Serving since 2023. No measure in the AK 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Time in the current office, from the official record.
At a glance
3 measures against State Senate Republicans. 90% of Rauscher’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Alaska, in the bottom half of State Senate Republicans. Rauscher sits at +0.45 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 64% of State Senate Republicans. Rauscher reported $54.3K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which Rauscher sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Alaska, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 571st of 860 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 64% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.06
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 441st of 936
Statements
Bills sponsored
and 13 cosponsored
In office since
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rauscher, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rauscher is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Rauscher says
No statements for the AK 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the AK 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Rauscher sits at +0.45 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 64% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.39 to +0.52, which understates the uncertainty; from 162 donors and no roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.39 to +0.52. From 162 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Rauscher, 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 Rauscher’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 Rauscher sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Rauscher |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 64% |
| Alaska Senate | 20 | −0.1 | 85% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +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 Rauscher 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 Rauscher.
Money
Rauscher reported $54.3K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from Alaska.
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 107 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)89 squares$48.3K
- PACs and other committees1 squares$500
- Party committees10 squares$5,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $48.3K | 88.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $500 | 0.9% |
| Party committees | $5,500 | 10.1% |
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 | $26.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $13.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $9,894 |
| 2026 cycle | $54.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from Alaska.
- Alaska$43.5K
- New Jersey$2,060
- Texas$1,545
- District of Columbia$1,030
- Idaho$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Alaska | $43.5K |
| New Jersey | $2,060 |
| Texas | $1,545 |
| District of Columbia | $1,030 |
| Idaho | $100 |
| Ohio | $50 |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Pennsylvania | 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Alaska
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 Alaska. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$11.4K 29 donors
- SELF EMPLOYED$1,698 5 donors
- LEGISLATIVE STAFF$1,163 4 donors
- LEGISLATOR$1,053 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MAT SU REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CLUB EST 1947 GAMING ACCOUNT$2,000
- ALASKA REPUBLICANS INC$1,000
- MATSU REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CLUB$1,000
- VALLEY REPUBLICAN WOMEN$1,000
- PAC SEAFOOD PROC ASS PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STATE OF ALASKA$2,948 14 donors
- SOA$1,670 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AK 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Rauscher sponsored 4 bills in the AK 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 13 others.
The bills Rauscher sponsored and cosponsored in the AK 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 AK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 13 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Rauscher sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rauscher cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rauscher, by number of shared bills in the AK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mike Cronk12
- Cathy Tilton12
- Jesse Bjorkman10
- Matt Claman9
- Rob Yundt9
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 Rauscher’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 271 | An Act relating to abortion; relating to civil enforcement of abortion laws; relating to abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat; and amending Rules 3 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 508, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure. | Sponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | (S) COSPONSOR(S): TILTON, CRONK, MYERS Feb 25, 2026 |
| HJR 38 | Urging the United States Congress to recognize public safety telecommunicators as first responders; and urging the United States Congress to pass the Enhancing First Response Act. | Cosponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Emergency Management(model) | (H) PERMANENTLY FILED 9/22 LEGIS RESOLVE 29 Sep 30, 2026 |
| SB 249 | An Act relating to virtual currency kiosks; relating to transactions involving virtual currency; relating to unfair trade or deceptive acts or practices; and providing for an effective date. | Cosponsor | Feb 18, 2026 | Became law | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF LAW 10/1/26 Jul 16, 2026 |
| SB 243 | An Act removing devices designed, made, or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm from the definition of 'prohibited weapon.' | Cosponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | (S) Minutes (SSTA) May 2, 2026 |
| SB 239 | An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle licensing examinations; relating to the registration and titling of legally imported motor vehicles; relating to proof of financial responsibility for suspension for nonpayment of judgments; and providing for an effective date. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Became law | Transportation and Public Works(model) | (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF LAW SEE CHAPTER Jul 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Rauscher’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Rauscher’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 Rauscher posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 11
pages crawled
5changes 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 Rauscher posted
No images from Rauscher’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
11 turns, Feb 11, 2026 to May 20, 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 Rauscher is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. That is the case for Rauscher in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 627922d3-e631-4c32-841f-148f061b0c75
- Open States
- ocd-person/627922d3-e631-4c32-841f-148f061b0c75
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