100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Tennessee. Ranks 392nd of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 73 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Tennessee, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against the Tennessee House. 58% of the 24 bills Baum sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Tennessee House. Baum reported $93.2K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Baum sits furthest from the middle of the Tennessee House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
Tennessee House average 99.1% · ranks 9th of 97 · 4,290 roll calls
From Tennessee, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Out of committee
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 76th of 97
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 563rd of 2,521
Party unity
Tennessee House average 96.3% · ranks 25th of 97 · 12 votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 62% of State House Republicans · ± 0.03
Peer group: Tennessee House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Baum, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Baum is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Baum says
No statements for the TN 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the TN 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Baum sits at +0.28 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 62% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.25 to +0.32, which understates the uncertainty; from 247 donors and 1,130 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 +0.25 to +0.32. From 247 donors and 1,130 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Baum, 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 Baum’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 Baum sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Baum |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 38% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 30% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 66% |
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 Baum 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 Baum.
Money
Baum reported $93.2K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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 Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)23 squares$21.2K
- PACs and other committees77 squares$71.9K
- Party committees$100
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $21.2K | 22.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $71.9K | 77.1% |
| Party committees | $100 | 0.1% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $134.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $116.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $124.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $93.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$21.2K
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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $21.2K |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$5,600 25 donors
- HOMEMAKER$2,050 9 donors
- CONSULTANT$1,850 3 donors
- REAL ESTATE AGENT$1,200 4 donors
- COUNTY COMMISSIONER$500 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LAWYERS INVOLVED FOR TN$6,500
- HCA TRISTAR FUND$5,000
- TENNESSEE BANKERS ASSN PAC$5,000
- TENNESSEANS FOR STUDENT SUCCESS ACTION$3,000
- MIDDLE TENNESSEE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR COMMON SENSE$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (NHC)$1,350 3 donors
- RUTHERFORD COUNTY$850 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Baum voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed none of 4,290 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Baum voted against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans 12 times.
4,290 roll calls Baum could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 Baum voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Party unity 98.9%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 25th of 97. 4,290 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Baum, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Baum | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 98.9% | 96.3% |
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 TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HJR 8 Memorials, Death - U.S. Senator James Ralph Sasser - FLOOR VOTE: REFER TO COMMITTEE 5/6/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–18 · R 66–1Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1209 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Max Christopher Collins, Salutatorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1240 Memorials, Interns - Aaron Sullivan - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 3 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1208 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Christopher Heath Foster, Valedictorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Baum most often
- Dave WrightR4,068 shared votes100%
- Jeff BurkhartR1,983 shared votes100%
- Tim HicksR4,284 shared votes100%
- Bill PowersR4,174 shared votes100%
- William SlaterR4,268 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Baum least often
- Justin PearsonD2,385 shared votes72%
- Gabby SalinasD3,535 shared votes79%
- Justin JonesD3,617 shared votes82%
- Shaundelle BrooksD4,067 shared votes82%
- Aftyn BehnD4,095 shared votes82%
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
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Baum sponsored 24 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 11 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 58% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 76th of 97).
The bills Baum sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 20 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Baum sponsored, ochre blocks bills Baum cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 76th of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Baum, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Baum’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 2408 | Telecommunications - As enacted, requires a person or entity that makes telephone solicitations using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver artificial or prerecorded voice messages to residential subscribers in this state to maintain a record of the number of such telephone solicitations | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | Became law | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Pub. Ch. 1029 May 26, 2026 |
| HB 2151 | Regional Authorities and Special Districts - As introduced, requires notice to be published on the governing body's website for at least two weeks prior to the date set for a hearing on whether to create an airport authority. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 31; Title 7, Chapter 51; Title 42, Chapter 4 | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Introduced | Transportation and Public Works(model) | P2C, caption bill, held on desk - pending amdt. Feb 5, 2026 |
| HB 2155 | Evidence - As introduced, states that in certain civil actions a licensed nurse practitioner or licensed physician assistant who is properly qualified as an expert witness may testify as to certain medical findings. - Amends TCA Title 24; Title 29, Chapter 26 and Title 50, Chapter 6. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Taken off notice for cal in s/c Civil Justice Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee Mar 11, 2026 |
| HB 2158 | Tobacco, Tobacco Products - As introduced, establishes the "Tobacco Product Retail Licensing Act," under which the alcoholic beverage commission is required to license and regulate tobacco product retailers. - Amends TCA Title 39; Title 43; Title 47; Title 57; Title 67 and Title 68. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Sponsor(s) Added. Feb 26, 2026 |
| HB 2156 | Taxes, Exemption and Credits - As enacted, revises law relative to a financial institution applying for a credit against the sum total of the taxes imposed by the Franchise Tax law and by the Excise Tax law. - Amends TCA Title 67. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Pub. Ch. 1009 May 26, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Baum’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Baum’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 Baum posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H37Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Baum posted
No images from Baum’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 Baum is most unusual among Tennessee House, 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
- 7c874269-afdd-4d41-a9da-b0ddb903bb6f
- Open States
- ocd-person/7c874269-afdd-4d41-a9da-b0ddb903bb6f
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