Skip to content

Democrat · Louisiana Senate, district 2

Serving since Jun 16, 2017LA 2025–26 session

Portrait of Ed Price, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
100%
of itemized money from Louisiana donors, in the top quarter of State Senate Democrats

100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Louisiana. Ranks 73rd of 714, 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 Louisiana, ranked among State Senate Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Price voted against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats 19 times; party unity 91.5%, in the bottom quarter of the Louisiana Senate (average 93.6%). Price sits at −0.44 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 78% of State Senate Democrats.

The measures on which Price sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

From Louisiana, 2026

100%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 73rd of 714 State Senate Democrats

Party unity

91.5%

Louisiana Senate average 93.6% · ranks 32nd of 37 · 19 votes against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.44

More conservative than 78% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03

Out of committee

62%

Louisiana Senate average 51% · ranks 10th of 38

Attendance

91.4%

Louisiana Senate average 88% · ranks 10th of 37 · 2,495 roll calls

Itemized, 2026

$22.7K

State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 514th of 746

Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Price, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Price is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Price says

No statements for the LA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the LA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Price sits at −0.44 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 78% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.48 to −0.41, which understates the uncertainty; from 175 donors and 1,156 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”.

−0.44

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.48 to −0.41. From 175 donors and 1,156 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Price −0.4State Senate Democrats −0.7Louisiana Senate +0.3All State Senate +0.1

The outlined dot is Price, 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 Price’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 Price sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State Senate Democratsmedian −0.7Price −0.4Louisiana Senatemedian +0.3All State Senatemedian +0.1
Show the data
Price's CSIP score of −0.44 placed against State Senate Democrats, Louisiana Senate, All State Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Price
State Senate Democrats825−0.778%
Louisiana Senate38+0.318%
All State Senate1909+0.134%
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 Price 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 Price.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Price reported $22.7K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.

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.

Election cycle
$22.7K

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 1 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.

Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (4.4%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (4.4%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (4.4%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (4.4%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)PACs and other committees: $21.7K (95.6%)
  • Individuals (itemized)4 squares$1,000
  • PACs and other committees96 squares$21.7K
Show the data
Sources of Price's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$1,0004.4%
PACs and other committees$21.7K95.6%
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $108.5K$108.5K20202022 cycle: $44.2K$44.2K20222024 cycle: $98.0K$98.0K20242026 cycle: $22.7K$22.7K2026State Senate Democrats median $55.5K
Show the data
Price's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$108.5K
2022 cycle$44.2K
2024 cycle$98.0K
2026 cycle$22.7K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Louisiana.

  1. Louisiana$1,000

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Price's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Louisiana$1,000
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
1

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

100%

from Louisiana

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 Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NORPAC, LLC$2,500
  2. CRPPA LOCAL PAC$2,000
  3. FAIR PAC$2,000
  4. VALERO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,000
  5. LOUISIANA BANKERS ASSOCIATION STATE PAC$1,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Price voted with the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats on 91.5% of party-line votes and missed 8.6% of 2,495 roll calls. Louisiana Senate on average: 93.6% party unity, 88% attendance. Across all roll calls, Price voted against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats 19 times.

2,495 roll calls Price could vote on in the LA 2025–26 session, compared with Louisiana 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 Price voted with the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

19

votes against the majority of Louisiana Senate Democrats

Party unity 91.5%, Louisiana Senate average 93.6%, ranks 32nd of 37. 2,495 roll calls in the LA 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Price, the thin grey bar the Louisiana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Price
Peers
Rank
Attendance
91.4%
88%
10th of 37
Party unity
91.5%
93.6%
32nd of 37
Show the data
Price's attendance and party unity against Louisiana Senate.
RowPricePeers
Attendance91.4%88%
Party unity91.5%93.6%
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 LA 2025–26 session

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
May 29, 2026
HB 1222
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Provides relative to grocery initiative grants and financial support (RR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
FINAL PASSAGE (#1547)
YeaWith majorityfailD 10–0 · R 7–19Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 7 yea, 19 nayclose vote · party crossover
May 29, 2026
HB 75
GAMING: Creates an enhanced promotional play pilot program relative to net slot machine proceeds (EN -$574,627 GF RV See Note)
FINAL PASSAGE (#1571)
YeaWith majoritypassD 8–0 · R 12–11Democrats 8 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 12 yea, 11 naybecame law · party crossover
May 29, 2026
HB 410
CIVIL/PROCEDURE: Requires notification of all parties to record in-person communication
FINAL PASSAGE (#1561)
NayWith majoritypassD 4–5 · R 25–1Democrats 4 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 25 yea, 1 naybecame law
May 29, 2026
HB 944
HEALTH SERVICES: Creates the Louisiana Women's Health Consortium (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
FINAL PASSAGE (#1558)
YeaWith majoritypassD 10–0 · R 26–0Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 26 yea, 0 naybecame law
May 29, 2026
HB 750
CONSUMERS/PROTECTION: Provides for cancellation of automatic renewal subscriptions
FINAL PASSAGE (#1562)
YeaWith majoritypassD 10–0 · R 10–16Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 16 naybecame 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 Price most often

  1. Gerald BoudreauxD814 shared votes99%
  2. Doyle BoudreauxR1,368 shared votes99%
  3. Sidney BarthelemyD1,176 shared votes99%
  4. Jimmy HarrisD1,853 shared votes99%
  5. Royce DuplessisD2,028 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Price least often

  1. Blake MiguezR1,930 shared votes88%
  2. Valarie HodgesR2,101 shared votes89%
  3. Bob OwenR674 shared votes91%
  4. Adam BassR2,086 shared votes91%
  5. Alan SeabaughR1,930 shared votes92%
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

LA 2025–26 session, loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Price sponsored 29 bills in the LA 2025–26 session; 17 became law. Cosponsored 128 others. 62% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Louisiana Senate average 51%; 10th of 38).

The bills Price sponsored and cosponsored in the LA 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 LA 2025–26 session

Sponsored29 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2929Sponsored, In committee: 2121Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1818Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 1717Sponsored, Became law: 1717Cosponsored128 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 128128Cosponsored, In committee: 124124Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 109109Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 6969Cosponsored, Became law: 6363IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Price sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2921181717
Cosponsored1281241096963
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Price sponsored, ochre blocks bills Price cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

62%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Louisiana Senate average 51%. Ranks 10th of 38.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Price, by number of shared bills in the LA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Gerald Boudreaux51
  2. Katrina Jackson-Andrews48
  3. Sam Jenkins46
  4. Cameron Henry44
  5. Regina Barrow39
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 Price’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
SCR 89LEGISLATION: Limits the number of resolutions or prefiled bills a member may file during any annual session.CosponsorJun 1, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedIntroduced in the Senate; read by title. Rules suspended. Read second time by title and adopted by a vote of 35 yeas and 1 nays. Ordered sent to the House. Jun 1, 2026
SR 185PUBLIC WORKS: Creates the Task Force on Construction Management at Risk.SponsorMay 29, 2026IntroducedTransportation and Public Works(model)Read by title and returned to the Calendar, subject to call. May 31, 2026
SR 184COMMENDATIONS: Commends and congratulates the Honorable Foster L. Campbell Jr. on the occasion of fifty years of continuously holding elective office in Louisiana, first as state senator and currently as Public Service Commissioner.CosponsorMay 29, 2026IntroducedUnassignedEnrolled. Signed by the President of the Senate and sent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026
SCR 87CONDOLENCES: Expresses condolences on the passing of Walter "Wally" Taillon, "Mr. Jambalaya", a beloved community leader, master cook, mentor, and longtime champion of the Gonzales Jambalaya Festival.CosponsorMay 27, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedSent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026
SR 171CONDOLENCES: Expresses sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Troy Carter, general manager of Chicken Shack restaurant, on his passing.CosponsorMay 27, 2026IntroducedUnassignedEnrolled. Signed by the President of the Senate and sent to the Secretary of State by the Secretary of the Senate on 6/2/2026. Jun 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Price’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Price’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 Price posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Price posted

No images from Price’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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Price is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, 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
1899dc2e-bac6-4951-b3fc-87ea5e2d4969
Open States
ocd-person/1899dc2e-bac6-4951-b3fc-87ea5e2d4969

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

Back to top