Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
93%
of State House Republicans score to the left of Gundrum on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.72 (approximate range +0.67 to +0.77, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 366 donors and 541 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 Gundrum sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Gundrum reported $2,345 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans (median $33.7K). 100% of Gundrum’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Wisconsin, in the top quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Gundrum 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
+0.72
More conservative than 93% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Itemized, 2026
$2,345
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 2323rd of 2,521
From Wisconsin, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.62
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 104th of 504
Party unity
100%
Wisconsin House average 97.6% · ranks 25th of 98 · 1 votes against the majority of Wisconsin House Republicans
Attendance
97.9%
Wisconsin House average 97.7% · ranks 73rd of 98 · 242 roll calls
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gundrum, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gundrum is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gundrum says
Gundrum attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 102 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Gundrum’s 102 statements in the WI 2025–26 session (102 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 WI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Gundrum
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion44 statements
43%
32%
218th of 791
Credit claiming20 statements
20%
13%
183rd of 791
Policy criticism7 statements
7%
9%
379th of 791
Bipartisanship5 statements
5%
2%
73rd of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Gundrum | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 43% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
102
statements classified
102 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 102 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gundrum; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gundrum does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gundrum used no extreme labels in 102 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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 36.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 WI 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In Gundrum’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.
Aug 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Labor and Employment; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 28, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 102 statements
Newest first, the WI 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: 102 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Gundrum talks about most: 25% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 104th 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 Gundrum talks about. The bills Gundrum sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gundrum talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Gundrum
Peers
Education11 statements
25%
15%
Health7 statements
16%
10%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues4 statements
9%
6%
Economics and Public Finance4 statements
9%
12%
Families4 statements
9%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Gundrum | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 25% | 15% |
| Health | 16% | 10% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 9% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% |
| Families | 9% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gundrum’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 35%. 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 | 25% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Health | 16% | 10% | 13% | 10% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 9% | 6% | 4% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Families | 9% | 4% | 5% | 2% |
0.62
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 104th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gundrum legislates on exactly the areas Gundrum 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 Gundrum sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gundrum sits at +0.72 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 93% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.67 to +0.77, which understates the uncertainty; from 366 donors and 541 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”.
+0.72
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.67 to +0.77. From 366 donors and 541 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gundrum, 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 Gundrum’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 Gundrum sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Wisconsin House99 · median +0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gundrum |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 93% |
| Wisconsin House | 99 | +0.5 | 75% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 96% |
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 Gundrum 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 Gundrum.
Money
Gundrum reported $2,345 in the 2026 cycle, 7.0% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$2,345
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 31 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)89 squares$2,095
- Party committees11 squares$250
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,095 | 89.3% |
| Party committees | $250 | 10.7% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $29.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $29.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $22.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $2,345 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$2,095
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 |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $2,095 |
| 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 |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
31
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,220 14 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- WASHINGTON CO REPUBLICAN PARTY$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gundrum voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 242 roll calls. Wisconsin House on average: 97.6% party unity, 97.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gundrum voted against the majority of Wisconsin House Republicans 1 time.
242 roll calls Gundrum could vote on in the WI 2025–26 session, compared with Wisconsin 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 Gundrum voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of Wisconsin House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Wisconsin House average 97.6%, ranks 25th of 98. 242 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gundrum, the thin grey bar the Wisconsin House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gundrum
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.9%
97.7%
73rd of 98
Party unity
100%
97.6%
25th of 98
Show the data
| Row | Gundrum | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.9% | 97.7% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.6% |
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 WI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | AB 1 Relating to: an income tax subtraction for qualified tips and for qualified overtime compensation; state aid for school districts; surplus refund payments; increasing funding for special education and school age parents programs; state aid to technical colleges and the technical college district rev PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–32 · R 50–0Democrats 10 yea, 32 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay | party crossover · much discussed |
| Feb 19, 2026 | SB 181 Relating to: a levy limit exemption for regional emergency medical systems and eligibility for the expenditure restraint incentive program. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 40–0 · R 51–1Democrats 40 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Feb 19, 2026 | AB 659 Relating to: tuition and fee remission or grants for certain veterans and their dependents enrolled in the University of Wisconsin System, a technical college, or a private nonprofit institution of higher education; and the University of Wisconsin System nonresident tuition exemption for certain vet PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 40–2 · R 53–0Democrats 40 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Feb 19, 2026 | AB 997 Relating to: funding for the Department of Financial Institutions for contributions to Trump accounts and making an appropriation. (FE) PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–34 · R 52–1Democrats 9 yea, 34 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Feb 19, 2026 | SB 439 Relating to: levy increase limit for the village of Oregon and the towns of Oregon and Rutland. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 42–0 · R 53–0Democrats 42 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Gundrum most often
- Brent JacobsonR232 shared votes100%
- Gus GustafsonR237 shared votes100%
- Elijah BehnkeR237 shared votes100%
- Dave MaxeyR232 shared votes100%
- Ben FranklinR237 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gundrum least often
- Francesca HongD234 shared votes21%
- Darrin MadisonD237 shared votes22%
- Christian PhelpsD236 shared votes22%
- Ryan ClancyD228 shared votes22%
- Angelina CruzD235 shared votes25%
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
WI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gundrum sponsored 295 bills in the WI 2025–26 session; 49 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 66% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wisconsin House average 45%; 46th of 99).
The bills Gundrum sponsored and cosponsored in the WI 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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 295 | 295 | 127 | 76 | 49 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gundrum sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gundrum cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
66%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Wisconsin House average 45%. Ranks 46th of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gundrum, by number of shared bills in the WI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Barbara Dittrich159
- Jerry O'Connor149
- Elijah Behnke147
- Dan Knodl146
- Dave Murphy144
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 Gundrum’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| AB 1094 | Relating to: dissemination of personally identifying information of an officer and providing a penalty. | Sponsor | Mar 13, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1071 | Relating to: testing and labeling related to toxic heavy metals in baby food and providing a penalty. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1039 | Relating to: penalty for the terrorist crimes against the occupants of a church and providing a penalty. | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1073 | Relating to: sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a child who is at least 16 years old and providing a penalty. | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AJR 142 | Relating to: celebrating the 115th anniversary of the founding of Scouting America. | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Gundrum’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gundrum’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 Gundrum posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 25
pages crawled
5changes 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 Gundrum posted
No images from Gundrum’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 Gundrum 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
- 264f7afa-69cb-46f3-97f3-ff8f21a1d68a
- Open States
- ocd-person/264f7afa-69cb-46f3-97f3-ff8f21a1d68a
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