Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health · Source
0.73
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of State House Democrats
Agreement 0.73 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Democrats is 0.54. Ranks 5th of 503, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Waxman’s statements matches the mix in the bills Waxman sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 32% of Waxman’s statements claim credit, 2.2 times the State House Democrat average of 14%. 59% of Waxman’s statements discuss policy, 1.5 times the State House Democrat average of 39%.
The measures on which Waxman sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.73
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 5th of 503
Party unity
100%
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 8th of 203 · 8 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Credit claiming
32%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 71st of 764
Policy discussion
59%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 119th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.84
More liberal than 80% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Policy criticism
15%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 198th of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Waxman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Waxman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Waxman says
Waxman claims credit more than 90% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 32% of 1,875 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 71st of 764.
An AI model reads each of Waxman’s 1,875 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (1,875 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Waxman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,111 statements
59%
39%
119th of 764
Credit claiming596 statements
32%
14%
71st of 764
Policy criticism288 statements
15%
10%
198th of 764
Bipartisanship61 statements
3%
3%
242nd of 764
Personal attacks32 statements
2%
3%
281st of 764
Show the data
| Row | Waxman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 59% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 32% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 15% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
1,875
statements classified
1,875 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,875 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Waxman; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Waxman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Waxman used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 13 statements, most often aimed at white nationalist; peers 1.0%.
- “extreme”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- white nationalist2
- authoritarian right1
- Donald Trump1
- republican1
- Republican Party1
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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 25.8% | 58.1% | 3.2% | 25.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 49 | 0.0% | 10.2% | 53.1% | 0.0% | 24.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 44 | 6.8% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 6.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 172 | 6.4% | 8.1% | 34.3% | 1.2% | 12.2% | 1.2% |
| May ’25 | 55 | 1.8% | 12.7% | 43.6% | 1.8% | 12.7% | 1.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 73 | 1.4% | 21.9% | 61.6% | 1.4% | 17.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 52 | 1.9% | 28.8% | 57.7% | 0.0% | 9.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 105 | 0.9% | 27.6% | 50.5% | 2.9% | 15.2% | 2.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 112 | 0.9% | 17.0% | 49.1% | 3.6% | 16.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 99 | 2.0% | 23.2% | 52.5% | 4.0% | 28.3% | 1.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 74 | 5.4% | 12.2% | 46.0% | 6.8% | 27.0% | 1.4% |
| Dec ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 44.8% | 0.0% | 6.9% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 62.5% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 72 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 54.2% | 8.3% | 29.2% | 2.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 97 | 1.0% | 17.5% | 51.5% | 5.1% | 28.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 112 | 0.9% | 11.6% | 67.9% | 0.9% | 44.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 101 | 1.0% | 8.9% | 64.4% | 5.0% | 48.5% | 3.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 190 | 0.0% | 16.3% | 84.7% | 6.8% | 76.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 114 | 0.0% | 14.9% | 79.8% | 7.0% | 70.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 110 | 3.6% | 10.9% | 60.9% | 1.8% | 32.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 79 | 0.0% | 13.9% | 72.2% | 0.0% | 17.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 81 | 0.0% | 27.2% | 90.1% | 0.0% | 19.8% | 0.0% |
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 PA 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%.
In Waxman’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Water Resources Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at white nationalists · 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: DunlapSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Dan BilzerianSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: jjabbottSource
All 1,875 statements
Newest first, the PA 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: 1,875 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Waxman talks about most: 14% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 5th of 503).
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 Waxman talks about. The bills Waxman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Waxman talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Waxman
Peers
Health161 statements
14%
15%
Transportation and Public Works160 statements
14%
5%
Commerce153 statements
14%
3%
Government Operations and Politics127 statements
11%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues119 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Waxman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 14% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 5% |
| Commerce | 14% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Waxman’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 14% | 15% | 16% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Commerce | 14% | 3% | 6% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 15% | 8% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 10% | 7% | 4% |
0.73
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 5th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Waxman legislates on exactly the areas Waxman 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 Waxman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Waxman sits at −0.84 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 80% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.89 to −0.80, which understates the uncertainty; from 340 donors and 600 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”.
−0.84
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.89 to −0.80. From 340 donors and 600 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Waxman, 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 Waxman’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 Waxman sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Pennsylvania House203 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Waxman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 20% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 10% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 9% |
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 Waxman 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 Waxman.
Money
Waxman reported $86.1K in the 2026 cycle, 2.1 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$86.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 124 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)71 squares$61.3K
- PACs and other committees29 squares$24.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $61.3K | 71.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $24.8K | 28.8% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1,956 |
| 2022 cycle | $144.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $87.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $86.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$60.3K
- Connecticut$250
- District of Columbia$250
- New Jersey$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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $60.3K |
| New Jersey | $250 |
| Connecticut | $250 |
| District of Columbia | $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 |
| 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
124
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$12.9K 21 donors
- ATTORNEY$6,986 7 donors
- CONSULTANT$1,600 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LAWPAC$3,000
- DUANE MORRIS LLP GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE$2,000
- AFSCME COUNCIL 13 POLITICAL & LEGISLATIVE$1,500
- OPERATORS FOR SKILL PAC$1,500
- BALLARD SPAHR$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Waxman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Waxman voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 8 times.
1,497 roll calls Waxman could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Waxman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
8
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 100%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 8th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Waxman, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Waxman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
96th of 203
Party unity
100%
95.1%
8th of 203
Show the data
| Row | Waxman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | 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 Waxman most often
- Mary IsaacsonD1,497 shared votes100%
- Tarik KhanD1,497 shared votes100%
- Keith HarrisD1,497 shared votes100%
- Josh SiegelD725 shared votes100%
- Jordan HarrisD1,497 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Waxman least often
- Wendy FinkR1,497 shared votes39%
- Scott BargerR1,497 shared votes41%
- Stephenie ScialabbaR821 shared votes45%
- Jamie WalshR1,497 shared votes47%
- Stephanie BorowiczR1,497 shared votes49%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Waxman sponsored 35 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 803 others. 34% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 91st of 171).
The bills Waxman sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 35 | 35 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 803 | 803 | 262 | 19 | 19 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Waxman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Waxman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
34%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 91st of 171.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Waxman, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Ben Sanchez504
- Carol Hill-Evans421
- Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz304
- Tarik Khan264
- Nikki Rivera264
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 Waxman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 673 | A Resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study on the feasibility, community impact and process for converting immigrant detention centers operating in this Commonwealth into community-centered projects, with fair, transparent and rigorous local stakeholder participa | Cosponsor | Oct 23, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Intergovernmental Affairs & Operations Oct 23, 2026 |
| HB 2871 | An Act amending the act of October 27, 1955 (P.L.744, No.222), known as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, further providing for findings and declaration of policy, for right to freedom from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, for definitions, for unlawful discriminato | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to State Government Oct 21, 2026 |
| HB 2875 | An Act amending Title 4 (Amusements) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in fantasy contests, further providing for prohibitions; in lottery, further providing for iLottery authorization; in interactive gaming, further providing for interactive gaming account credits, debits, deposits and pay | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Gaming Oversight Oct 21, 2026 |
| HB 2873 | An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in preliminary provisions, providing for nondiscrimination awareness and prevention policy. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Education Oct 21, 2026 |
| HB 2879 | An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for online gambling public health and consumer protection; and establishing a restricted account within the Compulsive and Problem Gambling Treatment Fund and the Online Problem Gambling Public Health T | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Gaming Oversight Oct 21, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Waxman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Waxman’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 Waxman posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes 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 Waxman posted
No images from Waxman’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
15 turns, Jun 13, 2023 to Apr 28, 2026
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 Waxman is most unusual among State House 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
- 1f2c3093-8ce7-41f7-8df0-6cd14ddd354b
- Open States
- ocd-person/1f2c3093-8ce7-41f7-8df0-6cd14ddd354b
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