Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Energy; Environmental Protection; Law · Source
96%
of State Senate Republicans score to the left of Hoitenga on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.85 (approximate range +0.79 to +0.90, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 134 donors and 579 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Hoitenga sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 6.5% of the 31 bills Hoitenga sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Michigan Senate. 100% of Hoitenga’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Michigan, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Hoitenga sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
+0.85
More conservative than 96% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.05
Out of committee
6.5%
Michigan Senate average 38% · ranks 36th of 38
From Michigan, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Party unity
99.4%
Michigan Senate average 92.6% · ranks 9th of 37 · 50 votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$26.3K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 585th of 936
Attendance
96.7%
Michigan Senate average 95.5% · ranks 23rd of 37 · 523 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hoitenga, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hoitenga is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hoitenga says
Hoitenga stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 37 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Hoitenga’s 37 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (37 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hoitenga
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion10 statements
27%
37%
243rd of 354
Policy criticism2 statements
5%
9%
196th of 354
Credit claiming1 statements
3%
15%
302nd of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Hoitenga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 27% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 5% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
37
statements classified
37 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 37 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hoitenga; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hoitenga does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hoitenga used extreme labels in 8.1% of statements, 6.4 times the peer average. 3 statements; peers 1.3%.
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the MI 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MI 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 22 months are hatched here; 9 of them have no statements.
In Hoitenga’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; extreme label “extreme” · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 37 statements
Newest first, the MI 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 37 posts on X.
Policy
Energy is what Hoitenga talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 6.9 times the peer share. Peers give it 5.8%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Hoitenga talks about. The bills Hoitenga sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hoitenga talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
0%44%
Hoitenga
Peers
Energy4 statements
40%
6%
Economics and Public Finance2 statements
20%
12%
Environmental Protection2 statements
20%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
10%
6%
Families1 statements
10%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Hoitenga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 40% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 12% |
| Environmental Protection | 20% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 10% | 6% |
| Families | 10% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hoitenga’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 40% | 6% | 11% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 12% | 3% | 3% |
| Environmental Protection | 20% | 2% | 8% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 10% | 6% | 0% | 2% |
| Families | 10% | 4% | 3% | 2% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hoitenga legislates on exactly the areas Hoitenga talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Hoitenga sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hoitenga sits at +0.85 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 96% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.79 to +0.90, which understates the uncertainty; from 134 donors and 579 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.85
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.79 to +0.90. From 134 donors and 579 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hoitenga, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Hoitenga’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Where Hoitenga sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Michigan Senate38 · median −0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hoitenga |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 96% |
| Michigan Senate | 38 | −0.4 | 95% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 98% |
How to read the strips
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Hoitenga in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Hoitenga.
Money
Hoitenga reported $26.3K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$26.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 10 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)13 squares$3,305
- PACs and other committees87 squares$23.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,305 | 12.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $23.0K | 87.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $100.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $40.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $26.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$3,305
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $3,305 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
10
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Michigan
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$455 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$6,000
- MICHIGANS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES PAC$2,000
- REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF MICHIGAN$1,600
- MI GREENSTONE PAC$1,250
- MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,200
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hoitenga voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans on 99.4% of party-line votes and missed 3.2% of 523 roll calls. Michigan Senate on average: 92.6% party unity, 95.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hoitenga voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans 50 times.
523 roll calls Hoitenga could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Hoitenga voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
50
votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.4%, Michigan Senate average 92.6%, ranks 9th of 37. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hoitenga, the thin grey bar the Michigan Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hoitenga
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.7%
95.5%
23rd of 37
Party unity
99.4%
92.6%
9th of 37
Show the data
| Row | Hoitenga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.7% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | 99.4% | 92.6% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2026 | HB 5356 Vehicles: title; requirements for transfer of title by a dealer; provide for. Amends 14, 41a, 78, 217, 217c, 233, 233a, 233b, 234, 238, 239, 240, 248, 248a, 248j, 249, 250, 258, 801b, 806 & 810a of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.14 et seq.) & adds sec. 9b. PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 263 YEAS 31 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 18–1 · R 13–2Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 947 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends and adds (See bill). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5485'26 ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL # 260 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 5485 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends secs. 31502, 31503, 31504, 31505, 31506, 31507, 31508, 31509, 31510, 31511, 31513, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31520, 31521 & 31523 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.31502 et seq.) & adds secs. 31506a, 31509a, 31509b, 31517a, 31518a, PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 247 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 4598 Crimes: organized; gift card fraud; provide for. Amends sec. 4 of 2012 PA 455 (MCL 752.1084). PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 253 YEAS 36 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 16–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 791 Highways: memorial; portion of I-475; designate as the "St. John Street Community Memorial Highway". Amends 2001 PA 142 (MCL 250.1001 - 250.2092) by adding sec. 124. PASSED ROLL CALL # 258 YEAS 33 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 13–3Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 3 nay | party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hoitenga most often
- Lana TheisR486 shared votes91%
- Roger HauckR500 shared votes89%
- Joe BellinoR498 shared votes88%
- Jonathan LindseyR489 shared votes88%
- Thomas AlbertR506 shared votes88%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hoitenga least often
- Mary CavanaghD477 shared votes51%
- Erika GeissD449 shared votes52%
- Chedrick GreeneD127 shared votes52%
- Sean McCannD483 shared votes52%
- John CherryD506 shared votes52%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hoitenga sponsored 31 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 51 others. 6.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan Senate average 38%; 36th of 38).
The bills Hoitenga sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 51 | 50 | 17 | 7 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hoitenga sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hoitenga cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.5%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38%. Ranks 36th of 38.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hoitenga, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe Bellino35
- Roger Hauck31
- Lana Theis30
- Kevin Daley30
- Dan Lauwers26
What this means, and what it doesn’t
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Hoitenga’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 16 | A concurrent resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Pappageorge, former member of the Michigan Senate and Michigan House of Representatives. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SR 146 | A resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Joseph Henry Schwarz, M.D., former member of the Michigan Senate. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SR 136 | A resolution to designate September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. | Cosponsor | Sep 9, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Sep 9, 2026 |
| SJR K | State management: other; use of autopen to sign bills, executive orders, or clemency documents; prohibit. Amends sec. 14, art. V & adds sec. 31 to art. V of the state constitution. | Cosponsor | Jul 1, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Jul 1, 2026 |
| SCR 13 | A concurrent resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for R. Robert Geake, former member of the Senate and House of Representatives. | Cosponsor | Jun 24, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | REFERRED TO SECRETARY FOR RECORD Jun 25, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 9 times in 90 days. Hoitenga’s official site had 37 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hoitenga’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Hoitenga posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 37
pages crawled
9changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Hoitenga posted
No images from Hoitenga’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Hoitenga is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 0c9a2c44-5a9a-44cd-8470-5dad5c7b2c53
- Open States
- ocd-person/0c9a2c44-5a9a-44cd-8470-5dad5c7b2c53
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab