The median for State House Republicans is $33.7K. Ranks 109th of 2,521, where 1st raised the most. 113 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 71% of the 31 bills Dunmoyer sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of the Texas House. Dunmoyer voted against the majority of Texas House Republicans 271 times; party unity 68%, in the bottom quarter of the Texas House (average 85%).
The measures on which Dunmoyer sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 109th of 2,521
Out of committee
Texas House average 49% · ranks 12th of 145
Party unity
Texas House average 85% · ranks 123rd of 143 · 271 votes against the majority of Texas House Republicans
From Texas, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1705th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 360th of 504
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 63% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Dunmoyer, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Dunmoyer is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Dunmoyer attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 176 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Dunmoyer’s 176 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (176 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the TX 2025–26 session
| Row | Dunmoyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 34% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
176 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 176 |
The thick bar is Dunmoyer; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Dunmoyer does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Dunmoyer used no extreme labels in 176 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the TX 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 7 | — (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 ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 8.3% | 41.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 44.4% | 11.1% | 38.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 15.4% | 46.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 10.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 8 | — (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 ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 8 | — (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 | 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) |
| Feb ’26 | 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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Jun ’26 | 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) |
| Jul ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 | 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) |
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 TX 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%. 15 months are hatched here.
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.
Aug 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Agriculture and Food; Education · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 3, 2025 · 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.
Oct 16, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Commerce; Families · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
Newest first, the TX 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 176 posts on X.
Education is what Dunmoyer talks about most: 35% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 360th of 504).
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 Dunmoyer talks about. The bills Dunmoyer sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
| Row | Dunmoyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 35% | 15% |
| Emergency Management | 17% | 3% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 12% | 18% |
| Health | 12% | 10% |
The thick bar is the share of Dunmoyer’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.
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 39%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 35% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
| Emergency Management | 17% | 3% | 8% | 1% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% | 6% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 12% | 18% | 4% | 12% |
| Health | 12% | 10% | 13% | 10% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 360th of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Dunmoyer legislates on exactly the areas Dunmoyer 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 Dunmoyer sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Dunmoyer sits at +0.28 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 63% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.23 to +0.32, which understates the uncertainty; from 253 donors and 280 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 +0.23 to +0.32. From 253 donors and 280 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Dunmoyer, 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 Dunmoyer’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Dunmoyer |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 37% |
| Texas House | 148 | +0.3 | 51% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 65% |
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 Dunmoyer 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 Dunmoyer.
Dunmoyer reported $382.3K in the 2026 cycle, 11.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 89% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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 113 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $291.2K | 76.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $91.1K | 23.8% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Itemized contributions, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $832.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $382.3K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 89% came from Texas.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $258.2K |
| Pennsylvania | $15.6K |
| Colorado | $7,709 |
| Connecticut | $6,042 |
| Florida | $1,542 |
| Minnesota | $1,000 |
| Maryland | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Texas
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Dunmoyer voted with the majority of Texas House Republicans on 68% of party-line votes and missed 7.0% of 3,711 roll calls. Texas House on average: 85% party unity, 93.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Dunmoyer voted against the majority of Texas House Republicans 271 times.
3,711 roll calls Dunmoyer could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas 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 Dunmoyer voted with the majority of Texas House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Texas House Republicans
Party unity 68%, Texas House average 85%, ranks 123rd of 143. 3,711 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Dunmoyer, the thin grey bar the Texas House average. The scale runs from 60% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Dunmoyer | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 93.0% | 93.1% |
| Party unity | 68% | 85% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. adopt the conference committee report on SB 5. | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 86–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 45–1 · R 41–41Democrats 45 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 41 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Dunmoyer most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Dunmoyer least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Dunmoyer sponsored 31 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 12 became law. Cosponsored 74 others. 71% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas House average 49%; 12th of 145).
The bills Dunmoyer sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Counts for the TX 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 22 | 13 | 12 |
| Cosponsored | 74 | 69 | 42 | 33 | 25 |
Ink blocks are bills Dunmoyer sponsored, ochre blocks bills Dunmoyer 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
Texas House average 49%. Ranks 12th of 145.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Dunmoyer, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Dunmoyer’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 128 | Amending the House Rules of Procedure to authorize additional constitutionally compliant, proportional penalties for members absent without leave for purpose of impeding the action of the House that do not unfairly impair members' representative functions. | Cosponsor | Aug 29, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| HB 298 | Relating to a vacancy in the office of senator or representative due to excessive absence. | Cosponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred to State Affairs Aug 26, 2025 |
| HB 295 | Relating to election procedures regarding accepting a voter with a residence address that is not current and the immediate effect of a voter's registration after the registrar's receipt of certain change of address notices. | Cosponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Reported favorably w/o amendment(s) Aug 28, 2025 |
| HCR 13 | Urging the federal government to take immediate action to curb the spread of the New World screwworm in Texas. | Cosponsor | Aug 22, 2025 | Became law | Agriculture and Food(model) | Signed by the Governor Sep 17, 2025 |
| HB 291 | Relating to medical school admissions, coursework, academic standards, and employment decisions in this state. | Cosponsor | Aug 22, 2025 | Introduced | Education(model) | Filed Aug 22, 2025 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Dunmoyer’s campaign site had 2 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Dunmoyer’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 Dunmoyer posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
No images from Dunmoyer’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Dunmoyer is most unusual among State House 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
