Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Finance and Financial Sector · Source
$404.7K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, the highest of 46 Nonpartisan state legislators
The median for Nonpartisan state legislators is $10.9K. Ranks 1st of 46, where 1st raised the most. 89 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among Nonpartisan state legislators. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
4 measures against Nonpartisan state legislators. 49% of the 37 bills Gillern sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). 96% of Gillern’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Nebraska, in the bottom half of Nonpartisan state legislators.
The measures on which Gillern sits furthest from the middle of Nonpartisan state legislators, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$404.7K
Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K · ranks 1st of 46
Out of committee
49%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37% · ranks 10th of 47
From Nebraska, 2026
96%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 28th of 40 Nonpartisan state legislators
Attendance
98.5%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 95.5% · ranks 16th of 49 · 1,770 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.19
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Statements
26
26 posts on X
Peer group: Nonpartisan state legislators. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gillern, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gillern is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gillern says
Gillern stresses bipartisanship less than any other Nonpartisan state legislator. Bipartisanship in 0% of 26 statements, against 3.2% for the average Nonpartisan state legislator; 6th of 6.
An AI model reads each of Gillern’s 26 statements in the NE 2025–26 session (26 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 Nonpartisan state legislators and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NE 2025–26 session
0%80%
Gillern
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion15 statements
58%
41%
2nd of 6
Policy criticism7 statements
27%
16%
1st of 6
Credit claiming6 statements
23%
17%
2nd of 6
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
1%
5th of 6
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
6th of 6
Show the data
| Row | Gillern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 58% | 41% |
| Policy criticism | 27% | 16% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 17% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 1% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
26
statements classified
26 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 26 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gillern; the thin grey bar is the average Nonpartisan state legislators. A longer thick bar means Gillern does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gillern used no extreme labels in 26 statements. The peer average is 0.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the NE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 ’25 | 2 | — (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 ’25 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 35.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (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 ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the NE 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 19 of them have no statements.
In Gillern’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 21, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 26 statements
Newest first, the NE 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 26 posts on X.
Policy
Taxation is what Gillern talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 2.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 16%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Gillern talks about. The bills Gillern sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gillern talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NE 2025–26 session
0%44%
Gillern
Peers
Taxation6 statements
40%
16%
Education5 statements
33%
17%
Health5 statements
33%
36%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
7%
14%
Finance and Financial Sector1 statements
7%
1%
Show the data
| Row | Gillern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 40% | 16% |
| Education | 33% | 17% |
| Health | 33% | 36% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 7% | 14% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 7% | 1% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gillern’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Nonpartisan state legislators. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the Nonpartisan state legislators averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Nonpartisan state legislators, talks about | Legislates on | Nonpartisan state legislators, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 40% | 16% | 33% | 9% |
| Education | 33% | 17% | 0% | 9% |
| Health | 33% | 36% | 0% | 14% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 7% | 14% | 13% | 7% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 7% | 1% | 4% | 2% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gillern legislates on exactly the areas Gillern 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 Gillern sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gillern sits at +0.19 on the CSIP scale, right of 0. Approximate range +0.15 to +0.23, which understates the uncertainty; from 133 donors and 543 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”.
+0.19
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.15 to +0.23. From 133 donors and 543 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gillern, 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 Gillern’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 Gillern sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Nonpartisan state legislators49 · median +0.2
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan)49 · median +0.2
All Unicameral legislature62 · median 0.0
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gillern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonpartisan state legislators | 49 | +0.2 | 51% |
| Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) | 49 | +0.2 | 51% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 61% |
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 Gillern 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 Gillern.
Money
Gillern reported $404.7K in the 2026 cycle, 37.2 times the Nonpartisan state legislators’ median of $10.9K. State filings report no small-donation total. 96% of itemized individual money came from Nebraska.
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.
$404.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 89 itemized donors. Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)47 squares$190.9K
- PACs and other committees53 squares$213.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $190.9K | 47.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $213.8K | 52.8% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the Nonpartisan state legislators’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $124.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $76.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $404.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 96% came from Nebraska.
- Nebraska$182.4K
- Arizona$6,000
- Florida$2,000
- District of Columbia$500
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 |
|---|---|
| Nebraska | $182.4K |
| Arizona | $6,000 |
| Florida | $2,000 |
| District of Columbia | $500 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | 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 |
| Texas | No data |
89
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
96%
from Nebraska
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 Nebraska. 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.
- NEBRASKA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY PAC$35.0K
- AGC HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PAC$20.0K
- NEBRASKA BANKERS STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$13.2K
- NEBRASKA REALTORS PAC$13.0K
- GREATER OMAHA CHAMBER PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gillern missed 1.4% of 1,770 roll calls. Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average attendance 95.5%.
1,770 roll calls Gillern could vote on in the NE 2025–26 session, compared with Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). 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 Gillern voted with the majority of Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,770
roll calls
No party, so no party-line measures. Attendance 98.5%, ranks 16th of 49.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gillern, the thin grey bar the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gillern
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
95.5%
16th of 49
Party unity
—
—
Show the data
| Row | Gillern | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.5% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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 NE 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2026 | LB 929 Provide for managed care organizations to pay the deductible, cost sharing, or similar charges on behalf of medicaid enrollees Fredrickson MO586 failed | Nay | — | fail | O 22–26Others 22 yea, 26 nay | close vote |
| Apr 17, 2026 | Nay | — | fail | O 23–22Others 23 yea, 22 nay | close vote | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 49–0Others 49 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 48–1Others 48 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | LB 955 Provide for practice agreements between pharmacists and physician assistants Passed on Final Reading 47-2*-0 | Yea | — | pass | O 47–2Others 47 yea, 2 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillern most often
- John ArchO1,358 shared votes98%
- Bob HallstromO1,360 shared votes98%
- Robert DoverO997 shared votes98%
- Rita SandersO1,279 shared votes98%
- Rick HoldcroftO1,455 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillern least often
- Megan HuntO958 shared votes66%
- Terrell McKinneyO1,080 shared votes67%
- Danielle ConradO1,144 shared votes67%
- Machaela CavanaughO996 shared votes69%
- Margo JuarezO1,315 shared votes74%
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
NE 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gillern sponsored 37 bills in the NE 2025–26 session; 13 became law. Cosponsored 3 others. 49% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%; 10th of 47).
The bills Gillern sponsored and cosponsored in the NE 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 NE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 37 | 37 | 18 | 18 | 13 |
| Cosponsored | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gillern sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gillern cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
49%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%. Ranks 10th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gillern, by number of shared bills in the NE 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bob Hallstrom1
- Bob Andersen1
- Carolyn Bosn1
- Barry DeKay1
- Teresa Ibach1
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 Gillern’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LB 803A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Presented to Governor on April 10, 2026 Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1165A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Presented to Governor on April 10, 2026 Apr 17, 2026 |
| LR 445 | Interim study to examine the sales tax revenue remittance process under the Good Life District Economic Development Act | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Revenue Committee Mar 30, 2026 |
| LB 901A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Provisions/portions of LB901A amended into LB1209 by rules suspension Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 1110A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Indefinitely postponed Apr 17, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Gillern’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gillern’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 Gillern posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/landing-pages/index.php?District=4Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 24
pages crawled
31changes 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 Gillern posted
No images from Gillern’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
1,772 turns, Feb 14, 2023 to Apr 9, 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 Gillern is most unusual among Nonpartisan state legislators, 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
- 63d2956a-a0be-40db-a0e3-6c32743951ab
- Open States
- ocd-person/63d2956a-a0be-40db-a0e3-6c32743951ab
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