Serving since 2026. No measure in the PA 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Time in the current office, from the official record.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Democrats. Mazzocco sits at −0.71 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 64% of State House Democrats. Mazzocco reported $65.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). 90% of Mazzocco’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the bottom half of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Mazzocco sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 64% of State House Democrats · ± 0.13
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 775th of 2,082
From Pennsylvania, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1164th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Party unity
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 91st of 203 · 2 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Attendance
Pennsylvania House average 99.9% · ranks 96th of 203 · 719 roll calls
Statements
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Mazzocco, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mazzocco is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Mazzocco says
No statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Mazzocco sits at −0.71 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 64% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.84 to −0.59, which understates the uncertainty; from 73 donors and 122 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 −0.84 to −0.59. From 73 donors and 122 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mazzocco, 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 Mazzocco’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 Mazzocco sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mazzocco |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 36% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 16% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 16% |
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 Mazzocco 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 Mazzocco.
Money
Mazzocco reported $65.1K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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 73 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)23 squares$15.3K
- PACs and other committees65 squares$42.1K
- Party committees12 squares$7,743
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $15.3K | 23.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $42.1K | 64.7% |
| Party committees | $7,743 | 11.9% |
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, 2026 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | $65.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$13.8K
- California$701
- Florida$500
- Arkansas$100
- Delaware$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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $13.8K |
| California | $701 |
| Florida | $500 |
| Maryland | $100 |
| Delaware | $100 |
| Arkansas | $100 |
| 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | 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 |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. 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.
- PA DEMOCRATIC PARTY$5,243
- PSEA-PACE FOR STATE ELECTIONS$5,000
- AFT PA$4,000
- ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC DELEGATION$2,500
- LAWPAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Mazzocco voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed none of 719 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mazzocco voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 2 times.
719 roll calls Mazzocco could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Mazzocco voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 99.0%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 91st of 203. 719 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Mazzocco, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Mazzocco | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 99.0% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mazzocco most often
- Kyle MullinsD719 shared votes100%
- Mandy SteeleD719 shared votes100%
- Dan GoughnourD719 shared votes100%
- Eddie PashinskiD719 shared votes100%
- Bridget Malloy KosierowskiD719 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mazzocco least often
- Wendy FinkR719 shared votes43%
- Scott BargerR719 shared votes47%
- Jamie WalshR719 shared votes55%
- Stephanie BorowiczR719 shared votes57%
- Joe HammR719 shared votes60%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Mazzocco sponsored 4 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 62 others.
The bills Mazzocco sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 62 | 62 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Mazzocco sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mazzocco 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 Mazzocco, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Ben Sanchez33
- Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz21
- Nikki Rivera21
- Ben Waxman20
- Carol Hill-Evans19
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 Mazzocco’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2860 | An Act amending the act of February 9, 1999 (P.L.1, No.1), known as the Capital Facilities Debt Enabling Act, in capital facilities, further providing for definitions and for administration of redevelopment assistance capital projects. | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Referred to Commerce Oct 19, 2026 |
| HB 2846 | An Act amending Title 12 (Commerce and Trade) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for open notice for mergers and transactions affecting public safety. | Cosponsor | Oct 7, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Referred to Veterans Affairs & Emergency Preparedness Oct 7, 2026 |
| HB 2808 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous articles, further providing for sale or transfer of firearms, for Pennsylvania State Police and for licensing of dealers and providing for security cameras, for lost and stolen f | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary Sep 28, 2026 |
| HB 2807 | A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, repealing provisions relating to uniformity of taxation. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Finance Sep 28, 2026 |
| HB 2805 | An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, providing for growing, retaining and elevating accomplished teachers; and imposing duties on the Department of Education. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Referred to Education Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
The lab crawls Mazzocco’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 Mazzocco posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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
No social accounts on file.
Images Mazzocco posted
No images from Mazzocco’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 Mazzocco is most unusual among State House 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. That is the case for Mazzocco in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 65b852b7-0c73-487d-aaf4-2b6648fa6383
- Open States
- ocd-person/65b852b7-0c73-487d-aaf4-2b6648fa6383
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