Party unity 74%, in the bottom tenth of the Michigan Senate (average 92.6%). 523 roll calls in the MI 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 McBroom voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans; it is ranked within the Michigan Senate. The count covers every roll call where McBroom voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Michigan Senate. McBroom missed 8.8% of 523 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Michigan Senate (average 95.5%). 21% of the 42 bills McBroom sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Michigan Senate.
The measures on which McBroom sits furthest from the middle of the Michigan Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Michigan Senate average 92.6% · ranks 34th of 37 · 78 votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans
Attendance
Michigan Senate average 95.5% · ranks 31st of 37 · 523 roll calls
Out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38% · ranks 30th of 38
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 60% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.03
From Michigan, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 357th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 481st of 936
Peer group: Michigan Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McBroom, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McBroom is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McBroom says
No statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
McBroom sits at +0.43 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 60% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.39 to +0.46, which understates the uncertainty; from 487 donors and 1,121 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 +0.39 to +0.46. From 487 donors and 1,121 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McBroom, 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 McBroom’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 McBroom sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McBroom |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 60% |
| Michigan Senate | 38 | −0.4 | 66% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 77% |
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 McBroom 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 McBroom.
Money
McBroom reported $43.6K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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 51 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)25 squares$10.8K
- PACs and other committees75 squares$32.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $10.8K | 24.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $32.8K | 75.2% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $60.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $178.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $60.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $43.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$10.6K
- Wisconsin$247
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $10.6K |
| Wisconsin | $247 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,894 18 donors
- PRESIDENT$1,647 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NESBITT FOR MICHIGAN$20.0K
- MICHIGAN LABORERS POLITICAL LEAGUE$6,500
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$2,500
- MI ASSOC OF COMMUNITY BANKERS OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- CAPITOL SERVICES PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- SUPERIOR SAWMILL INC.$1,255 11 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
McBroom voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans on 74% of party-line votes and missed 8.8% of 523 roll calls. Michigan Senate on average: 92.6% party unity, 95.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, McBroom voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans 78 times.
523 roll calls McBroom could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 McBroom voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans
Party unity 74%, Michigan Senate average 92.6%, ranks 34th of 37. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McBroom, the thin grey bar the Michigan Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | McBroom | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 91.2% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | 74% | 92.6% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2026 | HB 5356 Vehicles: title; requirements for transfer of title by a dealer; provide for. Amends 14, 41a, 78, 217, 217c, 233, 233a, 233b, 234, 238, 239, 240, 248, 248a, 248j, 249, 250, 258, 801b, 806 & 810a of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.14 et seq.) & adds sec. 9b. PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 263 YEAS 31 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 18–1 · R 13–2Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 947 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends and adds (See bill). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5485'26 ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL # 260 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 5485 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends secs. 31502, 31503, 31504, 31505, 31506, 31507, 31508, 31509, 31510, 31511, 31513, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31520, 31521 & 31523 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.31502 et seq.) & adds secs. 31506a, 31509a, 31509b, 31517a, 31518a, PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 247 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 4598 Crimes: organized; gift card fraud; provide for. Amends sec. 4 of 2012 PA 455 (MCL 752.1084). PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 253 YEAS 36 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 16–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 791 Highways: memorial; portion of I-475; designate as the "St. John Street Community Memorial Highway". Amends 2001 PA 142 (MCL 250.1001 - 250.2092) by adding sec. 124. PASSED ROLL CALL # 258 YEAS 33 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 13–3Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 3 nay | party crossover |
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 McBroom most often
- Pat OutmanR435 shared votes83%
- Ruth JohnsonR367 shared votes82%
- Roger VictoryR455 shared votes82%
- Kevin DaleyR446 shared votes82%
- Roger HauckR471 shared votes81%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McBroom least often
- Chedrick GreeneD132 shared votes58%
- Jeff IrwinD476 shared votes63%
- Erika GeissD430 shared votes64%
- Sylvia SantanaD404 shared votes64%
- Sue ShinkD477 shared votes64%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
McBroom sponsored 42 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 103 others. 21% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan Senate average 38%; 30th of 38).
The bills McBroom sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 42 | 42 | 9 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 103 | 102 | 45 | 13 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McBroom sponsored, ochre blocks bills McBroom 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
Michigan Senate average 38%. Ranks 30th of 38.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McBroom, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rosemary Bayer45
- Stephanie Chang43
- Sue Shink39
- Erika Geiss38
- Joe Bellino32
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 McBroom’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1201 | Agriculture: other; Michigan animal agriculture alliance; establish. Amends 1988 PA 466 (MCL 287.701 - 287.746) by adding sec. 35. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1210 | Agriculture: marketing; length of time a cooperative may hold the funds of its members; limit. Amends sec. 9 of 1965 PA 232 (MCL 290.659). | Sponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1204 | Vehicles: driver training; driver training instruction; modify. Amends secs. 3, 7, 9, 15, 17, 21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 35, 37, 41, 43, 45, 57, 59, 63, 69 & 83 of 2006 PA 384 (MCL 256.623 et seq.) & adds sec. 24. TIE BAR WITH: SB 1203'26 | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1209 | Military affairs: other; release of the Michigan National Guard into active duty combat without an official act of Congress; prohibit. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 203. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Oct 14, 2026 |
| SB 1203 | Vehicles: driver training; age for graduated license; modify. Amends secs. 309 & 310e of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.309 & 257.310e). TIE BAR WITH: SB 1204'26 | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Oct 14, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. McBroom’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McBroom’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 McBroom posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images McBroom posted
No images from McBroom’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 McBroom is most unusual among Michigan Senate, 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
- 4fc7e235-2446-405d-9a56-5e010017f617
- Open States
- ocd-person/4fc7e235-2446-405d-9a56-5e010017f617
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