Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
5
votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans
Party unity 96.3%, in the bottom quarter of the Massachusetts House (average 98.5%). 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
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 Soter voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans; it is ranked within the Massachusetts House. The count covers every roll call where Soter voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Massachusetts House. 88% of Soter’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Massachusetts, in the bottom half of State House Republicans. Soter reported $62.9K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Soter sits furthest from the middle of the Massachusetts House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
96.3%
Massachusetts House average 98.5% · ranks 136th of 156 · 5 votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans
From Massachusetts, 2026
88%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1738th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$62.9K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 822nd of 2,521
CSIP ideology
+0.42
More conservative than 62% of State House Republicans · ± 0.06
Out of committee
3.9%
Massachusetts House average 4.0% · ranks 53rd of 147
Attendance
99.5%
Massachusetts House average 97.4% · ranks 68th of 156 · 234 roll calls
Peer group: Massachusetts House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Soter, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Soter is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Soter says
Soter attacks opponents personally less than 80% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 7 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 643rd of 792.
An AI model reads each of Soter’s 7 statements in the MA 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Soter
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion6 statements
86%
32%
5th of 792
Credit claiming3 statements
43%
13%
13th of 792
Policy criticism2 statements
29%
9%
46th of 792
Bipartisanship1 statements
14%
2%
6th of 792
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
643rd of 792
Show the data
| Row | Soter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 86% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 43% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 29% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 14% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
7
statements classified
7 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 7 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Soter; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Soter does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Soter used no extreme labels in 7 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
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 MA 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 MA 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; 18 of them have no statements.
In Soter’s words
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 22, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Labor and Employment · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · 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 7 statements
Newest first, the MA 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: 7 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Soter talks about most: 83% of policy statements, 7.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 11%. 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 Soter talks about. The bills Soter sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Soter talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
0%92%
Soter
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement5 statements
83%
11%
Health2 statements
33%
10%
Immigration1 statements
17%
5%
Labor and Employment1 statements
17%
3%
Taxation1 statements
17%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Soter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 83% | 11% |
| Health | 33% | 10% |
| Immigration | 17% | 5% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 3% |
| Taxation | 17% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Soter’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 92%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 83% | 11% | 7% | 11% |
| Health | 33% | 10% | 17% | 10% |
| Immigration | 17% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 3% | 17% | 3% |
| Taxation | 17% | 8% | 27% | 11% |
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 Soter legislates on exactly the areas Soter 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 Soter sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Soter sits at +0.42 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 62% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.36 to +0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 869 donors and 133 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”.
+0.42
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.36 to +0.48. From 869 donors and 133 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Soter, 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 Soter’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 Soter sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Massachusetts House157 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Soter |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 62% |
| Massachusetts House | 157 | −0.6 | 89% |
| 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 Soter 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 Soter.
Money
Soter reported $62.9K in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 88% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.
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.
$62.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 185 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)95 squares$59.6K
- PACs and other committees5 squares$3,300
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $59.6K | 94.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,300 | 5.3% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $89.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $159.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $112.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $62.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 88% came from Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts$52.3K
- New Hampshire$4,000
- New Jersey$3,000
- California$200
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 |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $52.3K |
| New Hampshire | $4,000 |
| New Jersey | $3,000 |
| California | $200 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | 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 |
| 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 |
| Connecticut | 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 |
185
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
88%
from Massachusetts
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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$10.1K 42 donors
- REAL ESTATE$5,500 5 donors
- SALES$2,400 6 donors
- OWNER$2,316 4 donors
- PRESIDENT$1,400 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM$1,000
- MA CORRECTION OFFICERS FEDERATED UNION PAC M.C.O.F.U PAC$1,000
- INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 4 SOCIAL POL ACTION COMMITTEE$500
- RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAC$300
- ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Soter voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans on 96.3% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 234 roll calls. Massachusetts House on average: 98.5% party unity, 97.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Soter voted against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans 5 times.
234 roll calls Soter could vote on in the MA 2025–26 session, compared with Massachusetts 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 Soter voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
5
votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans
Party unity 96.3%, Massachusetts House average 98.5%, ranks 136th of 156. 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Soter, the thin grey bar the Massachusetts House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Soter
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
97.4%
68th of 156
Party unity
96.3%
98.5%
136th of 156
Show the data
| Row | Soter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 97.4% |
| Party unity | 96.3% | 98.5% |
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
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 117–9 · R 0–24 · I 1–0Democrats 117 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 24 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | H 5388 An Act authorizing the transfer of a certain parcel of land in the town of Marion from the Open Space Acquisition Commission to the Select Board H. 5388 On Enactment Land Taking | Yea | With majority | pass | D 128–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 128 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 15, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 8, 2026 | H 5569 An Act relative to property tax classifications in the city of Watertown for fiscal year 2027 and subsequent fiscal years H. 5569 On passing to be engrossed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 125–0 · R 23–0 · I 1–0Democrats 125 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Soter most often
- Mike ChaissonR233 shared votes99%
- Steven HowittR233 shared votes98%
- Dave MuradianR232 shared votes98%
- Steve XiarhosR233 shared votes98%
- John MarsiR233 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Soter least often
- Vanna HowardD141 shared votes51%
- Danielle GregoireD215 shared votes51%
- Margaret ScarsdaleD218 shared votes52%
- Homar GomezD222 shared votes52%
- Ken GordonD219 shared votes53%
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
MA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Soter sponsored 26 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 72 others. 3.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts House average 4.0%; 53rd of 147).
The bills Soter sponsored and cosponsored in the MA 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 MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 26 | 26 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 72 | 72 | 9 | 5 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Soter sponsored, ochre blocks bills Soter cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
3.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Massachusetts House average 4.0%. Ranks 53rd of 147.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Soter, by number of shared bills in the MA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe McKenna33
- Steve Xiarhos29
- Marcus Vaughn19
- Ryan Fattman18
- Hannah Kane12
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 Soter’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 5697 | An Act relative to firefighter retirement benefits | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read third and passed to be engrossed Oct 21, 2026 |
| H 5631 | An Act mandating access to cancer screenings for firefighters through health care benefits plans or programs provided by the public employer | Cosponsor | Jul 31, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Referred to the committee on Bills in the Third Reading Oct 19, 2026 |
| H 5564 | An Act amending the charter of the town of Bellingham to allow the Director of Finance to serve as the Town Accountant | Sponsor | Jul 6, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Signed by the Governor, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2026 Sep 22, 2026 |
| H 5491 | An Act implementing the recommendations of the Walsh-Kennedy Commission Report | Cosponsor | Jun 10, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred to the committee on Bills in the Third Reading Aug 17, 2026 |
| S 3076 | An Act providing opportunities for apprentices to complete their training and ensuring for a skilled workforce in the commonwealth of Massachusetts | Cosponsor | May 18, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means May 18, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Soter’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Soter’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 Soter posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 7
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 Soter posted
No images from Soter’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
2 turns, Apr 9, 2025 to Jun 3, 2026
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 Soter is most unusual among Massachusetts House, 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
- 4cec2aa4-c17b-4749-b0e9-58a25695bf2f
- Open States
- ocd-person/4cec2aa4-c17b-4749-b0e9-58a25695bf2f
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