The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 35th of 746, where 1st raised the most. 760 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.
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Scarcella-Spanton sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats. Scarcella-Spanton voted against the majority of New York Senate Democrats 189 times; party unity 95.2%, in the bottom half of the New York Senate (average 93.2%).
The measures on which Scarcella-Spanton 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
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 35th of 746
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Party unity
New York Senate average 93.2% · ranks 41st of 62 · 189 votes against the majority of New York Senate Democrats
Out of committee
New York Senate average 44% · ranks 41st of 62
From New York, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 444th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Attendance
New York Senate average 94.5% · ranks 24th of 62 · 3,522 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Scarcella-Spanton, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Scarcella-Spanton is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Scarcella-Spanton criticizes policies less than 91% of State Senate Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 29 statements, against 10% for the average State Senate Democrat; 304th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Scarcella-Spanton’s 29 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (29 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the NY 2025–26 session
| Row | Scarcella-Spanton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 59% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 52% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
29 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 29 |
The thick bar is Scarcella-Spanton; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Scarcella-Spanton does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Scarcella-Spanton used no extreme labels in 29 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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.
Share of statements per month, the NY 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (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 ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 81.8% | 0.0% | 72.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% |
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 NY 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%. 20 months are hatched here; 15 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Labor and Employment · Source
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.
Newest first, the NY 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 29 posts on X.
Families is what Scarcella-Spanton talks about most: 24% of policy statements, 4.7 times the peer share. Peers give it 5.0%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Scarcella-Spanton talks about. The bills Scarcella-Spanton sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
| Row | Scarcella-Spanton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Families | 24% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 3% |
| Commerce | 18% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 8% |
| Health | 18% | 17% |
The thick bar is the share of Scarcella-Spanton’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.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Families | 24% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 3% | 12% | 1% |
| Commerce | 18% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 8% | 15% | 9% |
| Health | 18% | 17% | 18% | 15% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Scarcella-Spanton legislates on exactly the areas Scarcella-Spanton 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 Scarcella-Spanton sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Scarcella-Spanton sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.43 to −0.35, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,585 donors and 596 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 −0.43 to −0.35. From 1,585 donors and 596 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Scarcella-Spanton, 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 Scarcella-Spanton’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Scarcella-Spanton |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 84% |
| New York Senate | 62 | −0.5 | 56% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 37% |
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 Scarcella-Spanton 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 Scarcella-Spanton.
Scarcella-Spanton reported $650.7K in the 2026 cycle, 11.7 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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 760 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $242.5K | 37.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $404.8K | 62.2% |
| Party committees | $3,500 | 0.5% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $628.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $679.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $650.7K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from New York.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $217.5K |
| New Jersey | $17.3K |
| Massachusetts | $3,250 |
| Connecticut | $2,600 |
| South Carolina | $500 |
| California | $350 |
| District of Columbia | $350 |
| Pennsylvania | $250 |
| Maryland | $161 |
| Texas | $150 |
| Tennessee | $11 |
| 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 |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from New York
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Scarcella-Spanton voted with the majority of New York Senate Democrats on 95.2% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 3,522 roll calls. New York Senate on average: 93.2% party unity, 94.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Scarcella-Spanton voted against the majority of New York Senate Democrats 189 times.
3,522 roll calls Scarcella-Spanton could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York Senate. 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 Scarcella-Spanton voted with the majority of New York Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of New York Senate Democrats
Party unity 95.2%, New York Senate average 93.2%, ranks 41st of 62. 3,522 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Scarcella-Spanton, the thin grey bar the New York Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Scarcella-Spanton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.4% | 94.5% |
| Party unity | 95.2% | 93.2% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | R 2355 Establishes a plan setting forth an itemized list of grantees for a certain appropriation for the 2026-27 state fiscal year for additional grants in aid to certain school districts, public libraries Floor Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 15–7Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 7 nay | party crossover |
| Jun 4, 2026 | A 11538 Extends the expansion of eligibility for World Trade Center death and disability benefits for members of New York's organized militia Floor Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 22–0Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 4, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 8–14Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 14 nay | party crossover | |
| Jun 4, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 22–0Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 4, 2026 | S 10223 Authorizes the South End Children's Cafe to file an application for a retroactive real property tax exemption with the city of Albany assessor Floor Vote - Version: A | Yea | With majority | pass | D 37–1 · R 21–1Democrats 37 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 1 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Scarcella-Spanton most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Scarcella-Spanton least often
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.
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Scarcella-Spanton sponsored 242 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 9 became law. Cosponsored 584 others. 38% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York Senate average 44%; 41st of 62).
The bills Scarcella-Spanton sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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.
Counts for the NY 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 242 | 242 | 53 | 13 | 9 |
| Cosponsored | 584 | 584 | 337 | 37 | 15 |
Ink blocks are bills Scarcella-Spanton sponsored, ochre blocks bills Scarcella-Spanton 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
New York Senate average 44%. Ranks 41st of 62.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Scarcella-Spanton, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Scarcella-Spanton’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S 10711 | Requires certain physicians or other authorized practitioners to offer prenatal testing for antiphospholipid syndrome | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | REFERRED TO RULES Sep 30, 2026 |
| S 10685 | Enacts the "Fostering Optimal Classroom Use of Screens (FOCUS) act" to limit use of internet enabled devices and prioritize non-digital teaching methods | Cosponsor | Aug 21, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | REFERRED TO RULES Aug 21, 2026 |
| S 10654 | Relates to controlling and abusive litigation | Sponsor | Jun 4, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | REFERRED TO RULES Jun 4, 2026 |
| S 10653 | Authorizes the Chabad of Sea Gate to receive retroactive real property tax exempt status | Sponsor | Jun 3, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | REFERRED TO RULES Jun 3, 2026 |
| S 10632 | Prohibits the use of intoxication of the victim as a defense in sex crimes | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | REFERRED TO CODES Jun 4, 2026 |
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Scarcella-Spanton’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Scarcella-Spanton’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 Scarcella-Spanton posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Scarcella-Spanton’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
141 turns, Jan 24, 2023 to Jun 3, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Scarcella-Spanton 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
