Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 23, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Missouri Senate
0% of 36 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Missouri Senate is 11%. Ranks 33rd of 33, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Webber sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Missouri Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 3.6% of Webber’s statements use an extreme label, 4.3 times the State Senate Democrat average of 0.8%. 1.8% of Webber’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats (average 16%).
The measures on which Webber sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
0%
Missouri Senate average 11% · ranks 33rd of 33
Extreme labels
3.6%
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 26th of 329
Credit claiming
1.8%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 303rd of 329
Personal attacks
7.2%
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 31st of 329
Policy discussion
17%
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 296th of 329
CSIP ideology
−0.67
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.08
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Webber, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Webber is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Webber says
Webber claims credit less than 91% of State Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 1.8% of 499 statements, against 16% for the average State Senate Democrat; 303rd of 329.
An AI model reads each of Webber’s 499 statements in the MO 2025–26 session (499 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Webber
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion87 statements
17%
43%
296th of 329
Policy criticism37 statements
7%
10%
173rd of 329
Personal attacks36 statements
7%
2%
31st of 329
Credit claiming9 statements
2%
16%
303rd of 329
Bipartisanship2 statements
0%
3%
253rd of 329
Show the data
| Row | Webber | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 17% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
499
statements classified
499 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 499 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Webber; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Webber does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Webber used extreme labels in 3.6% of statements, 4.3 times the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 0.8%.
- “MAGA”12
- “far right”1
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA10
- Republicans2
- Freedom Caucus1
- Missouri1
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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 53 | 5.7% | 1.9% | 3.8% | 0.0% | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 8.0% | 4.0% | 8.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% | 4.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 17 | 5.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 28 | 3.6% | 10.7% | 10.7% | 3.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 60 | 5.0% | 1.7% | 5.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 12 | 8.3% | 16.7% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 31 | 9.7% | 16.1% | 22.6% | 3.2% | 6.5% | 9.7% |
| Oct ’25 | 20 | 10.0% | 10.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 16.7% | 8.3% | 4.2% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 47 | 2.1% | 12.8% | 38.3% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 20 | 5.0% | 10.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 15.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 23 | 26.1% | 13.0% | 13.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.7% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 11 | 9.1% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 9 | — (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 | 9 | — (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 | 44 | 6.8% | 2.3% | 34.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.4% |
| Oct ’26 | 21 | 14.3% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
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 MO 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%. 4 months are hatched here.
In Webber’s words
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.
Jan 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Labor and Employment · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Mitt RomneySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: outgoing SenatorsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · target: George BushSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
All 499 statements
Newest first, the MO 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: 499 posts on X.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Webber talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 8.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 209th of 228).
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 Webber talks about. The bills Webber sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Webber talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MO 2025–26 session
0%35%
Webber
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security24 statements
28%
3%
Economics and Public Finance19 statements
22%
10%
Government Operations and Politics16 statements
18%
14%
Education9 statements
10%
15%
International Affairs9 statements
10%
1%
Show the data
| Row | Webber | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 28% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 14% |
| Education | 10% | 15% |
| International Affairs | 10% | 1% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Webber’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Democrats. 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 28% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 10% | 8% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 14% | 3% | 8% |
| Education | 10% | 15% | 6% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 10% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
0.41
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 209th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Webber legislates on exactly the areas Webber 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 Webber sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Webber sits at −0.67 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 54% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.75 to −0.60, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,764 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”.
−0.67
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.75 to −0.60. From 1,764 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Webber, 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 Webber’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 Webber sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Missouri Senate33 · median +0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Webber |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 46% |
| Missouri Senate | 33 | +0.5 | 3% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 20% |
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 Webber 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 Webber.
Money
Webber reported $71.2K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 72% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.
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.
$71.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 28 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)11 squares$7,968
- PACs and other committees89 squares$63.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,968 | 11.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $63.2K | 88.8% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $684.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $71.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 72% came from Missouri.
- Missouri$5,775
- Maryland$2,000
- Texas$100
- Washington$80
- Puerto Rico$10
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 |
|---|---|
| Missouri | $5,775 |
| Maryland | $2,000 |
| Texas | $100 |
| Washington | $80 |
| Minnesota | $3 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
28
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
72%
from Missouri
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 Missouri. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$2,173 11 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY PAC MISSOURI - FEDERAL COMMITTEE$2,500
- POL PAC$2,500
- AGC OF MO PAC$2,400
- HAHN DEBOEF PAC$2,400
- HBS MO STATE PAC$2,400
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the MO 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Webber sponsored 36 bills in the MO 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 1 other. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Missouri Senate average 11%; 33rd of 33).
The bills Webber sponsored and cosponsored in the MO 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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 36 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Webber sponsored, ochre blocks bills Webber cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Missouri Senate average 11%. Ranks 33rd of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Webber, by number of shared bills in the MO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Brian Williams2
- Patty Lewis1
- Maggie Nurrenbern1
- Mary Elizabeth Coleman1
- Doug Beck1
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 Webber’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 1793 | Creates the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor and creates an income tax deduction for compensation as a first responder | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Second Read and Referred S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee May 7, 2026 |
| SB 1795 | Creates provisions relating to biomarker testing | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Second Read and Referred S Families, Seniors and Health Committee May 7, 2026 |
| SB 1794 | Modifies provisions relating to long-term care facilities | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Second Read and Referred S Families, Seniors and Health Committee May 7, 2026 |
| SB 1792 | Modifies provisions relating to certain convention and sports complex funds | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Second Read and Referred S Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy & the Environment Committee May 7, 2026 |
| SB 1696 | Authorizes the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri to own or operate health care facilities | Sponsor | Feb 19, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Second Read and Referred S General Laws Committee Apr 16, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Webber’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Webber’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 Webber posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 4
pages crawled
3changes 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 Webber posted
No images from Webber’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Webber is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, 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
- 63dea1c8-8916-4ca8-8821-223a7fef95a9
- Open States
- ocd-person/63dea1c8-8916-4ca8-8821-223a7fef95a9
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