Skip to content

Republican · Michigan Senate, district 32

Serving since Jan 1, 2023MI 2025–26 session

Portrait of Jon Bumstead, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
12%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Michigan Senate

Attendance 88%; the average within the Michigan Senate is 95.5%. Ranks 33rd of 37, where 1st has the highest attendance. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.

Attendance is the share of the roll calls Bumstead could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Michigan Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.

At a glance

6 measures against the Michigan Senate. Bumstead voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans 49 times; party unity 86%, in the bottom quarter of the Michigan Senate (average 92.6%). 100% of Bumstead’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Michigan, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans.

The measures on which Bumstead 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.

Attendance

88%

Michigan Senate average 95.5% · ranks 33rd of 37 · 523 roll calls

Party unity

86%

Michigan Senate average 92.6% · ranks 32nd of 37 · 49 votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans

From Michigan, 2026

100%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans

Itemized, 2026

$7,500

State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 787th of 936

CSIP ideology

+0.54

More conservative than 77% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04

Out of committee

33%

Michigan Senate average 38% · ranks 22nd of 38

Peer group: Michigan Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Bumstead, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Bumstead is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bumstead says

No statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Bumstead sits at +0.54 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 77% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.50 to +0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 267 donors and 1,148 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”.

+0.54

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.50 to +0.58. From 267 donors and 1,148 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Bumstead +0.5State Senate Republicans +0.4Michigan Senate −0.4All State Senate +0.1

The outlined dot is Bumstead, 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 Bumstead’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 Bumstead sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State Senate Republicansmedian +0.4Bumstead +0.5Michigan Senatemedian −0.4All State Senatemedian +0.1
Show the data
Bumstead's CSIP score of +0.54 placed against State Senate Republicans, Michigan Senate, All State Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bumstead
State Senate Republicans1083+0.477%
Michigan Senate38−0.479%
All State Senate1909+0.187%
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 Bumstead 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 Bumstead.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Bumstead reported $7,500 in the 2026 cycle, 16% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% 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.

Election cycle
$7,500

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 3 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): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)Individuals (itemized): $750 (10.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)PACs and other committees: $6,750 (90.0%)
  • Individuals (itemized)10 squares$750
  • PACs and other committees90 squares$6,750
Show the data
Sources of Bumstead's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$75010.0%
PACs and other committees$6,75090.0%
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.

2020 cycle: $83.9K$83.9K20202022 cycle: $721.0K$721.0K20222024 cycle: $23.2K$23.2K20242026 cycle: $7,500$7,5002026State Senate Republicans median $46.2K
Show the data
Bumstead's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$83.9K
2022 cycle$721.0K
2024 cycle$23.2K
2026 cycle$7,500

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Michigan.

  1. Michigan$750

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $750MINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Bumstead's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Michigan$750
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
3

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

100%

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.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$2,000
  2. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
  3. DTE ENERGY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
  4. FAMILY BUSINESS OWNERS OF MICHIGAN PAC$500
  5. THE KALAMAZOO ANESTHESIOLOGY PC SAFE MICHIGAN FUND$500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Bumstead voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans on 86% of party-line votes and missed 12% of 523 roll calls. Michigan Senate on average: 92.6% party unity, 95.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bumstead voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans 49 times.

523 roll calls Bumstead 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 Bumstead 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.

49

votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans

Party unity 86%, Michigan Senate average 92.6%, ranks 32nd of 37. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Bumstead, the thin grey bar the Michigan Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Bumstead
Peers
Rank
Attendance
88%
95.5%
33rd of 37
Party unity
86%
92.6%
32nd of 37
Show the data
Bumstead's attendance and party unity against Michigan Senate.
RowBumsteadPeers
Attendance88%95.5%
Party unity86%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

Key votes
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
YeaWith majoritypassD 18–1 · R 13–2Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 2 nayparty 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
Did not vote—passD 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nayparty 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
Did not vote—passD 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nayparty 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
Did not vote—passD 20–0 · R 16–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 naybecame 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
Did not vote—passD 20–0 · R 13–3Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 3 nayparty 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 Bumstead most often

  1. Roger HauckR462 shared votes89%
  2. Pat OutmanR411 shared votes88%
  3. Aric NesbittR462 shared votes87%
  4. Kevin DaleyR430 shared votes87%
  5. Dan LauwersR380 shared votes87%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bumstead least often

  1. Chedrick GreeneD125 shared votes57%
  2. Erika GeissD403 shared votes57%
  3. Jeff IrwinD461 shared votes58%
  4. Sylvia SantanaD389 shared votes58%
  5. Sue ShinkD462 shared votes60%
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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Bumstead sponsored 12 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 34 others. 33% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan Senate average 38%; 22nd of 38).

The bills Bumstead 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

Sponsored12 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1212Sponsored, In committee: 1212Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored34 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 3434Cosponsored, In committee: 3434Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2323Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 1111Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Bumstead sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1212400
Cosponsored343423115
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Bumstead sponsored, ochre blocks bills Bumstead cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

33%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Michigan Senate average 38%. Ranks 22nd of 38.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Bumstead, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Joe Bellino13
  2. John Cherry13
  3. John Damoose13
  4. Michael Webber11
  5. Dan Lauwers11
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 Bumstead’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
SCR 16A concurrent resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Pappageorge, former member of the Michigan Senate and Michigan House of Representatives.CosponsorOct 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026
SR 146A resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Joseph Henry Schwarz, M.D., former member of the Michigan Senate.CosponsorOct 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026
SR 137A resolution to recognize October 8, 2026, as APEX Day.SponsorSep 10, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedADOPTED Sep 10, 2026
SR 136A resolution to designate September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.CosponsorSep 9, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedADOPTED Sep 9, 2026
SB 1083Taxation: administration; calculation of interest and penalties related to the issuance of certain refunds; provide for. Amends sec. 30 of 1941 PA 122 (MCL 205.30).CosponsorJul 1, 2026In committeeTaxation(model)REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jul 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that has not changed in 90 days. Bumstead’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Bumstead’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 Bumstead posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Bumstead posted

No images from Bumstead’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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Bumstead 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
5a58fa81-639b-4304-87ca-7471ba9ade96
Open States
ocd-person/5a58fa81-639b-4304-87ca-7471ba9ade96

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

Back to top