Skip to content

Republican · Vermont House, district Addison-Rutland

Serving since Jan 8, 2025VT 2025–26 session

Portrait of Jim Casey, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$4,190
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans

The median for State House Republicans is $33.7K. Ranks 2221st of 2,521, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.

Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.

At a glance

2 measures against State House Republicans. 71% of the 65 bills Casey sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Vermont House.

The measures on which Casey sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Itemized, 2026

$4,190

State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 2221st of 2,521

Out of committee

71%

Vermont House average 62% · ranks 38th of 150

Statements

No statements in this window

Bills sponsored

65

and 0 cosponsored

In office since

2025

Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Casey, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Casey is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Casey says

No statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Not placed on the scale.

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”.

No CSIP score.No CSIP score: this official is not matched to a recipient in the current CSIP run (too few roll calls and donors to place them on the scale).

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.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Casey reported $4,190 in the 2026 cycle, 12% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total.

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.

Election cycle
$4,190

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 0 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.

PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)PACs and other committees: $1,700 (40.6%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)Party committees: $2,490 (59.4%)
  • PACs and other committees41 squares$1,700
  • Party committees59 squares$2,490
Show the data
Sources of Casey's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
PACs and other committees$1,70040.6%
Party committees$2,49059.4%
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $1,500$1,50020242026 cycle: $4,190$4,1902026State House Republicans median $33.7K
Show the data
Casey's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$1,500
2026 cycle$4,190

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state.

No itemized donors with an address.

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Casey's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
0

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

No itemized individual money.

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 Vermont. 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.

  1. RUTLAND COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$2,040
  2. SCOTT, PHIL$1,000
  3. COMMON SENSE LEADERSHIP PAC$500
  4. ADDISON COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$250
  5. CANFIELD, WILLIAM PAUL$200

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

No roll-call votes for the VT 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Casey sponsored 65 bills in the VT 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 71% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Vermont House average 62%; 38th of 150).

The bills Casey sponsored and cosponsored in the VT 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 VT 2025–26 session

Sponsored65 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6565Sponsored, In committee: 6363Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 4646Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored0 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 00Cosponsored, In committee: 00Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Casey sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored65634600
Cosponsored00000
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Casey sponsored, ochre blocks bills Casey cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

71%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Vermont House average 62%. Ranks 38th of 150.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Casey, by number of shared bills in the VT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Zak Harvey9
  2. Bill Canfield8
  3. Terry Williams6
  4. Greg Burtt6
  5. V.L. Coffin6
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 Casey’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
HCR 307House concurrent resolution honoring Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie of Hartford for his inspirational civic leadership and extending future best wishesSponsorMay 21, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedCeremonial Reading May 26, 2026
HCR 297House concurrent resolution honoring Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Director of Fisheries Eric Palmer and extending future best wishesSponsorMay 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedAdopted pursuant to Joint Rule 16b May 15, 2026
HCR 303House concurrent resolution extending best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to the indomitable Representative Anne de la Blanchetai Donahue of NorthfieldSponsorMay 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedCeremonial Reading May 19, 2026
HCR 301House concurrent resolution recognizing May 2026 as National Foster Care Month in VermontSponsorMay 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedAdopted pursuant to Joint Rule 16b May 15, 2026
HCR 305House concurrent resolution honoring former Representative Francis Matthew (Topper) McFaun for his exemplary public and community serviceSponsorMay 14, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedCeremonial Reading May 21, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Casey’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Casey’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 Casey posts with a vision model.

Websites

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 Casey posted

No images from Casey’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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Casey is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
6fd23933-f800-459e-a608-bf8690dbf5f9
Open States
ocd-person/6fd23933-f800-459e-a608-bf8690dbf5f9

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

Back to top