Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, North Carolina’s 12th district

Serving since Nov 12, 2014119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide A000370FEC H4NC12100

Portrait of Alma Adams, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$483.4K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

The median for House Democrats is $2.0M. Ranks 204th of 214, where 1st raised the most. 86 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Adams’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Democrats. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 13% of Adams’s statements use bipartisan language, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 9.8%). 0% of the 31 bills Adams sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats.

The measures on which Adams 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.

Attendance

100%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 10th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Raised, 2026

$483.4K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 204th of 214

Party unity

99.5%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 34th of 217 · 7 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Bipartisanship

13%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 38th of 216

Out of committee

0%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 171st of 207

CSIP ideology

−1.11

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 Adams, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Adams is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Adams says

Adams attacks opponents personally less than 71% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.4% of 505 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 155th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Adams’s 505 statements in the 119th Congress (318 posts on X, 132 press releases, 41 newsletters, 14 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%
Adams
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion388 statements
77%
73%
75th of 216
Credit claiming142 statements
28%
23%
52nd of 216
Policy criticism135 statements
27%
28%
132nd of 216
Bipartisanship67 statements
13%
10%
38th of 216
Personal attacks17 statements
3%
7%
155th of 216
Show the data
Adams's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowAdamsPeers
Policy discussion77%73%
Credit claiming28%23%
Policy criticism27%28%
Bipartisanship13%10%
Personal attacks3%7%
505

statements classified

318 posts on X, 132 press releases, 41 newsletters, 14 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 318 (63.0%)posts on X 318press releases: 132 (26.1%)press releases 132newsletters: 41 (8.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 14 (2.8%)
Show the data
Adams's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X318
press releases132
newsletters41
Congressional Record speeches14
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Adams used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at CBP operation; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”3
  2. “MAGA”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. CBP operation1
  2. MAGA Republicans1
  3. One Big Ugly Bill1
  4. Trump tariffs1
  5. US Customs and Border Patrol1
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: 192025-02: 272025-03: 402025-04: 272025-05: 372025-06: 402025-07: 382025-08: 322025-09: 302025-10: 242025-11: 302025-12: 252026-01: 282026-02: 132026-03: 122026-04: 352026-05: 42026-06: 112026-07: 192026-08: 32026-09: 92026-10: 2peak 40 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 32.1% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 10.5% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.7% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.7% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-01: 32.1% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 47.4% · Jul ’25 · latest 47.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 5.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-02: 29.6% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-03: 27.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-04: 29.6% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-06: 22.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-07: 47.4% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-08: 31.3% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-10: 16.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-11: 30.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.4% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-03: 33.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-04: 28.6% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-06: 45.5% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-07: 47.4% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 94.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 94.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.9% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.4% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-03: 62.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-04: 81.5% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.9% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-06: 82.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-07: 94.7% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-10: 70.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-11: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-12: 84.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-01: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-02: 53.8% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.0% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-04: 88.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-06: 81.8% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-07: 94.7% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 36.4% · Jun ’26 · latest 15.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 14.8% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.4% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.2% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 12.5% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 26.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 16.7% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 20.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 36.4% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 15.8% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 47.4% · Jul ’26 · latest 47.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 42.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-02: 11.1% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-03: 25.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-05: 13.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.7% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-08: 28.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-09: 33.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-10: 8.3% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-11: 26.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-12: 44.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-01: 39.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-02: 15.4% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-04: 28.6% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-06: 45.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-07: 47.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 6.7% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.1% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-11: 6.7% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Adams, 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 ’251910.5%5.3%57.9%10.5%42.1%0.0%
Feb ’25270.0%29.6%70.4%3.7%11.1%0.0%
Mar ’25402.5%27.5%62.5%10.0%25.0%5.0%
Apr ’25273.7%29.6%81.5%14.8%29.6%3.7%
May ’25372.7%16.2%64.9%5.4%13.5%2.7%
Jun ’25405.0%22.5%82.5%10.0%10.0%0.0%
Jul ’25380.0%47.4%94.7%13.2%23.7%0.0%
Aug ’25320.0%31.3%75.0%12.5%28.1%3.1%
Sep ’25300.0%16.7%73.3%26.7%33.3%0.0%
Oct ’25240.0%16.7%70.8%16.7%8.3%0.0%
Nov ’25303.3%30.0%73.3%6.7%26.7%6.7%
Dec ’25250.0%28.0%84.0%12.0%44.0%4.0%
Jan ’262832.1%10.7%71.4%14.3%39.3%0.0%
Feb ’26130.0%15.4%53.8%0.0%15.4%0.0%
Mar ’26120.0%33.3%75.0%8.3%25.0%0.0%
Apr ’26350.0%28.6%88.6%20.0%28.6%0.0%
May ’264— (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 ’26110.0%45.5%81.8%36.4%45.5%0.0%
Jul ’26190.0%47.4%94.7%15.8%47.4%0.0%
Aug ’263— (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 ’269— (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 ’262— (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%. 4 months are hatched here.

In Adams’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Adams Alert: October Newsletter from the Office of Congresswoman Adams [https://9jjxog7ab.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=0fac3ac0-d799-48ef-84c2-1db80befbc2c&a=1129793168698&c=e4891274-3fe7-11f1-bec0-02420a320003&ch=e4937bba-3fe7-11f1-bec0-02420a320003] View as Webpage<https://9jjxog7ab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=…

Oct 6, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Health; Taxation

Personal attacks

Adams Alerts ? -- January 21, 2026 News from Congresswoman Alma Adams [Representative Alma Adams] <https://adamsforms.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=3801-1195239> [Adams Alerts] Rep. Adams Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Kristi Noem Dear Friend, On Wednesday, January…

Jan 21, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Immigration; Law; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Health; target: Kristi Noem

Extreme label

Adams, House Democrats Introduce Resolution Affirming Reproductive Freedom as a Human Right WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12), alongside Representatives Greg Casar (TX-35), Jennifer McClellan (VA-04), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), and Troy Carter (LA-02), joined Congresswoman…

Dec 10, 2025 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Law; International Affairs; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA Republicans · 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. Newsletters

    Adams Alerts ? -- January 21, 2026 News from Congresswoman Alma Adams [Representative Alma Adams] <https://adamsforms.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=3801-1195239> [Adams Alerts] Rep. Adams Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Kristi Noem Dear Friend, On Wednesday, January 14, I joined 70 House Democrats in introducing articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretar…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Immigration · Law · Families · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · target: Kristi Noem

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Kristi NoemSource

  3. 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: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    Rep. Adams Introduces Impeachment Articles Against DHS Sec. Kristi Noem WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (D-NC-12) joined 70 House Democrats in introducing Articles of Impeachment against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem for obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust, and self-dealing. North Carolina has been directly impacted by Sec. Noem’s abuse of power. T…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Law · Emergency Management · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Kristi NoemSource

  5. Press releases

    Rep. Adams Calls for Independent Investigation into ICE Shooting of Minnesota Woman WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12) released a statement calling for an independent investigation into the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by a masked ICE agent during ICE’s siege of Minneapolis. “I am appalled at the video of a masked ICE agent fatally shooting Renee Nicole Good in Minneap…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

All 505 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: 318 posts on X, 132 press releases, 41 newsletters, 14 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Adams talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 63rd 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 Adams talks about. The bills Adams sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Adams talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Adams
Peers
Health119 statements
31%
26%
Education113 statements
29%
10%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues105 statements
27%
13%
Agriculture and Food92 statements
24%
9%
Economics and Public Finance85 statements
22%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Adams talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowAdamsPeers
Health31%26%
Education29%10%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues27%13%
Agriculture and Food24%9%
Economics and Public Finance22%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Adams’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 31% (House Democrats 26%)31%Health, legislates on: 22% (House Democrats 16%)22%EducationEducation, talks about: 29% (House Democrats 10%)29%Education, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 5%)12%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 13%)27%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 5%)7%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 9%)24%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 4%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 20%)22%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%
Show the data
Adams's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health31%26%22%16%
Education29%10%12%5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues27%13%7%5%
Agriculture and Food24%9%12%4%
Economics and Public Finance22%20%0%1%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 63rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Adams sits at −1.11 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 69% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.13 to −1.09, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,049 donors and 6,242 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”.

−1.11

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.13 to −1.09. From 1,049 donors and 6,242 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Adams −1.1House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Adams, 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 Adams’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 Adams sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Adams −1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Adams's CSIP score of −1.11 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Adams
House Democrats217−1.031%
All House439+0.315%
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 Adams 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 Adams.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Adams raised $483.4K in the 2026 cycle, 24% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 14% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 74% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.

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
$483.4K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 86 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): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $102.2K (21.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $16.3K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $16.3K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $16.3K (3.4%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)PACs and other committees: $360.6K (74.8%)Party committees: $3,000 (0.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)21 squares$102.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$16.3K
  • PACs and other committees75 squares$360.6K
  • Party committees1 squares$3,000
Show the data
Sources of Adams's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$102.2K21.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$16.3K3.4%
PACs and other committees$360.6K74.8%
Party committees$3,0000.6%
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: $841.9K$841.9K20202022 cycle: $957.4K$957.4K20222024 cycle: $715.5K$715.5K20242026 cycle: $483.4K$483.4K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Adams's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$841.9K
2022 cycle$957.4K
2024 cycle$715.5K
2026 cycle$483.4K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 74% came from North Carolina.

  1. North Carolina$59.3K
  2. Tennessee$5,000
  3. District of Columbia$3,750
  4. New York$3,500
  5. Puerto Rico$3,000

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%
Adams
Median
2026
14%
13%
2024
17%
13%
2022
11%
13%
2020
15%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowAdamsMedian
2026 cycle14%13%
2024 cycle17%13%
2022 cycle11%13%
2020 cycle15%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,400MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $3,500NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $1,000CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $1,000VAMaryland: $2,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $5,000TNNorth Carolina: $59.3KNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $3,750DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $75GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Adams's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
North Carolina$59.3K
Tennessee$5,000
District of Columbia$3,750
New York$3,500
Maryland$2,500
Montana$1,400
California$1,000
Virginia$1,000
Georgia$75
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
86

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

74%

from North Carolina

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 72%72%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 26%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.2%← More liberalMore conservative →
Show the data
Ideology of Adams's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +0.75: 72% between −1.25 and −1.00, 26% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0072%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7526%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Adams’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Adams’s own score is −1.11.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$16.1K 22 donors
  2. RETIRED$6,150 5 donors
  3. EXECUTIVE$3,650 4 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$3,450 6 donors
  5. PHYSICIAN$2,450 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  2. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  3. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE$10.0K
  4. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Adams voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Adams voted against the majority of House Democrats 7 times.

674 roll calls Adams 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 Adams voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

7

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 34th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Adams
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.9%
10th of 217
Party unity
99.5%
96.4%
34th of 217
Show the data
Adams's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowAdamsPeers
Attendance100%96.9%
Party unity99.5%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
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 Adams most often

  1. Shontel BrownD672 shared votes99%
  2. Jill TokudaD672 shared votes99%
  3. Frederica WilsonD480 shared votes99%
  4. Jasmine CrockettD635 shared votes99%
  5. Richard NealD625 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Adams least often

  1. Chip RoyR634 shared votes16%
  2. Eric BurlisonR642 shared votes17%
  3. Ralph NormanR597 shared votes17%
  4. Andy BiggsR608 shared votes17%
  5. Keith SelfR659 shared votes17%
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

Adams sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 365 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Adams 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3131Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored365 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 365365Cosponsored, In committee: 365365Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Adams sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3131000
Cosponsored365365920
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Adams sponsored, ochre blocks bills Adams 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 Adams, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Eleanor Norton60
  2. Rashida Tlaib36
  3. André Carson33
  4. Frederica Wilson29
  5. Jahana Hayes24
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 Adams’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.Res. 1603Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10530Quality Educator Partnership ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10531Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Centers Act of 2026SponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10513Faith-Based Affordable Housing Predevelopment Fund ActSponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeHousing and Community DevelopmentReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 21, 2026
H.R. 10414Community Health Worker Access ActSponsorSep 16, 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 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 40 times in 90 days. Adams’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Adams posted on Sep 23, 2026.

The lab crawls Adams’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 Adams 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 Adams posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A portrait of an older woman wearing glasses, a pale blue hat with a black band and feather, earrings, and a light blue outfit. Large text and a campaign-style logo appear over the lower portion of the image.
    A portrait of an older woman wearing glasses, a pale blue hat with a black band and feather, earrings, and a light blue outfit. Large text and a campaign-style logo appear over the lower portion of the image.View post
  • A blue political advocacy graphic with a faint domed architectural ceiling in the background. It contains several blocks of white and yellow text about mental health support for people leaving the criminal justice system and expanding a program. A congresswoman's name and North Carolina district appear at the bottom beside a state silhouette.
    A blue political advocacy graphic with a faint domed architectural ceiling in the background. It contains several blocks of white and yellow text about mental health support for people leaving the criminal justice system and expanding a program. A congresswoman's name and North Carolina district appear at the bottom beside a state silhouette.View post
  • A promotional graphic featuring a portrait of an older woman wearing glasses, pearl earrings, and a wide-brimmed lace hat. Text overlays the lower portion of the image, with a congressional campaign-style logo and a state outline at the bottom.
    A promotional graphic featuring a portrait of an older woman wearing glasses, pearl earrings, and a wide-brimmed lace hat. Text overlays the lower portion of the image, with a congressional campaign-style logo and a state outline at the bottom.View post
  • A blue informational graphic with a faint image of the U.S. Capitol dome in the background. It contains prominent white and yellow text about a mental health treatment program and a congresswoman’s name and state silhouette near the bottom.
    A blue informational graphic with a faint image of the U.S. Capitol dome in the background. It contains prominent white and yellow text about a mental health treatment program and a congresswoman’s name and state silhouette near the bottom.View post
  • A blue political infographic about unacceptable conditions in federal prisons, with a faint image of an ornate domed interior in the background and a congressional office logo near the bottom.
    A blue political infographic about unacceptable conditions in federal prisons, with a faint image of an ornate domed interior in the background and a congressional office logo near the bottom.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 Adams 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
A000370
Bioguide
A000370
FEC candidate ids
H4NC12100

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 28, 2026todayImages 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