Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
0.30
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom tenth of State Senate Republicans
Agreement 0.30 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State Senate Republicans is 0.52. Ranks 215th of 226, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Klemp’s statements matches the mix in the bills Klemp sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State Senate Republicans.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 0% of Klemp’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (average 2.3%). 0% of Klemp’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom half of State Senate Republicans (average 1.3%).
The measures on which Klemp 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.30
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 215th of 226
Bipartisanship
3.9%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 72nd of 354
Personal attacks
0%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 272nd of 354
Extreme labels
0%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 261st of 354
CSIP ideology
+0.23
More liberal than 69% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.08
Out of committee
27%
Kansas Senate average 18% · ranks 13th of 40
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Klemp, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Klemp is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Klemp says
Klemp attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 229 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 272nd of 354.
An AI model reads each of Klemp’s 229 statements in the KS 2025–26 session (229 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%
Klemp
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion74 statements
32%
37%
217th of 354
Credit claiming35 statements
15%
15%
153rd of 354
Policy criticism10 statements
4%
9%
212th of 354
Bipartisanship9 statements
4%
2%
72nd of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Show the data
| Row | Klemp | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 32% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
229
statements classified
229 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 229 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Klemp; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Klemp does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Klemp used no extreme labels in 229 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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 25.0% | 5.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 23.8% | 4.8% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 29.2% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 52.4% | 4.8% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| Mar ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’26 | 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) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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%. 12 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
In Klemp’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 28, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Taxation; Economics and Public Finance · 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 229 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: 229 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what Klemp talks about most: 20% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.30 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 215th of 226).
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 Klemp talks about. The bills Klemp sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Klemp talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the KS 2025–26 session
0%47%
Klemp
Peers
Agriculture and Food15 statements
20%
6%
Taxation14 statements
19%
7%
Education12 statements
16%
14%
Health10 statements
14%
9%
Families8 statements
11%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Klemp | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 6% |
| Taxation | 19% | 7% |
| Education | 16% | 14% |
| Health | 14% | 9% |
| Families | 11% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Klemp’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 47%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
| Taxation | 19% | 7% | 43% | 10% |
| Education | 16% | 14% | 14% | 10% |
| Health | 14% | 9% | 0% | 11% |
| Families | 11% | 4% | 0% | 2% |
0.30
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 215th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Klemp legislates on exactly the areas Klemp 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 Klemp sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Klemp sits at +0.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 69% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.15 to +0.31, which understates the uncertainty; from 94 donors and no 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”.
+0.23
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.15 to +0.31. From 94 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Klemp, 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 Klemp’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 Klemp 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 Klemp |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 30% |
| Kansas Senate | 39 | +0.2 | 64% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 60% |
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 Klemp 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 Klemp.
Money
Klemp reported $24.7K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Kansas.
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.
$24.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 5 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.
- Individuals (itemized)77 squares$19.1K
- PACs and other committees23 squares$5,600
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $19.1K | 77.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,600 | 22.7% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $81.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $24.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Kansas.
- Kansas$19.0K
- NA$75
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 |
|---|---|
| Kansas | $19.0K |
| 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 |
| 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 |
5
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Kansas
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 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.
- OPTOMETRIC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,000
- KANSAS BEER WHOLESALVERS ASSOCIATION PAC$1,000
- AT&T KANSAS PAC$500
- GM PAC$500
- KANSAS BANKERS ASSOCIATION 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
Klemp sponsored 15 bills in the KS 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 27% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Kansas Senate average 18%; 13th of 40).
The bills Klemp 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 | 15 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Klemp sponsored, ochre blocks bills Klemp cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
27%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Kansas Senate average 18%. Ranks 13th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Klemp, by number of shared bills in the KS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mike Murphy4
- Brad Starnes4
- Doug Shane3
- Beverly Gossage3
- Larry Alley3
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 Klemp’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 1724 | Commemorating and celebrating the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. | Sponsor | Jan 29, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled on Wednesday, February 4, 2026 Feb 4, 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 |
| SB 302 | Requiring school districts to prohibit the use of personal electronic communication devices during instructional time and prohibiting any employee of a school district from using social media to directly communicate with any student for official school purposes. | Sponsor | Jan 12, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 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 changed 8 times in 90 days. Klemp’s campaign site had 12 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Klemp’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 Klemp posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 12
pages crawled
8changes 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 Klemp posted
No images from Klemp’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 Klemp 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
- 49a02bbc-55ad-456e-9175-d51041b583de
- Open States
- ocd-person/49a02bbc-55ad-456e-9175-d51041b583de
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