature, and many policies pass inside other bills; the chamber median for the same session is the fair comparison.

Bills filed as lead sponsor, by session and outcome
SessionChamberLead billsEnactedSent to studyPending (session open)Enacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
194th (2025–26)House2629158%*1%205

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

Outcomes are the furthest point each bill reached in the record. “Folded into an enacted bill” means the history names the enacted bill that absorbed it. “Passed both branches; no chapter recorded” means the bill was enacted by both branches and laid before the Governor, with no chapter or veto in the history; in the 194th General Court such bills are shown as laid before the Governor (pending). The 194th General Court is in session until January 2027, so its open bills are pending, not dead, and its rates (*) are not comparable with completed sessions. Chairs and leaders control the calendar, which raises their rates. Source: malegislature.gov bill histories.

Recorded votes on accountability measures

Michelle L. Badger cast 14 yes-or-no votes on the 14 accountability roll calls in this file (five yes, nine no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Roll CallsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Formal Session NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): General Court AuditsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Opinion of the JusticesNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 7.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Joint rules (H2026), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
February 25, 2025Amendment 18.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Time to Review LegislationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 17.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Audit by State AuditorYesYeas 24, nays 127
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025House rules (H2024), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
June 26, 2025Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: on acceptance (contested meaning)YesYeas 147, nays 2
June 3, 2026Engross H.5469 (public records law applied to the Legislature). Reform advocates split (contested meaning)YesYeas 125, nays 28

Votes marked “contested meaning” are rules-package and public-records passage votes; reform advocates were on both sides of them. Descriptions are the project’s plain summaries of each question, or the question as recorded for rules-package roll calls; the official record is on malegislature.gov. Votes are facts; no score is computed.

Campaign money in

Michelle L. Badger’s committee reported $47,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2025–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2025$22,000
2026$26,000
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$37,00078%
Political committees and PACs$8,85019%
Unions and associations$1,8004%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer28%
Self-employed12%
Retired48%
Not employed11%

Not counted as contributions: $526 in other receipts of $250 or more in the same years (candidate loans and the candidate’s own money, transfers, refunds, bank interest and aggregated small receipts).

The same committee also reported $27,000 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2024), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
KINGSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLSindividuals, by employer$1,5003
1199 SEIU MA PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENG LEGISLATIVE BOARD MA PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
IRONWORKERS UNION LOCAL 7 POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$1,0002
CERO GLOBAL HOLDINGS TECHNOLOGIESindividuals, by employer$1,0001
LAWNS BY FRANindividuals, by employer$1,0001
TEK SYSTEMSindividuals, by employer$8751
PILGRIM SOCIETYindividuals, by employer$8503
BOSTON TEACHERS UNION PACcommittee or PAC$7502
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION 2222 POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$7502

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Badger Committee (CPF 18685). Individuals are grouped by the employer they reported; no individual contributor is named, and an employer field that is a person’s name is withheld. Massachusetts bars business contributions to candidates. Employer shows affiliation, not instruction.

Sources

Every figure traces to a public record.

Facts only: posts, stipends, sponsored amendments, enacted items, roll-call votes and district money. No score or grade is computed. Associations shown here are not evidence of cause. Method.