CSIP score −0.46 (approximate range −0.49 to −0.42, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 319 donors and 889 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 Flowers sits among State Senate Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
5 measures against State Senate Democrats. Flowers missed 1.8% of 2,812 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Montana Senate (average 98.9%). 85% of Flowers’s itemized money in the 2022 cycle came from Montana, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Flowers sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Montana Senate average 85% · ranks 6th of 50 · 79 votes against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 77% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Attendance
Montana Senate average 98.9% · ranks 40th of 50 · 2,812 roll calls
From Montana, 2022
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 9th of 12 State Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2022
State Senate Democrats’ median $64.8K · ranks 7th of 13
Statements
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Flowers, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Flowers is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Flowers says
No statements for the MT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Flowers sits at −0.46 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 77% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.49 to −0.42, which understates the uncertainty; from 319 donors and 889 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 −0.49 to −0.42. From 319 donors and 889 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Flowers, 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 Flowers’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 Flowers sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Flowers |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 77% |
| Montana Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 24% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 33% |
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 Flowers 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 Flowers.
Money
Flowers reported $64.8K in the 2022 cycle, close to the State Senate Democrats’ median of $64.8K. State filings report no small-donation total. 85% of itemized individual money came from Montana.
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 2022 cycle
From 325 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $64.8K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2022 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)96 squares$61.8K
- PACs and other committees1 squares$855
- Party committees3 squares$2,151
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $61.8K | 95.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $855 | 1.3% |
| Party committees | $2,151 | 3.3% |
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, 2022 to 2022. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2022.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $64.8K |
Top donor states, 2022
Itemized contributions by donor state. 85% came from Montana.
- Montana$52.8K
- California$4,300
- Massachusetts$800
- District of Columbia$580
- Idaho$400
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 |
|---|---|
| Montana | $52.8K |
| California | $4,300 |
| Massachusetts | $800 |
| District of Columbia | $580 |
| Idaho | $400 |
| Illinois | $400 |
| Ohio | $400 |
| Utah | $400 |
| Virginia | $400 |
| Florida | $400 |
| New Mexico | $250 |
| New York | $180 |
| Washington | $150 |
| Nevada | $100 |
| New Jersey | $100 |
| North Carolina | $100 |
| Minnesota | $50 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Montana
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 Montana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$30.4K 166 donors
- OWNER$2,250 9 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,700 7 donors
- ARTIST$1,375 5 donors
- DIRECTOR$1,095 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2022 cycle.
- MADISON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL CMTE$1,000
- GALLATIN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE$735
- BIG SKY VALUES PAC$400
- TREASURE STATE PAC$400
- JEFFERSON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE$350
Top employers
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY$1,300 8 donors
- TOWN PUMP$900 3 donors
- TOWN PUMP INC$900 3 donors
- BOZEMAN HEALTH$600 4 donors
- UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA$400 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Flowers voted with the majority of Montana Senate Democrats on 96.5% of party-line votes and missed 1.8% of 2,812 roll calls. Montana Senate on average: 85% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Flowers voted against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats 79 times.
2,812 roll calls Flowers could vote on in the MT 2025–26 session, compared with Montana Senate. 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 Flowers voted with the majority of Montana Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats
Party unity 96.5%, Montana Senate average 85%, ranks 6th of 50. 2,812 roll calls in the MT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Flowers, the thin grey bar the Montana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Flowers | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.1% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 96.5% | 85% |
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 Flowers most often
- Chris PopeD2,759 shared votes95%
- Willis CurdyD2,759 shared votes94%
- Laura SmithD2,726 shared votes94%
- Sara NovakD2,751 shared votes94%
- Ellie BoldmanD2,744 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Flowers least often
- Daniel EmrichR2,740 shared votes48%
- Carl GlimmR2,748 shared votes53%
- Jeremy TrebasR2,749 shared votes53%
- Mark NolandR2,753 shared votes56%
- Becky BeardR2,753 shared votes57%
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
MT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Flowers sponsored 3 bills in the MT 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others.
The bills Flowers sponsored and cosponsored in the MT 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 MT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Flowers sponsored, ochre blocks bills Flowers 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 Flowers, by number of shared bills in the MT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Flowers’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SJ 40 | Interim study on legislative branch procurement and leadership expenditures | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | (H) Died in Committee May 23, 2025 |
| SJ 28 | Interim study resolution on the legislature's ethics processes | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2025 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | (S) Filed with Secretary of State May 5, 2025 |
| SB 460 | Generally revise gravel pit laws | Sponsor | Feb 20, 2025 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | (S) Died in Process May 23, 2025 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Flowers’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Flowers’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 Flowers posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
3changes 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 Flowers posted
No images from Flowers’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 Flowers is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 4877fdac-4a93-4654-ad03-1b3038145c69
- Open States
- ocd-person/4877fdac-4a93-4654-ad03-1b3038145c69
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