Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 29, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Labor and Employment; Taxation · Source
$855.9K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State Senate Democrats
The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 22nd of 746, where 1st raised the most. 1,061 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 0% of the 26 bills Corson sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Kansas Senate. The policy areas Corson talks about and legislates on agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Corson 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.
Itemized, 2026
$855.9K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 22nd of 746
Out of committee
0%
Kansas Senate average 18% · ranks 38th of 40
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.41
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 210th of 228
From Kansas, 2026
77%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 600th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Credit claiming
26%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 64th of 329
CSIP ideology
−0.48
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Corson, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Corson is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Corson says
Corson attacks opponents personally less than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 423 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 248th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Corson’s 423 statements in the KS 2025–26 session (423 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 KS 2025–26 session
0%80%
Corson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion228 statements
54%
43%
108th of 329
Credit claiming112 statements
26%
16%
64th of 329
Bipartisanship21 statements
5%
3%
80th of 329
Policy criticism15 statements
4%
10%
227th of 329
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
248th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Corson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 26% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
423
statements classified
423 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 423 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Corson; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Corson does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Corson used no extreme labels in 423 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 KS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 1 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 3 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 72.7% | 9.1% | 54.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.9% | 11.8% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.6% | 15.8% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 32.4% | 5.4% | 10.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 32.0% | 8.0% | 32.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 47.6% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 81.0% | 4.8% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 41.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 60.7% | 3.6% | 39.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 50.0% | 7.1% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.8% | 4.2% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 56.9% | 3.9% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 80 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 76.3% | 5.0% | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 53.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 3 | — (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 | 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) |
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 KS 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%. 8 months are hatched here.
In Corson’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.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 29, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · 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 423 statements
Newest first, the KS 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: 423 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Corson talks about most: 46% of policy statements, 3.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 210th 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 Corson talks about. The bills Corson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Corson talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the KS 2025–26 session
0%50%
Corson
Peers
Education104 statements
46%
15%
Health62 statements
27%
17%
Economics and Public Finance47 statements
21%
10%
Labor and Employment41 statements
18%
6%
Government Operations and Politics25 statements
11%
14%
Show the data
| Row | Corson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 46% | 15% |
| Health | 27% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 10% |
| Labor and Employment | 18% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 14% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Corson’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 50%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 46% | 15% | 14% | 9% |
| Health | 27% | 17% | 5% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 10% | 0% | 3% |
| Labor and Employment | 18% | 6% | 29% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 14% | 10% | 8% |
0.41
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 210th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Corson legislates on exactly the areas Corson 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 Corson sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Corson sits at −0.48 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.52 to −0.44, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,065 donors and 492 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”.
−0.48
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.52 to −0.44. From 2,065 donors and 492 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Corson, 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 Corson’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 Corson sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Kansas Senate39 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Corson |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 75% |
| Kansas Senate | 39 | +0.2 | 13% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 32% |
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 Corson 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 Corson.
Money
Corson reported $855.9K in the 2026 cycle, 15.4 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 77% of itemized individual money came from Kansas.
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.
$855.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1,061 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)95 squares$815.9K
- PACs and other committees5 squares$40.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $815.9K | 95.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $40.0K | 4.7% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $211.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $48.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $232.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $855.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 77% came from Kansas.
- Kansas$626.3K
- District of Columbia$55.0K
- Missouri$42.5K
- New York$20.1K
- Maryland$13.6K
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 |
|---|---|
| Kansas | $626.3K |
| District of Columbia | $55.0K |
| Missouri | $42.5K |
| New York | $20.1K |
| Maryland | $13.6K |
| California | $9,650 |
| Florida | $8,850 |
| Virginia | $8,550 |
| Louisiana | $8,000 |
| New Jersey | $7,413 |
| Illinois | $4,375 |
| Texas | $3,050 |
| North Carolina | $1,200 |
| Massachusetts | $1,000 |
| Kentucky | $960 |
| Colorado | $825 |
| Michigan | $750 |
| Ohio | $730 |
| Washington | $601 |
| Wisconsin | $600 |
| Nebraska | $600 |
| Connecticut | $225 |
| Minnesota | $200 |
| Oklahoma | $200 |
| Montana | $137 |
| Oregon | $100 |
| Nevada | $100 |
| Indiana | $100 |
| Pennsylvania | $100 |
| South Carolina | $100 |
| New Mexico | $70 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
1,061
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
77%
from Kansas
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 Kansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$313.6K 288 donors
- ATTORNEY$163.8K 113 donors
- LAWYER$52.9K 29 donors
- CONSULTANT$23.3K 26 donors
- PHYSICIAN$14.6K 10 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MIDDLE OF THE ROAD PAC$8,000
- IBEW LOCAL 124 VOLUNTARY POLITICAL FUND$4,000
- IRON WORKERS LOCAL NO 10 POL ACTION FUND$4,000
- KANSAS CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION PAC$4,000
- KTLA CONSUMER CIVIL JUSTICE PAC$4,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the KS 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Corson sponsored 26 bills in the KS 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Kansas Senate average 18%; 38th of 40).
The bills Corson sponsored and cosponsored in the KS 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 KS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 26 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Corson sponsored, ochre blocks bills Corson 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
Kansas Senate average 18%. Ranks 38th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Corson, by number of shared bills in the KS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Pat Pettey10
- Dinah Sykes10
- Cindy Holscher8
- Marci Francisco6
- Oletha Faust-Goudeau5
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 Corson’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 479 | Authorizing comprehensive wellness programs for the Kansas highway patrol and Kansas bureau of investigation, permitting law enforcement personnel of other state agencies to participate in such programs and making annual transfers from the state highway fund and the state general fund for the purpos | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 2026 |
| SB 477 | Establishing the Kansas first responder scholarship program to provide postsecondary tuition assistance to certain first responders and dependents of such first responders. | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 2026 |
| SB 478 | Creating a maximum length of time for an agreement between a utility and law enforcement to install law enforcement equipment on a utility pole or structure and increasing the criminal penalties for assault or battery of a utility or communications employee. | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Died on Calendar Apr 10, 2026 |
| SB 456 | Creating the Kansas law enforcement trust fund, establishing the purposes and requirements for such fund and making a transfer from the state general fund to such fund during FY 2027. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 2026 |
| SB 455 | Restoring homestead renters as eligible to participate in certain homestead property tax refund claims. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Died in Committee Apr 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Corson’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Corson’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 Corson posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 27
pages crawled
32changes 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 Corson posted
No images from Corson’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 Corson 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
- 76d729c5-1b4d-4966-8c99-5ac8b74d8719
- Open States
- ocd-person/76d729c5-1b4d-4966-8c99-5ac8b74d8719
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