Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Housing and Community Development · Source
91%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of the Florida House
91% of 22 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Florida House is 56%. Ranks 5th of 110, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Shoaf sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Florida House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 100% of Shoaf’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Florida, in the top quarter of State House Republicans. The policy areas Shoaf talks about and legislates on agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom half of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Shoaf 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.
Out of committee
91%
Florida House average 56% · ranks 5th of 110
From Florida, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Party unity
100%
Florida House average 94.7% · ranks 18th of 116 · 0 votes against the majority of Florida House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.47
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 366th of 504
CSIP ideology
+0.47
More conservative than 71% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Itemized, 2026
$23.6K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1497th of 2,521
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Shoaf, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Shoaf is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Shoaf says
Shoaf attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 178 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Shoaf’s 178 statements in the FL 2025–26 session (178 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 FL 2025–26 session
0%80%
Shoaf
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion99 statements
56%
32%
72nd of 791
Credit claiming43 statements
24%
13%
120th of 791
Policy criticism2 statements
1%
9%
648th of 791
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
2%
384th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Shoaf | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 56% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 24% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
178
statements classified
178 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 178 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Shoaf; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Shoaf does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Shoaf used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 39% of the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.4%.
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 FL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 72.7% | 9.1% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 90.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 87.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 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 FL 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%. 14 months are hatched here.
In Shoaf’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.
Jun 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Water Resources Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” · 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 178 statements
Newest first, the FL 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: 178 posts on X.
Policy
Emergency Management is what Shoaf talks about most: 22% of policy statements, 7.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 366th 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 Shoaf talks about. The bills Shoaf sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Shoaf talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the FL 2025–26 session
0%35%
Shoaf
Peers
Emergency Management22 statements
22%
3%
Education17 statements
17%
15%
Health17 statements
17%
10%
Armed Forces and National Security11 statements
11%
5%
Transportation and Public Works10 statements
10%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Shoaf | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 22% | 3% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Health | 17% | 10% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 5% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Shoaf’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 22% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Health | 17% | 10% | 14% | 10% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 4% | 4% | 6% |
0.47
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 366th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Shoaf legislates on exactly the areas Shoaf 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 Shoaf sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Shoaf sits at +0.47 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 71% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.42 to +0.53, which understates the uncertainty; from 454 donors and 812 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”.
+0.47
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.42 to +0.53. From 454 donors and 812 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Shoaf, 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 Shoaf’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 Shoaf sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Florida House116 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Shoaf |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 71% |
| Florida House | 116 | +0.4 | 63% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 84% |
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 Shoaf 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 Shoaf.
Money
Shoaf reported $23.6K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Florida.
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.
$23.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 10 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)32 squares$7,631
- PACs and other committees68 squares$16.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,631 | 32.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $16.0K | 67.7% |
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 | $291.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $91.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $78.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $23.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Florida.
- Florida$7,631
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 |
|---|---|
| Florida | $7,631 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
10
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Florida
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 Florida. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AT&T FLORIDA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION FLORIDA PAC$1,000
- FICAP PC$1,000
- FL CONCRETE & PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION PC$1,000
- FLORIDA ACRE$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Shoaf voted with the majority of Florida House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 817 roll calls. Florida House on average: 94.7% party unity, 94.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Shoaf never voted against the majority of Florida House Republicans.
817 roll calls Shoaf could vote on in the FL 2025–26 session, compared with Florida 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 Shoaf voted with the majority of Florida House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
0
votes against the majority of Florida House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Florida House average 94.7%, ranks 18th of 116. 817 roll calls in the FL 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Shoaf, the thin grey bar the Florida House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Shoaf
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.8%
94.0%
54th of 116
Party unity
100%
94.7%
18th of 116
Show the data
| Row | Shoaf | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.8% | 94.0% |
| Party unity | 100% | 94.7% |
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 FL 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–26 · R 74–1Democrats 1 yea, 26 nay; Republicans 74 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| May 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 24–3 · R 79–0Democrats 24 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 79 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| May 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–8 · R 79–0Democrats 19 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 79 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| May 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–12 · R 78–1Democrats 14 yea, 12 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 1 nay | party crossover | |
| May 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–3 · R 78–0Democrats 25 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 0 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 Shoaf most often
- Traci KosterR748 shared votes100%
- Josie TomkowR771 shared votes100%
- Bill ConerlyR796 shared votes100%
- Chase TramontR796 shared votes100%
- Monique MillerR775 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Shoaf least often
- Angie NixonD741 shared votes74%
- Michele RaynerD689 shared votes76%
- Ashley GanttD768 shared votes77%
- Dotie JosephD401 shared votes78%
- Felicia RobinsonD738 shared votes78%
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
FL 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Shoaf sponsored 22 bills in the FL 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 7 others. 91% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Florida House average 56%; 5th of 110).
The bills Shoaf sponsored and cosponsored in the FL 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 FL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 22 | 22 | 14 | 9 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Shoaf sponsored, ochre blocks bills Shoaf cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
91%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Florida House average 56%. Ranks 5th of 110.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Shoaf, by number of shared bills in the FL 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Michelle Salzman3
- Jim Mooney3
- Webster Barnaby3
- John Snyder2
- Dana Trabulsy2
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 Shoaf’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 5501E | Documentary Stamp Tax Distributions | Sponsor | May 5, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Conference Committee appointed: Appropriations Conference Committee/Budget: Senator Hooper, Chair; Senators Berman, Boyd, Brodeur, Gruters, Passidomo, and Rouson, At Large; Appropriations Conference Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government/Agriculture & Natural Resources: Senator Brodeur, Chair; Senators Arrington, Berman, DiCeglie, Grall, Massullo, McClain, Nathan, Pizzo, Rodriguez, Sharief, and Truenow; Appropriations Conference Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government/State Administration: Senator Brodeur, Chair; Senators Arrington, Berman, DiCeglie, Grall, Massullo, McClain, Nathan, Pizzo, Rodriguez, Sharief, and Truenow; Appropriations Conference Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice/Justice: Senator Garcia, Chair; Senators Martin, Osgood, Polsky, Simon, Smith, Wright, and Yarborough; Appropriations Conference Committee on Health and Human Services/Health Care: Senator Trumbull, Chair; Senators Brodeur, Burton, Davis, Garcia, Harrell, Rodriguez, Rouson, and Sharief; Appropriations Conference Committee on Higher Education/Higher Education: Senator Harrell, Chair; Senators Bracy Davis, Bradley, Burgess, Calatayud, Davis, and Leek; Appropriations Conference Committee on Pre-K – 12 Education/Pre-K – 12: Senator Burgess, Chair; Senators Bradley, Calatayud, Gaetz, Jones, Massullo, Nathan, Osgood, Pizzo, Simon, and Yarborough; Appropriations Conference Committee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development/Transportation & Economic Development: Senator DiCeglie, Chair; Senators Arrington, Avila, Bernard, Bracy Davis, Grall, Leek, Martin, Mayfield, McClain, Polsky, Smith, Truenow, and Wright. May 12, 2026 |
| HR 8125 | Taiwan | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted by Publication; Companion bill(s) passed, see SR 1402 (Adopted) Mar 4, 2026 |
| HB 5501 | Documentary Stamp Tax Distributions | Sponsor | Feb 16, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Died pending reference review under Rule 4.7(2) Mar 13, 2026 |
| HB 4105 | Port St. Joe Port Authority, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, and Liberty Counties | Sponsor | Feb 14, 2026 | Became law | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Chapter No. 2026-226 Jul 1, 2026 |
| HB 4103 | Apalachicola Water and Sewer District, Franklin County | Sponsor | Feb 7, 2026 | Became law | Water Resources Development(model) | Chapter No. 2026-225 Jul 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Shoaf’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Shoaf’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 Shoaf posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4756&LegislativeTermId=90Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
2changes 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 Shoaf posted
No images from Shoaf’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
139 turns, Feb 26, 2020 to May 12, 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 Shoaf 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
- 2bae38cc-f703-446b-93ec-576c0e388760
- Open States
- ocd-person/2bae38cc-f703-446b-93ec-576c0e388760
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