Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Families · Source
$7,750
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans
The median for State Senate Republicans is $46.2K. Ranks 784th of 936, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
3 measures against State Senate Republicans. 25% of the 16 bills Gossage sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the Kansas Senate. Gossage sits at +0.31 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 58% of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Gossage sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$7,750
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 784th of 936
Out of committee
25%
Kansas Senate average 18% · ranks 15th of 40
CSIP ideology
+0.31
More liberal than 58% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Statements
3
3 posts on X
Bills sponsored
16
and 0 cosponsored
In office since
2021
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gossage, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gossage is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gossage says
Gossage stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 3 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 355.
An AI model reads each of Gossage’s 3 statements in the KS 2025–26 session (3 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the KS 2025–26 session
0%80%
Gossage
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2 statements
67%
37%
19th of 355
Policy criticism1 statements
33%
9%
10th of 355
Credit claiming1 statements
33%
15%
37th of 355
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
273rd of 355
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 355
Show the data
| Row | Gossage | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 67% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 33% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
3
statements classified
3 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 3 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gossage; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gossage does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gossage used no extreme labels in 3 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 KS 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 KS 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 19 of them have no statements.
In Gossage’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.
Oct 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · 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 3 statements
Newest first, the KS 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: 3 posts on X.
Policy
Families is what Gossage talks about most: 50% of policy statements, 12.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 4.2%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Gossage talks about. The bills Gossage sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gossage talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the KS 2025–26 session
0%63%
Gossage
Peers
Families1 statements
50%
4%
Health1 statements
50%
9%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
6%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
6%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Gossage | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Families | 50% | 4% |
| Health | 50% | 9% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 6% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 6% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gossage’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 63%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Families | 50% | 4% | 0% | 2% |
| Health | 50% | 9% | 0% | 11% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 5% | 14% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 0% | 17% | 29% | 12% |
| Taxation | 0% | 7% | 57% | 10% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gossage legislates on exactly the areas Gossage 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 Gossage sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gossage sits at +0.31 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 58% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.27 to +0.36, which understates the uncertainty; from 142 donors and 495 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”.
+0.31
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.27 to +0.36. From 142 donors and 495 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gossage, 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 Gossage’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 Gossage sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Kansas Senate39 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gossage |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 42% |
| Kansas Senate | 39 | +0.2 | 77% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 67% |
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 Gossage 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 Gossage.
Money
Gossage reported $7,750 in the 2026 cycle, 17% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total.
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.
$7,750
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 0 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- PACs and other committees100 squares$7,750
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| PACs and other committees | $7,750 | 100.0% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $70.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $10.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $70.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $7,750 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
No itemized donors with an address.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
0
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
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 Kansas. 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.
- KANSAS ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANT PAC$2,000
- KANSAS OPTOMETRIC PAC$2,000
- AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGIST PAC$1,000
- PAC OF KANSAS OPHTHALMOLOGISTS$1,000
- KANSAS BANKERS ASSOC PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the KS 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Gossage sponsored 16 bills in the KS 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 25% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Kansas Senate average 18%; 15th of 40).
The bills Gossage sponsored and cosponsored in the KS 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 KS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 16 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gossage sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gossage cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
25%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Kansas Senate average 18%. Ranks 15th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gossage, by number of shared bills in the KS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Doug Shane4
- T.J. Rose4
- Brad Starnes4
- Adam Thomas4
- Virgil Peck3
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 Gossage’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 1732 | Commending Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and acknowledging the patriotic commitment of all Kansas employers who support their employees serving in the National Guard and Reserve. | Sponsor | Mar 10, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled on Friday, March 13, 2026 Mar 13, 2026 |
| SR 1727 | Congratulating the 2026 Kansas Master Teachers. | Sponsor | Mar 3, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled on Wednesday, March 4, 2026 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SB 397 | Providing that a person shall not lose eligibility for a homestead property tax refund claim or the selective assistance for effective senior relief (SAFESR) tax credit if the appraised valuation of the homestead subsequently exceeds $350,000 after qualifying in a previous tax year. | Sponsor | Jan 27, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 2026 |
| SCR 1615 | Honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk and recognizing October 14 as Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day. | Sponsor | Jan 12, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Enrolled and presented to Secretary of State on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Feb 17, 2026 |
| SCR 1616 | Proposing to amend section 1 of article 11 of the constitution of the state of Kansas to limit property tax assessed value increases for real property in any subclass and personal property classified as mobile homes. | Sponsor | Jan 12, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Motion to advance to Emergency Final Action failed; Yea 68, Nay 53, Absent 4 Apr 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Gossage’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Gossage’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 Gossage posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 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 Gossage posted
No images from Gossage’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 Gossage is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 35630402-1f6a-4a3e-b6cf-48c1b93bd6ae
- Open States
- ocd-person/35630402-1f6a-4a3e-b6cf-48c1b93bd6ae
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