Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 29, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
85%
of State House Republicans score to the right of Hawk on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.12 (approximate range +0.06 to +0.18, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 145 donors and 283 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 Hawk sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
4 measures against State House Republicans. 77% of the 22 bills Hawk sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Arkansas House. Hawk reported $76.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Hawk 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.
CSIP ideology
+0.12
More liberal than 85% of State House Republicans · ± 0.06
Out of committee
77%
Arkansas House average 56% · ranks 16th of 81
Itemized, 2026
$76.1K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 681st of 2,521
From Arkansas, 2026
97%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1109th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Statements
142
142 posts on X
Bills sponsored
22
and 47 cosponsored
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hawk, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hawk is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hawk says
Hawk stresses bipartisanship less than 85% of State House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 142 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 677th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Hawk’s 142 statements in the AR 2025–26 session (142 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 AR 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hawk
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks10 statements
7%
3%
97th of 791
Policy discussion4 statements
3%
32%
755th of 791
Policy criticism2 statements
1%
9%
627th of 791
Credit claiming1 statements
1%
13%
722nd of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Hawk | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 7% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 3% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
142
statements classified
142 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 142 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hawk; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hawk does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hawk used no extreme labels in 142 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’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) |
| 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 | 1 | — (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 | 31 | 16.1% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Feb ’26 | 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) |
| Mar ’26 | 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) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 21 | 9.5% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 AR 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%. 17 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
In Hawk’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Education · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education · 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 · target: HeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: KJ JacksonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Daron BlandSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Bobby BonesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: jakotasainSource
All 142 statements
Newest first, the AR 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: 142 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Hawk talks about most: 75% of policy statements, 5.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. 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 Hawk talks about. The bills Hawk sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hawk talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AR 2025–26 session
0%83%
Hawk
Peers
Education3 statements
75%
15%
Government Operations and Politics1 statements
25%
18%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Hawk | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 75% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 18% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 4% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hawk’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 83%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 75% | 15% | 19% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 18% | 31% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 6% | 3% | 4% |
| Commerce | 0% | 4% | 12% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 11% | 1% | 11% |
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 Hawk legislates on exactly the areas Hawk 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 Hawk sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hawk sits at +0.12 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 85% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.06 to +0.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 145 donors and 283 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”.
+0.12
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.06 to +0.18. From 145 donors and 283 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hawk, 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 Hawk’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 Hawk sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Arkansas House97 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hawk |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 15% |
| Arkansas House | 97 | +0.1 | 56% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 53% |
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 Hawk 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 Hawk.
Money
Hawk reported $76.1K in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 97% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.
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.
$76.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 63 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)51 squares$39.0K
- PACs and other committees44 squares$33.6K
- Party committees5 squares$3,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $39.0K | 51.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $33.6K | 44.2% |
| Party committees | $3,500 | 4.6% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $82.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $74.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $76.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 97% came from Arkansas.
- Arkansas$38.0K
- Missouri$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
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Arkansas | $38.0K |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
63
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
97%
from Arkansas
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 Arkansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- GENERAL BUSINESS$16.6K 13 donors
- REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL$3,800 8 donors
- HEALTHCARE / MEDICAL$3,600 5 donors
- CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING$2,800 6 donors
- RETIRED$2,150 9 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ARKANSAS REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,500
- JOBS AND GROWTH PAC$3,500
- REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARKANSAS (STATE) PAPER$3,500
- ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE HOUSE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,000
- ARKANSAS TRUCKING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- SUMMERWOOD SPORTS$10.0K 4 donors
- BAXLEY PENFIELD MOUDY REALTORS$700 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AR 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Hawk sponsored 22 bills in the AR 2025–26 session; 14 became law. Cosponsored 47 others. 77% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arkansas House average 56%; 16th of 81).
The bills Hawk sponsored and cosponsored in the AR 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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 22 | 22 | 17 | 14 | 14 |
| Cosponsored | 47 | 47 | 35 | 33 | 32 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hawk sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hawk cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
77%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arkansas House average 56%. Ranks 16th of 81.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hawk, by number of shared bills in the AR 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Kim Hammer15
- Keith Brooks9
- Bart Hester5
- Paul Childress5
- Justin Boyd5
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 Hawk’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1001 | TO REDUCE THE INCOME TAX RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS, TRUSTS, ESTATES, AND CORPORATIONS. | Cosponsor | May 1, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Notification that HB1001 is now Act 1 May 6, 2026 |
| HB 1103 | TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Cosponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's Office. Apr 28, 2026 |
| HB 1952 | TO ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS MISSION TO PROMOTE A ROBUST, HEALTHY, AND SAFE COMBATIVE SPORTS INDUSTRY. | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2025 | Became law | Commerce(model) | Notification that HB1952 is now Act 947 Apr 21, 2025 |
| HB 1968 | TO REQUIRE THE COLLECTION OF SALES TAX AT THE POINT OF SALE FOR THE SALE OF A NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLE, TRAILER, OR SEMITRAILER BY A DEALER; AND TO AMEND LAW AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 19 OF 1958. | Cosponsor | Apr 1, 2025 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Recommended for study in the Interim by the Committee on REVENUE & TAXATION- HOUSE Apr 15, 2025 |
| SB 584 | TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PETITIONS. | Sponsor | Mar 31, 2025 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Notification that SB584 is now Act 768 Apr 18, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Hawk’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hawk’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 Hawk posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes 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
- XRJHawk
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/rjhawk
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/RepRJHawk/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/rj__hawk_/
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/rj-hawk-5182031a/
Images Hawk posted
No images from Hawk’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
56 turns, Jan 17, 2023 to Apr 15, 2025
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 Hawk 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
- 1bbfdd71-5072-4978-89bb-6aa19558c3f7
- Open States
- ocd-person/1bbfdd71-5072-4978-89bb-6aa19558c3f7
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