CSIP score −1.08 (approximate range −1.13 to −1.03, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 828 donors and 600 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 Friel sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
6 measures against State House Democrats. 63% of Friel’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats. Friel reported $29.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Friel sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 94% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
From Pennsylvania, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1731st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Party unity
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 27th of 203 · 2 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1191st of 2,082
Out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 83rd of 171
Attendance
Pennsylvania House average 99.9% · ranks 96th of 203 · 1,497 roll calls
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Friel, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Friel is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Friel stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 7 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Friel’s 7 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (7 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the PA 2025–26 session
| Row | Friel | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 100% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 43% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
7 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 7 |
The thick bar is Friel; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Friel does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Friel used no extreme labels in 7 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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.
Share of statements per month, the PA 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 PA 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; 17 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 18, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Emergency Management; Housing and Community Development · Source
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Health · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · Source
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.
Newest first, the PA 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 7 posts on X.
Health is what Friel talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 2.8 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. 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 Friel talks about. The bills Friel sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
| Row | Friel | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 43% | 15% |
| Education | 29% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 5% |
| Emergency Management | 14% | 4% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 6% |
The thick bar is the share of Friel’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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.
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 47%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 43% | 15% | 11% | 15% |
| Education | 29% | 15% | 19% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| Emergency Management | 14% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 6% | 2% | 5% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Friel legislates on exactly the areas Friel 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 Friel sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Friel sits at −1.08 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 94% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.13 to −1.03, which understates the uncertainty; from 828 donors and 600 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 −1.13 to −1.03. From 828 donors and 600 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Friel, 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 Friel’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Friel |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 6% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 1% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 3% |
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 Friel 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 Friel.
Friel reported $29.1K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 63% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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 2026 cycle
From 12 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $6,832 | 23.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $22.3K | 76.5% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $930.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $63.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $29.1K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 63% came from Pennsylvania.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $4,332 |
| New Jersey | $2,500 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Pennsylvania
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Friel voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Friel voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 2 times.
1,497 roll calls Friel could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Friel voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 99.8%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 27th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Friel, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Friel | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 95.1% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | party crossover |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Friel most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Friel least often
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.
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Friel sponsored 24 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 102 others. 38% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 83rd of 171).
The bills Friel sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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.
Counts for the PA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 24 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 102 | 102 | 31 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Friel sponsored, ochre blocks bills Friel cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 83rd of 171.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Friel, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Friel’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2771 | An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for automated license plate reader systems; and imposing penalties. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Third consideration and final passage Oct 19, 2026 |
| HB 2774 | An Act amending Title 63 (Professions and Occupations (State Licensed)) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, authorizing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to join the audiology and speech-language compact, dentist and dental hygienist compact, physician assistant compact and social work licensu | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Laid on the table Sep 30, 2026 |
| HB 2674 | An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general provisions relating to Public Utility Code, further providing for definitions. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Energy(model) | Third consideration and final passage Oct 19, 2026 |
| HB 1097 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in riot, disorderly conduct and related offenses, providing for the offense of use of live pigeons for target. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Laid on the table Sep 28, 2026 |
| HB 2758 | An Act amending the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), known as the Pennsylvania Election Code, in preparation for and conduct of primaries and elections, further providing for peace officers, no police officer to be within one hundred feet of polling place, exceptions, presence of soldiers pro | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Laid on the table Sep 28, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Friel’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Friel’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 Friel posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Friel’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
14 turns, Jun 20, 2023 to Apr 15, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Friel is most unusual among State House 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
