Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation · Source
2.9×
the State House Republican rate of policy criticism
27% of 231 statements criticize a policy (63 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 9.3%. Ranks 50th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Keathley’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 55% of Keathley’s statements discuss policy, 1.7 times the State House Republican average of 32%. The policy areas Keathley talks about and legislates on agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Keathley 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.
Policy criticism
27%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 50th of 791
Policy discussion
55%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 74th of 791
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.45
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 388th of 504
Credit claiming
18%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 218th of 791
Extreme labels
1.7%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 218th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.42
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.09
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Keathley, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Keathley is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Keathley says
Keathley criticizes policies more than 93% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 27% of 231 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 50th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Keathley’s 231 statements in the MO 2025–26 session (231 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 MO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Keathley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion128 statements
55%
32%
74th of 791
Policy criticism63 statements
27%
9%
50th of 791
Credit claiming41 statements
18%
13%
218th of 791
Personal attacks7 statements
3%
3%
232nd of 791
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
2%
357th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Keathley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 55% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 27% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 18% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
231
statements classified
231 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 231 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Keathley; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Keathley does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Keathley used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, above the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at Government; peers 1.4%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Government1
- leftists1
- progressives1
- Tax payer bill of rights1
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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 38.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 27.8% | 61.1% | 11.1% | 38.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 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 ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 68.6% | 2.9% | 22.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 23.8% | 38.1% | 0.0% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 13 | 7.7% | 30.8% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Feb ’26 | 13 | 7.7% | 15.4% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 7.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 21.1% | 57.9% | 0.0% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 12 | 8.3% | 41.7% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 11 | 9.1% | 45.5% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 MO 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%. 12 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In Keathley’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 3, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 3, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; extreme label “extreme” aimed at progressives · 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: opponents A5Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: A5Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SonofEpperSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · credit claiming · target: MSHSAASource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: unspecifiedSource
All 231 statements
Newest first, the MO 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: 231 posts on X.
Policy
Taxation is what Keathley talks about most: 51% of policy statements, 6.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 388th 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 Keathley talks about. The bills Keathley sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Keathley talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MO 2025–26 session
0%56%
Keathley
Peers
Taxation65 statements
51%
8%
Government Operations and Politics26 statements
20%
18%
Education22 statements
17%
15%
Economics and Public Finance21 statements
16%
12%
Transportation and Public Works7 statements
5%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Keathley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 51% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 18% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 5% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Keathley’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 56%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 51% | 8% | 11% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 18% | 11% | 12% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 5% | 4% | 6% | 6% |
0.45
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 388th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Keathley legislates on exactly the areas Keathley 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 Keathley sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Keathley sits at +0.42 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 62% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.33 to +0.52, which understates the uncertainty; from 136 donors and no 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”.
+0.42
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.33 to +0.52. From 136 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Keathley, 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 Keathley’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 Keathley sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Missouri House149 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Keathley |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 62% |
| Missouri House | 149 | +0.4 | 60% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 79% |
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 Keathley 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 Keathley.
Money
Keathley reported $60.7K in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.
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.
$60.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 56 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)37 squares$22.2K
- PACs and other committees63 squares$38.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $22.2K | 36.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $38.5K | 63.5% |
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 | $64.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $108.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $60.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Missouri.
- Missouri$21.6K
- Texas$300
- Florida$250
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 |
|---|---|
| Missouri | $21.6K |
| Texas | $300 |
| Florida | $250 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
56
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
from Missouri
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 Missouri. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$4,250 3 donors
- DIRECTOR$850 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC MO PAC$4,000
- MCR PAC$4,000
- REAL ACTION PAC$3,500
- HBS MO STATE PAC$3,000
- FCA PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the MO 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Keathley sponsored 46 bills in the MO 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 5 others. 37% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Missouri House average 32%; 68th of 150).
The bills Keathley sponsored and cosponsored in the MO 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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 46 | 45 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Keathley sponsored, ochre blocks bills Keathley 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
Missouri House average 32%. Ranks 68th of 150.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Keathley, by number of shared bills in the MO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bob Titus9
- George Hruza3
- Bill Irwin3
- Burt Whaley3
- Deanna Self3
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 Keathley’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 2559 | Requires the general assembly to approve proposed administrative rules | Sponsor | Mar 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Voted Do Pass (S) Mar 23, 2026 |
| HB 2085 | Modifies provisions relating to tobacco product regulations | Sponsor | Mar 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Commerce(model) | Placed on Informal Calendar May 7, 2026 |
| HB 3465 | Establishes provisions relating to the severability of provisions within legislation | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Reported Do Pass (H) - AYES: 5 NOES: 3 PRESENT: 0 Mar 31, 2026 |
| HB 3327 | Modifies provisions relating to the establishment of certain entertainment districts | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred: Emerging Issues(H) May 15, 2026 |
| HB 3199 | Modifies provisions relating to the establishment of certain entertainment districts | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | Introduced | Commerce(model) | Withdrawn (H) Feb 9, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Keathley’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Keathley’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 Keathley posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 12
pages crawled
13changes 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 Keathley posted
No images from Keathley’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 Keathley 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
- 1f082953-c9f5-4a72-a281-cdb9fe4bda5e
- Open States
- ocd-person/1f082953-c9f5-4a72-a281-cdb9fe4bda5e
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