Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Massachusetts’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide A000148FEC H0MA04192

Portrait of Jake Auchincloss, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.5%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

1.5% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 204th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $3.9M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 4.7% of Auchincloss’s statements use an extreme label, 2.5 times the House Democrat average of 1.9%. 38% of Auchincloss’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 28%).

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

Small donations, 2026

1.5%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 204th of 214

Extreme labels

4.7%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 12th of 216

Policy criticism

38%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 25th of 216

Bipartisanship

16%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 25th of 216

Credit claiming

14%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 189th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.85

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Auchincloss says

Auchincloss attacks opponents personally more than 84% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 12% of 723 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 33rd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Auchincloss’s 723 statements in the 119th Congress (605 posts on X, 55 newsletters, 43 press releases, 20 Congressional Record speeches) 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Auchincloss
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion497 statements
69%
73%
163rd of 216
Policy criticism278 statements
38%
28%
25th of 216
Bipartisanship117 statements
16%
10%
25th of 216
Credit claiming98 statements
14%
23%
189th of 216
Personal attacks86 statements
12%
7%
33rd of 216
Show the data
Auchincloss's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowAuchinclossPeers
Policy discussion69%73%
Policy criticism38%28%
Bipartisanship16%10%
Credit claiming14%23%
Personal attacks12%7%
723

statements classified

605 posts on X, 55 newsletters, 43 press releases, 20 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 605 (83.7%)posts on X 605newsletters: 55 (7.6%)press releases: 43 (5.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 20 (2.8%)
Show the data
Auchincloss's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X605
newsletters55
press releases43
Congressional Record speeches20
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Auchincloss; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Auchincloss does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Auchincloss used extreme labels in 4.7% of statements, 2.5 times the peer average. 34 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”24
  2. “communist”8
  3. “radical”8
  4. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA9
  2. GOP1
  3. MAGA approach1
  4. MAHA1
  5. MassHealth proposal1
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 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 932025-02: 852025-03: 512025-04: 462025-05: 352025-06: 452025-07: 342025-08: 352025-09: 292025-10: 222025-11: 192025-12: 202026-01: 202026-02: 162026-03: 382026-04: 262026-05: 422026-06: 252026-07: 172026-08: 82026-09: 112026-10: 6peak 93 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 25.0% · Feb ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 15.0% of 93Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.1% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-03: 13.7% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-04: 23.9% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-05: 8.6% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-06: 20.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-07: 14.7% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-08: 11.4% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.5% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-11: 15.8% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-12: 10.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-01: 10.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-02: 25.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-03: 7.9% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-04: 23.1% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-05: 7.1% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-06: 8.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 54.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 27.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 43.0% of 93Policy criticism, 2025-02: 41.2% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-03: 45.1% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-04: 30.4% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-05: 48.6% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-06: 35.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-07: 44.1% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-08: 40.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-09: 41.4% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-10: 54.5% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-11: 26.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-12: 35.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-02: 31.3% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-03: 42.1% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-04: 30.8% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-05: 30.9% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-06: 48.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-07: 35.3% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 27.3% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 88.5% · Apr ’26 · latest 81.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 72.0% of 93Policy discussion, 2025-02: 61.2% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-03: 72.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.4% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.7% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.9% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-08: 62.9% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-09: 58.6% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-10: 72.7% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-11: 52.6% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-12: 85.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-02: 68.8% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-03: 55.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-04: 88.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.5% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.8% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 35.0% · Dec ’25 · latest 18.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 16.1% of 93Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 15.3% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 13.7% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 19.6% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.4% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 13.3% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 14.7% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 17.1% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.1% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 35.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 15.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 31.3% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 13.2% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 15.4% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 14.3% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 23.5% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 18.2% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 40.0% · Dec ’25 · latest 27.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 19.4% of 93Credit claiming, 2025-02: 8.2% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-03: 7.8% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-04: 15.2% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-05: 5.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-06: 4.4% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-07: 11.8% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-08: 17.1% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-09: 6.9% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-10: 18.2% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-11: 10.5% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-12: 40.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-01: 10.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-02: 25.0% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-03: 5.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-04: 11.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-05: 11.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-06: 20.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-07: 17.6% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 27.3% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 22.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.1% of 93Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.5% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-03: 7.8% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-04: 10.9% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-05: 11.4% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-06: 6.7% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.7% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.3% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-10: 22.7% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-11: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.6% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.9% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Auchincloss, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’259315.0%43.0%72.0%16.1%19.4%2.1%
Feb ’25857.1%41.2%61.2%15.3%8.2%3.5%
Mar ’255113.7%45.1%72.5%13.7%7.8%7.8%
Apr ’254623.9%30.4%67.4%19.6%15.2%10.9%
May ’25358.6%48.6%65.7%11.4%5.7%11.4%
Jun ’254520.0%35.6%68.9%13.3%4.4%6.7%
Jul ’253414.7%44.1%70.6%14.7%11.8%0.0%
Aug ’253511.4%40.0%62.9%17.1%17.1%5.7%
Sep ’25293.5%41.4%58.6%13.8%6.9%10.3%
Oct ’25220.0%54.5%72.7%9.1%18.2%22.7%
Nov ’251915.8%26.3%52.6%10.5%10.5%5.3%
Dec ’252010.0%35.0%85.0%35.0%40.0%0.0%
Jan ’262010.0%5.0%85.0%15.0%10.0%0.0%
Feb ’261625.0%31.3%68.8%31.3%25.0%0.0%
Mar ’26387.9%42.1%55.3%13.2%5.3%2.6%
Apr ’262623.1%30.8%88.5%15.4%11.5%3.9%
May ’26427.1%30.9%66.7%14.3%11.9%0.0%
Jun ’26258.0%48.0%64.0%12.0%20.0%0.0%
Jul ’26170.0%35.3%76.5%23.5%17.6%0.0%
Aug ’268— (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 ’26110.0%27.3%81.8%18.2%27.3%0.0%
Oct ’266— (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 119th Congress, 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%. 2 months are hatched here.

In Auchincloss’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Credit claiming

Auchincloss, Griffith Introduce Faster Clinical Trials Act WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Morgan Griffith (R-VA) released the Faster Clinical Trials Act. The proposal would speed the development of new treatments, invest in clinical research, and propel U.S. leadership i…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Science, Technology, Communications; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; International Affairs · Source

Personal attacks

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Calley Means · Source

Extreme label

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Apr 30, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Housing and Community Development; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Calley MeansSource

  2. Newsletters

    An Update from Your Congressman | | | | LAST THREE WEEKS IN REVIEW | | Good morning. I'm your Representative in Congress, and I write to keep you informed. | | | | | | | Working inside & outside Congress to protect midterm election integrity and conduct oversight | | | Zoom Town Hall with Rep. Joe Morelle: For the last year, constituents have been raising concerns about the integrity of the midterms. The president t…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Water Resources Development · Taxation · Health · Transportation and Public Works · Economics and Public Finance · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Labor and Employment · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Families · Law · Education · Environmental Protection · Armed Forces and National Security · Science, Technology, Communications · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · target: Donald Trump

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituent, Gerry Rovner, I include in the Record the following resolution, which was passed during the 2026 Needham Special Town Meeting by voice vote: Whereas, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, written by John Adams, helped shape the United States Constitution and enshrines core principles of American governance, including separation of powers, checks and balances,…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Newsletters

    An Update from Your Congressman | | | | LAST TWO WEEKS IN REVIEW | | Good morning. I'm your Representative in Congress, and I write to keep you informed. I wish you a meaningful Memorial Day. | | | | | | | FDA commissioner out; RFK Jr. next | | | Last week, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary resigned under pressure. I've been pressing for his ouster for months; the agency responsible for re…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · Commerce · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Education · Transportation and Public Works · Immigration · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Donald Trump

  5. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: presidentSource

All 723 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

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: 605 posts on X, 55 newsletters, 43 press releases, 20 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Auchincloss talks about most: 42% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 184th of 216).

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 Auchincloss talks about. The bills Auchincloss sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Auchincloss talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%46%
Auchincloss
Peers
Health209 statements
42%
26%
International Affairs111 statements
22%
8%
Science, Technology, Communications103 statements
21%
6%
Armed Forces and National Security101 statements
20%
16%
Government Operations and Politics95 statements
19%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Auchincloss talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowAuchinclossPeers
Health42%26%
International Affairs22%8%
Science, Technology, Communications21%6%
Armed Forces and National Security20%16%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Auchincloss’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House 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 46%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 42% (House Democrats 26%)42%Health, legislates on: 32% (House Democrats 16%)32%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 8%)22%International Affairs, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 8%)17%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 6%)21%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 5% (House Democrats 2%)5%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 16%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 7%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 20%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 5% (House Democrats 11%)5%
Show the data
Auchincloss's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health42%26%32%16%
International Affairs22%8%17%8%
Science, Technology, Communications21%6%5%2%
Armed Forces and National Security20%16%1%7%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%5%11%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 184th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Auchincloss legislates on exactly the areas Auchincloss 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 Auchincloss sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Auchincloss sits at −0.85 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 69% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.87 to −0.83, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,298 donors and 2,844 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”.

−0.85

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.87 to −0.83. From 3,298 donors and 2,844 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Auchincloss −0.8House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Auchincloss, 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 Auchincloss’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 Auchincloss sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Auchincloss −0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Auchincloss's CSIP score of −0.85 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Auchincloss
House Democrats217−1.069%
All House439+0.334%
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 Auchincloss 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 Auchincloss.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Auchincloss raised $3.9M in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 1.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 50% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.

Election cycle
$3.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,035 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.4M (60.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $35.7K (0.9%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)PACs and other committees: $897.3K (22.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $621.3K (15.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)60 squares$2.4M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$35.7K
  • PACs and other committees23 squares$897.3K
  • Party committees$2,000
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)16 squares$621.3K
Show the data
Sources of Auchincloss's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.4M60.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$35.7K0.9%
PACs and other committees$897.3K22.8%
Party committees$2,0000.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$621.3K15.8%
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20202022 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20222024 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M20242026 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Auchincloss's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.9M
2022 cycle$3.1M
2024 cycle$3.5M
2026 cycle$3.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from Massachusetts.

  1. Massachusetts$1.2M
  2. New York$340.2K
  3. California$277.8K
  4. Florida$152.2K
  5. Illinois$91.4K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.

0%60%
Auchincloss
Median
2026
1%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
2%
13%
2020
4%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowAuchinclossMedian
2026 cycle1%13%
2024 cycle1%13%
2022 cycle2%13%
2020 cycle4%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $14.0KMEVermont: $1,500VTNew Hampshire: $11.4KNHWashington: $2,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $91.4KILWisconsin: $2,500WIMichigan: $1,000MINew York: $340.2KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $1.2MMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $12.5KNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,500INOhio: $3,500OHPennsylvania: $8,000PANew Jersey: $45.0KNJConnecticut: $57.5KCTCalifornia: $277.8KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $3,518CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $9,760VAMaryland: $37.8KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $2,000KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $11.0KTNNorth Carolina: $3,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $31.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $5,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $5,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $27.8KTXFlorida: $152.2KFL
Show the data
Auchincloss's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Massachusetts$1.2M
New York$340.2K
California$277.8K
Florida$152.2K
Illinois$91.4K
Connecticut$57.5K
New Jersey$45.0K
Maryland$37.8K
District of Columbia$31.8K
Texas$27.8K
Maine$14.0K
Nevada$12.5K
New Hampshire$11.4K
Tennessee$11.0K
Virginia$9,760
Pennsylvania$8,000
Louisiana$5,000
Georgia$5,000
Colorado$3,518
Indiana$3,500
Ohio$3,500
North Carolina$3,000
Wisconsin$2,500
Washington$2,000
Kansas$2,000
Vermont$1,500
Arizona$1,500
Michigan$1,000
Rhode Island$1,000
AlaskaNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,035

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

50%

from Massachusetts

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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.3%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 5.6%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 60%60%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 12%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 8.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 7.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Auchincloss's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 5.6% between −1.25 and −1.00, 60% between −1.00 and −0.75, 12% between −0.75 and −0.50, 8.2% between −0.50 and −0.25, 7.9% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.3%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.005.6%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7560%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5012%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.258.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.007.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Auchincloss’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Auchincloss’s own score is −0.85.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$496.8K 160 donors
  2. CEO$224.2K 74 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$145.6K 103 donors
  4. INVESTOR$128.1K 48 donors
  5. RETIRED$82.9K 55 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA PAC (SHIELD PAC)$10.0K
  4. CONQUERING CANCER PAC$10.0K
  5. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BAIN CAPITAL$62.0K 11 donors
  2. KKR$26.5K 7 donors
  3. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE$20.1K 25 donors
  4. MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL$19.3K 4 donors
  5. KECHES LAW GROUP$18.8K 14 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Auchincloss voted with the majority of House Democrats on 95.3% of party-line votes and missed 4.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Auchincloss voted against the majority of House Democrats 27 times.

674 roll calls Auchincloss could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Auchincloss voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

27

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 95.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 170th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Auchincloss, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Auchincloss
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.8%
96.9%
173rd of 217
Party unity
95.3%
96.4%
170th of 217
Show the data
Auchincloss's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowAuchinclossPeers
Attendance95.8%96.9%
Party unity95.3%96.4%
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 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Auchincloss most often

  1. Eric SwalwellD290 shared votes97%
  2. Kelly MorrisonD643 shared votes97%
  3. William KeatingD623 shared votes97%
  4. Bill FosterD641 shared votes97%
  5. Salud CarbajalD640 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Auchincloss least often

  1. Chip RoyR612 shared votes19%
  2. Ralph NormanR575 shared votes19%
  3. Keith SelfR632 shared votes20%
  4. Eric BurlisonR617 shared votes20%
  5. Josh BrecheenR622 shared votes20%
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

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Auchincloss sponsored 13 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 234 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Auchincloss sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress

Sponsored13 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1313Sponsored, In committee: 1313Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored234 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 234234Cosponsored, In committee: 234234Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1313Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Auchincloss sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1313000
Cosponsored2342341310
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Auchincloss sponsored, ochre blocks bills Auchincloss 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

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Auchincloss, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Eugene Vindman18
  2. Eleanor Norton15
  3. Josh Gottheimer14
  4. Brian Fitzpatrick13
  5. Seth Moulton13
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 Auchincloss’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
H.R. 10857To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Public Health Service Act to advance the next-generation of clinical development of novel treatments and cures, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10832IRAN ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10628Biosimilars Access and Affordability ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10600Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 92 times in 90 days. Auchincloss’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Auchincloss posted on Oct 9, 2026.

The lab crawls Auchincloss’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 Auchincloss 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.

Images Auchincloss posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • People are gathered inside a formal hall, with a woman and a man talking in the foreground. An Israeli flag stands to the left, and colorful stained-glass windows are visible on the right. There is a small sign in the background.
    People are gathered inside a formal hall, with a woman and a man talking in the foreground. An Israeli flag stands to the left, and colorful stained-glass windows are visible on the right. There is a small sign in the background.View post
  • A group of people converse inside a chapel or religious gathering space, with colorful stained-glass windows in the background. A man in a blue suit faces a woman in a light-colored top in the foreground, while others stand or sit nearby. No prominent text is visible.
    A group of people converse inside a chapel or religious gathering space, with colorful stained-glass windows in the background. A man in a blue suit faces a woman in a light-colored top in the foreground, while others stand or sit nearby. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • People talk together at an indoor event. A woman gestures while speaking with a man in a suit, with other attendees nearby. An Israeli flag and a presentation screen are visible in the background; the screen contains text.
    People talk together at an indoor event. A woman gestures while speaking with a man in a suit, with other attendees nearby. An Israeli flag and a presentation screen are visible in the background; the screen contains text.View post
  • A photograph of a public talk or event in a synagogue auditorium. Two speakers sit onstage beneath a large screen showing them, with audience members in the foreground and an Israeli flag beside the stage. A caption appears across the bottom.
    A photograph of a public talk or event in a synagogue auditorium. Two speakers sit onstage beneath a large screen showing them, with audience members in the foreground and an Israeli flag beside the stage. A caption appears across the bottom.View post
  • A group of adults and children stand among rows of chairs in what appears to be a meeting or ceremony. Several people have a hand over their chest. Some chairs have printed signs attached; text is visible.
    A group of adults and children stand among rows of chairs in what appears to be a meeting or ceremony. Several people have a hand over their chest. Some chairs have printed signs attached; text is visible.View post
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.

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

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
A000148
Bioguide
A000148
FEC candidate ids
H0MA04192

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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

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