Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Law · Source
$506.0K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State House Republicans
The median for State House Republicans is $33.7K. Ranks 80th of 2,521, where 1st raised the most. 1,003 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 5.0% of Kolodin’s statements use an extreme label, 3.5 times the State House Republican average of 1.4%. Kolodin voted against the majority of Arizona House Republicans 412 times; party unity 85%, in the bottom quarter of the Arizona House (average 93.3%).
The measures on which Kolodin sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$506.0K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 80th of 2,521
Extreme labels
5.0%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 58th of 791
Party unity
85%
Arizona House average 93.3% · ranks 54th of 60 · 412 votes against the majority of Arizona House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.65
More conservative than 89% of State House Republicans · ± 0.03
Personal attacks
7.2%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 91st of 791
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.61
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 123rd of 504
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Kolodin, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Kolodin is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Kolodin says
Kolodin attacks opponents personally more than 88% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 7.2% of 543 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 91st of 791.
An AI model reads each of Kolodin’s 543 statements in the AZ 2025–26 session (543 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%80%
Kolodin
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion170 statements
31%
32%
384th of 791
Credit claiming71 statements
13%
13%
325th of 791
Policy criticism66 statements
12%
9%
222nd of 791
Personal attacks39 statements
7%
3%
91st of 791
Bipartisanship13 statements
2%
2%
213th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Kolodin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 31% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
543
statements classified
543 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 543 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Kolodin; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Kolodin does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Kolodin used extreme labels in 5.0% of statements, 3.5 times the peer average. 27 statements, most often aimed at Adrian Fontes; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”14
- “MAGA”5
- “far left”4
- “extreme”2
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Adrian Fontes8
- radical left3
- 9th circuit1
- Fontes1
- Gina Swoboda1
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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 85 | 4.7% | 16.5% | 25.9% | 1.2% | 10.6% | 2.4% |
| Feb ’25 | 89 | 5.6% | 16.9% | 27.0% | 2.3% | 6.7% | 4.5% |
| Mar ’25 | 38 | 2.6% | 18.4% | 23.7% | 5.3% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 10.3% | 17.2% | 3.5% | 17.2% | 3.5% |
| May ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 9.5% | 9.5% | 0.0% | 9.5% | 9.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 10.3% | 20.7% | 3.5% | 6.9% | 3.5% |
| Jul ’25 | 16 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 18.8% |
| Aug ’25 | 19 | 15.8% | 26.3% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 21.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 15 | 13.3% | 6.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 26.7% |
| Oct ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 11.1% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 5.6% |
| Dec ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 25 | 4.0% | 4.0% | 68.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 32 | 6.3% | 12.5% | 34.4% | 6.3% | 25.0% | 3.1% |
| Mar ’26 | 14 | 21.4% | 7.1% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 54.5% | 9.1% | 36.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 10 | 40.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 31 | 3.2% | 6.5% | 38.7% | 0.0% | 25.8% | 3.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 11.5% | 11.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 AZ 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Kolodin’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Adrian Fontes · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical left · 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Adrian FontesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Sinaloa cartelSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Adrian FontesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Adrian FontesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Adrian FontesSource
All 543 statements
Newest first, the AZ 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: 543 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Kolodin talks about most: 59% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 123rd of 504).
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 Kolodin talks about. The bills Kolodin sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Kolodin talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%65%
Kolodin
Peers
Government Operations and Politics98 statements
59%
18%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues18 statements
11%
6%
Law13 statements
8%
3%
Water Resources Development13 statements
8%
1%
Crime and Law Enforcement10 statements
6%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Kolodin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 59% | 18% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% |
| Law | 8% | 3% |
| Water Resources Development | 8% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 6% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Kolodin’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 65%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 59% | 18% | 30% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% | 2% | 4% |
| Law | 8% | 3% | 8% | 3% |
| Water Resources Development | 8% | 1% | 6% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 6% | 11% | 11% | 11% |
0.61
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 123rd of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Kolodin legislates on exactly the areas Kolodin 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 Kolodin sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Kolodin sits at +0.65 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 89% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.62 to +0.68, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,190 donors and 598 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”.
+0.65
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.62 to +0.68. From 1,190 donors and 598 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Kolodin, 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 Kolodin’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 Kolodin sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Arizona House60 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Kolodin |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 89% |
| Arizona House | 60 | +0.2 | 95% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 94% |
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 Kolodin 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 Kolodin.
Money
Kolodin reported $506.0K in the 2026 cycle, 15.0 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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.
$506.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1,003 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)92 squares$464.0K
- PACs and other committees3 squares$17.0K
- Party committees5 squares$25.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $464.0K | 91.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $17.0K | 3.4% |
| Party committees | $25.1K | 5.0% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $14.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $46.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $58.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $506.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Arizona.
- Arizona$430.5K
- Puerto Rico$12.0K
- New Jersey$4,045
- Texas$3,931
- California$3,119
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 |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $430.5K |
| New Jersey | $4,045 |
| Texas | $3,931 |
| California | $3,119 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,052 |
| Washington | $1,134 |
| New Mexico | $987 |
| Florida | $971 |
| Idaho | $867 |
| Nevada | $864 |
| Montana | $526 |
| North Carolina | $526 |
| Colorado | $423 |
| Virginia | $353 |
| Tennessee | $303 |
| Michigan | $235 |
| Ohio | $232 |
| Wyoming | $191 |
| Maryland | $154 |
| Massachusetts | $100 |
| Kansas | $100 |
| Illinois | $82 |
| Oregon | $57 |
| Minnesota | $53 |
| Oklahoma | $50 |
| Wisconsin | $37 |
| Utah | $31 |
| New York | $26 |
| Indiana | $26 |
| Louisiana | $26 |
| South Dakota | $11 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
1,003
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Arizona
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 Arizona. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$213.1K 605 donors
- OWNER$22.8K 19 donors
- CEO$17.0K 8 donors
- PRESIDENT$16.8K 5 donors
- HOMEMAKER$12.6K 14 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- FREEDOM CLUB PAC$10.0K
- AZ LD3 REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$9,000
- ARIZONA LD4 REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$6,800
- RCRC COMMITTEE$5,500
- YAVAPAI COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- VERSATILE PROPERTIES$8,258 5 donors
- TURNING POINT ACTION$1,183 3 donors
- STATE OF ARIZONA$366 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Kolodin voted with the majority of Arizona House Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 1,672 roll calls. Arizona House on average: 93.3% party unity, 93.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kolodin voted against the majority of Arizona House Republicans 412 times.
1,672 roll calls Kolodin could vote on in the AZ 2025–26 session, compared with Arizona House. 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 Kolodin voted with the majority of Arizona House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
412
votes against the majority of Arizona House Republicans
Party unity 85%, Arizona House average 93.3%, ranks 54th of 60. 1,672 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Kolodin, the thin grey bar the Arizona House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Kolodin
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
93.0%
18th of 60
Party unity
85%
93.3%
54th of 60
Show the data
| Row | Kolodin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.5% | 93.0% |
| Party unity | 85% | 93.3% |
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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–22 · R 31–0Democrats 0 yea, 22 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 17–5 · R 30–0Democrats 17 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 2–20 · R 31–0Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | fail | D 2–20 · R 19–12Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 12 nay | party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–17 · R 31–0Democrats 5 yea, 17 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law · 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 Kolodin most often
- Joseph ChaplikR770 shared votes95%
- Rachel KeshelR1,549 shared votes91%
- Justin OlsonR1,646 shared votes90%
- Laurin HendrixR1,323 shared votes89%
- Ralph HeapR1,609 shared votes88%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Kolodin least often
- Anna AbeytiaD1,249 shared votes34%
- Stephanie SimacekD1,407 shared votes35%
- Aaron MárquezD1,611 shared votes35%
- Quantá CrewsD1,421 shared votes35%
- Mariana SandovalD1,610 shared votes35%
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
AZ 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Kolodin sponsored 90 bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 53 others. 37% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arizona House average 34%; 28th of 56).
The bills Kolodin sponsored and cosponsored in the AZ 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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 90 | 37 | 33 | 7 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 53 | 42 | 39 | 24 | 3 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Kolodin sponsored, ochre blocks bills Kolodin cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
37%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arizona House average 34%. Ranks 28th of 56.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Kolodin, by number of shared bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rachel Keshel43
- Laurin Hendrix33
- David Marshall32
- Joseph Chaplik28
- John Gillette23
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 Kolodin’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 2049 | reporting; teacher salary increases; schools.. | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2030 | technical correction; state school fund | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HB 2624 | technical correction; liquor licenses | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Commerce(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HB 2839 | municipal tax; exemption; food | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2031 | technical correction; state lands; price | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Kolodin’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Kolodin’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 Kolodin posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.azleg.gov/House/House-member/?legislature=56&session=127&legislator=2174Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 16
pages crawled
24changes 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 Kolodin posted
No images from Kolodin’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 Kolodin is most unusual among State House 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
- 102ffcb1-3028-401f-b74f-6f45db25e05e
- Open States
- ocd-person/102ffcb1-3028-401f-b74f-6f45db25e05e
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