0% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Minnesota. Ranks 2291st of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 1 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Minnesota, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 26% of Bennett’s statements criticize a policy, 2.8 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. 4.4% of Bennett’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.4 times the State House Republican average of 1.8%.
The measures on which Bennett 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.
From Minnesota, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2291st of 2,335 State House Republicans
Policy criticism
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 53rd of 791
Bipartisanship
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 86th of 791
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 2310th of 2,521
Party unity
Minnesota House average 97.5% · ranks 118th of 133 · 19 votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Bennett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Bennett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Bennett criticizes policies more than 93% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 26% of 227 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 53rd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Bennett’s 227 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (227 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MN 2025–26 session
| Row | Bennett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 46% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 26% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 6% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
statements classified
227 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 227 |
The thick bar is Bennett; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Bennett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Bennett used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, below the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at radical left groups; peers 1.4%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the MN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 52.4% | 66.7% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 26.7% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 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) |
| Aug ’25 | 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 ’25 | 11 | 18.2% | 54.5% | 63.6% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 6.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 53.3% | 60.0% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 24 | 4.2% | 0.0% | 37.5% | 8.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 12.0% | 20.0% | 8.0% | 8.0% | 4.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
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 MN 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%. 13 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Law; extreme label “extreme” aimed at this bill · Source
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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · target: Amy KlobucharSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: band teacherSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Walz administrationSource
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: governorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: HHSSource
Newest first, the MN 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 227 posts on X.
Education is what Bennett talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.48 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 348th 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 Bennett talks about. The bills Bennett sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
| Row | Bennett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 33% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 18% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 22% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 7% | 6% |
The thick bar is the share of Bennett’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.
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 43%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 33% | 15% | 39% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 18% | 6% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 22% | 11% | 6% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 2% | 2% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 7% | 6% | 2% | 4% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 348th of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Bennett legislates on exactly the areas Bennett 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 Bennett sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Bennett sits at +0.16 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 80% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.14 to +0.19, which understates the uncertainty; from 51 donors and 768 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.14 to +0.19. From 51 donors and 768 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Bennett, 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 Bennett’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Bennett |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 20% |
| Minnesota House | 133 | −0.4 | 64% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 56% |
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 Bennett 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 Bennett.
Bennett reported $2,500 in the 2026 cycle, 7.4% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 0% of itemized individual money came from Minnesota.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $250 | 10.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,250 | 90.0% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $17.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $22.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $15.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $2,500 |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 0% came from Minnesota.
No itemized donors with an address.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Michigan | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Minnesota
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Minnesota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Bennett voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans on 93.1% of party-line votes and missed none of 298 roll calls. Minnesota House on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bennett voted against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans 19 times.
298 roll calls Bennett could vote on in the MN 2025–26 session, compared with Minnesota 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 Bennett voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
Party unity 93.1%, Minnesota House average 97.5%, ranks 118th of 133. 298 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Bennett, the thin grey bar the Minnesota House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Bennett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 93.1% | 97.5% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2026 | HF 1849 Term limits provided for governor and lieutenant governor, and constitutional amendment proposed. Niska Motion Suspension of Rules | Yea | With majority | fail | D 0–67 · R 64–2Democrats 0 yea, 67 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 2354 Medical assistance fraud governing provisions added and modified, attorney general provided subpoena and enforcement authority, criminal penalties provided, conforming changes made, and money appropriated. Passage, as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 51–16Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 16 nay | party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 5149 Law enforcement access to sensitive locations restricted, civil remedies established, concealing identity crime modified, scope of use of force investigations expanded, access to certain information limited. Long motion Suspension of Rules | Nay | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 0–63Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 63 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 4612 Omnibus Health and Human Services supplemental appropriations Repassage, as amended by Conference | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 41–26Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 26 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 334 Human Services Systems Modernization Advisory Council and Legislative Commission on Human Services Systems; creation Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 67–0Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Bennett most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Bennett least often
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.
MN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Bennett sponsored 24 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 90 others. 4.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota House average 4.4%; 53rd of 131).
The bills Bennett sponsored and cosponsored in the MN 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.
Counts for the MN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 90 | 90 | 15 | 3 | 2 |
Ink blocks are bills Bennett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Bennett cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota House average 4.4%. Ranks 53rd of 131.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Bennett, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Bennett’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HF 5064 | Coercing a pregnant minor female into seeking or obtaining an abortion prohibited, suspected cases of human trafficking of minors screened and reported, certain information required to be displayed, action for wrongful death resulting from abortion added, and rulemaking required. | Cosponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Author added Backer Apr 23, 2026 |
| HF 5040 | Tax on certain individuals and organizations convicted of and benefiting from fraud established. | Cosponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Taxes Apr 20, 2026 |
| HF 5001 | Restrictions on use of Minnesota investment fund local government loan repayment funds temporarily modified, and report required. | Sponsor | Apr 16, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Apr 16, 2026 |
| HF 5015 | School safety plans enhanced, student discipline provisions modified, anonymous reporting systems enabled, safe schools revenue increased, school building and cybersecurity grant program modified, reports required, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | Apr 16, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Motion did not prevail Apr 16, 2026 |
| HF 4313 | State legislators and legislative employees required to pay 50 percent of the Minnesota Paid Leave Law premium. | Cosponsor | Mar 16, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Mar 16, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Bennett’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Bennett’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 Bennett posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Bennett’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
74 turns, Feb 27, 2020 to May 18, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Bennett 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
