Serving since 2025. No measure in the WY 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Time in the current office, from the official record.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Republicans. Guggenmos sits at +0.42 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 62% of State House Republicans. Guggenmos reported $8,375 in the 2024 cycle, in the bottom half of State House Republicans (median $10.7K). 99% of Guggenmos’s itemized money in the 2024 cycle came from Wyoming, in the top half of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Guggenmos 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.
Attendance
Wyoming House average 96.5% · ranks 4th of 62 · 955 roll calls
Party unity
Wyoming House average 76% · ranks 19th of 62 · 72 votes against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 62% of State House Republicans · ± 0.07
Itemized, 2024
State House Republicans’ median $10.7K · ranks 133rd of 240
From Wyoming, 2024
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 104th of 214 State House Republicans
Statements
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Guggenmos, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Guggenmos is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Guggenmos says
No statements for the WY 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the WY 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Guggenmos sits at +0.42 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 62% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.35 to +0.49, which understates the uncertainty; from 16 donors and 300 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.35 to +0.49. From 16 donors and 300 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Guggenmos, 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 Guggenmos’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 Guggenmos sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Guggenmos |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 62% |
| Wyoming House | 62 | +0.2 | 73% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 79% |
How to read the strips
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Guggenmos 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 Guggenmos.
Money
Guggenmos reported $8,375 in the 2024 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Wyoming.
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.
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 16 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$8,375
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,375 | 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, 2024 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $8,375 |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Wyoming.
- Wyoming$8,328
- Colorado$26
- West Virginia$21
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 |
|---|---|
| Wyoming | $8,328 |
| Colorado | $26 |
| West Virginia | $21 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Wyoming
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 Wyoming. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Guggenmos voted with the majority of Wyoming House Republicans on 96.6% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 955 roll calls. Wyoming House on average: 76% party unity, 96.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Guggenmos voted against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans 72 times.
955 roll calls Guggenmos could vote on in the WY 2025–26 session, compared with Wyoming 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 Guggenmos voted with the majority of Wyoming House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans
Party unity 96.6%, Wyoming House average 76%, ranks 19th of 62. 955 roll calls in the WY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Guggenmos, the thin grey bar the Wyoming House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Guggenmos | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.9% | 96.5% |
| Party unity | 96.6% | 76% |
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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Guggenmos most often
- Ann LucasR888 shared votes95%
- Paul HoeftR949 shared votes94%
- Nina WebberR918 shared votes93%
- Darin McCannR945 shared votes93%
- Ken PendergraftR947 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Guggenmos least often
- Karlee ProvenzaD946 shared votes43%
- Liz StorerD915 shared votes44%
- Ken ChestekD951 shared votes45%
- Bob NicholasR897 shared votes46%
- Trey SherwoodD952 shared votes48%
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
WY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Guggenmos sponsored 3 bills in the WY 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 56 others.
The bills Guggenmos sponsored and cosponsored in the WY 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 WY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 56 | 44 | 26 | 13 | 13 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Guggenmos sponsored, ochre blocks bills Guggenmos cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Guggenmos, by number of shared bills in the WY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Ann Lucas26
- Marlene Brady24
- Nina Webber21
- Paul Hoeft21
- Laura Pearson19
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 Guggenmos’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 173 | Juvenile discipline-parental obligations. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Introduced | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | H Did not Consider for Introduction Feb 14, 2026 |
| HB 157 | Protection of parental rights-cause of action. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | S COW:S Did not consider for COW Mar 4, 2026 |
| HB 155 | Sales and use tax exemptions-reporting requirements. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | H Did not Consider for Introduction Feb 14, 2026 |
| HB 154 | License plate decal-Wyoming veterans. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Introduced | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | H Did not Consider for Introduction Feb 14, 2026 |
| HB 170 | Escape-parole eligibility. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Introduced | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | H Did not Consider for Introduction Feb 14, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Guggenmos’s campaign site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Guggenmos’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 Guggenmos posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Guggenmos posted
No images from Guggenmos’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 Guggenmos 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. That is the case for Guggenmos in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 39076643-ca3a-47d2-888e-d944eb4f5de9
- Open States
- ocd-person/39076643-ca3a-47d2-888e-d944eb4f5de9
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