Mark Alford, U.S. House, Missouri’s 4th district

Republican · U.S. House, Missouri’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide A000379FEC H2MO04207

Official portrait

2.1%

of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans

2.1% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 170th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $1.6M 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 Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. The policy areas Alford talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of House Republicans. 5.0% of Alford’s statements use an extreme label, 1.6 times the House Republican average of 3.0%.

The measures on which Alford sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, 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

2.1%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 170th of 220

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.69

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 47th of 221

Extreme labels

5.0%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 45th of 221

Policy discussion

64%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 161st of 221

From Missouri, 2026

38%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 157th of 216 House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.99

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

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

What Alford says

Alford attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.9% of 3,323 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 124th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Alford’s 3,323 statements in the 119th Congress (3,047 posts on X, 155 press releases, 74 Congressional Record speeches, 47 newsletters) 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%20%40%60%80%

Alford

Peers

Rank

Policy discussion2,119 statements

64%

68%

161st of 221

Credit claiming1,292 statements

39%

37%

102nd of 221

Policy criticism391 statements

12%

15%

151st of 221

Bipartisanship192 statements

137th of 221

Personal attacks31 statements

124th of 221

Show the data

Alford's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row	Alford	Peers
Policy discussion	64%	68%
Credit claiming	39%	37%
Policy criticism	12%	15%
Bipartisanship	6%	9%
Personal attacks	1%	2%

3,323

statements classified

3,047 posts on X, 155 press releases, 74 Congressional Record speeches, 47 newsletters.

Show the data

Alford's statements by source
Part	Value
posts on X	3,047
press releases	155
Congressional Record speeches	74
newsletters	47

How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Alford used extreme labels in 5.0% of statements, above the peer average. 165 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.

“radical”25
“woke”13
“communist”12
“far left”12
“extreme”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

Left47
Democrats28
the Left13
Chuck Schumer3
Schumer3

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

Show the data

Monthly rates for Alford, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column	Statements	Personal attacks	Policy criticism	Policy discussion	Bipartisanship	Credit claiming	Extreme labels
Jan ’25	148	1.4%	12.8%	51.3%	7.4%	36.5%	7.4%
Feb ’25	125	1.6%	13.6%	53.6%	14.4%	38.4%	3.2%
Mar ’25	177	1.7%	11.3%	48.6%	10.2%	29.9%	9.6%
Apr ’25	127	0.0%	7.9%	43.3%	3.1%	29.9%	2.4%
May ’25	155	1.9%	7.1%	53.5%	4.5%	34.8%	3.2%
Jun ’25	159	0.0%	10.1%	60.4%	5.7%	42.1%	1.3%
Jul ’25	126	2.4%	4.8%	49.2%	3.2%	34.9%	6.3%
Aug ’25	119	0.8%	5.9%	41.2%	3.4%	27.7%	0.8%
Sep ’25	135	0.7%	17.8%	61.5%	6.7%	40.0%	12.6%
Oct ’25	231	3.5%	35.5%	60.6%	2.6%	21.2%	17.8%
Nov ’25	134	1.5%	26.9%	61.9%	6.7%	34.3%	14.2%
Dec ’25	88	0.0%	11.4%	65.9%	0.0%	36.4%	1.1%
Jan ’26	143	1.4%	4.2%	87.4%	7.0%	52.4%	2.1%
Feb ’26	197	0.0%	11.2%	55.8%	8.1%	39.1%	5.1%
Mar ’26	158	0.6%	19.6%	71.5%	1.3%	27.2%	7.0%
Apr ’26	182	0.0%	7.1%	79.7%	5.5%	42.3%	1.1%
May ’26	167	0.6%	4.8%	71.9%	10.2%	46.7%	1.2%
Jun ’26	161	0.0%	6.8%	65.2%	5.0%	47.2%	1.9%
Jul ’26	164	0.0%	7.9%	72.0%	8.5%	37.2%	1.8%
Aug ’26	143	0.7%	4.9%	83.9%	0.7%	53.1%	0.0%
Sep ’26	151	0.7%	8.6%	79.5%	4.0%	53.0%	1.3%
Oct ’26	133	0.0%	6.8%	79.0%	6.8%	57.9%	0.0%

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%.

In Alford’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Rep. Mark Alford Newsletter: October 12-23, 2026 Good afternoon MO-04, Before you read any further on our newsletter, to keep up with what we are doing on a daily basis, please follow us on:Facebook: @RepMarkAlfordX: @RepMarkAlfordInstagram: @RepMarkAlford [df]<https://alford.house.gov/components/r…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Energy; Finance and Financial Sector; Transportation and Public Works; Taxation; Labor and Employment; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Economics and Public Finance; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education

Personal attacks

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

Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; target: Chuck Schumer · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “communist” aimed at China · Source

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

Sep 29, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · target: Chuck SchumerSource
Aug 14, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: some doctorsSource
May 1, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · target: Joe BidenSource
Mar 26, 2026Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I need to start with an apology to the minority leader. I wrongly laughed out loud when I heard him say in the well of the floor of the House of Representatives: ``Yes, we will always support securing the border--today, tomorrow, and forever.'' It was an uncontrollable laugh. This is what started all of this: an administration that did not car…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Emergency Management · Government Operations and PoliticsSource
Jan 24, 2026Newsletters
Rep. Mark Alford Newsletter: January 19th - January 25th 2026 Good afternoon MO-04, Before you read any further on our newsletter, to keep up with what we are doing on a daily basis, please follow us on:Facebook: @RepMarkAlfordX: @RepMarkAlfordInstagram: @RepMarkAlfordFIRST, please stay safe during the Winter Weather!! Folks, a major winter storm is expected to move across much of the country starting today, followe…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Immigration · Education · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Boasberg

All 3,323 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: 3,047 posts on X, 155 press releases, 74 Congressional Record speeches, 47 newsletters.

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Alford talks about most: 28% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 47th of 221).

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

What Alford talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%9%18%26%35%

Alford

Peers

Armed Forces and National Security585 statements

28%

24%

Government Operations and Politics393 statements

19%

Economics and Public Finance384 statements

18%

19%

Commerce323 statements

15%

Health319 statements

15%

Show the data

Policy areas Alford talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row	Alford	Peers
Armed Forces and National Security	28%	24%
Government Operations and Politics	19%	19%
Economics and Public Finance	18%	19%
Commerce	15%	9%
Health	15%	15%

How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Alford’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. 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 Republicans averages.

Show the data

Alford's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area	Talks about	House Republicans, talks about	Legislates on	House Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security	28%	24%	9%	8%
Government Operations and Politics	19%	19%	11%	12%
Economics and Public Finance	18%	19%	0%	2%
Commerce	15%	9%	11%	2%
Health	15%	15%	8%	11%

0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 47th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Ideology

Alford sits at +0.99 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 51% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.97 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,108 donors and 1,891 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”.

+0.99

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.97 to +1.02. From 1,108 donors and 1,891 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

The outlined dot is Alford, 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 Alford’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 Alford sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

House Republicans221 · median +1.0

All House439 · median +0.3

Show the data

Alford's CSIP score of +0.99 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group	Officials	Median	Share left of Alford
House Republicans	221	+1.0	48%
All House	439	+0.3	74%

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 Alford 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 Alford.

Money

Alford raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 2.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 38% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.

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.

202620242022

$1.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 518 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$829.6K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$17.9K
PACs and other committees44 squares$699.8K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$52.1K

Show the data

Sources of Alford's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source	Amount	Share
Itemized individual (over $200)	$829.6K	51.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)	$17.9K	1.1%
PACs and other committees	$699.8K	43.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)	$52.1K	3.3%

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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

Show the data

Alford's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item	Value
2022 cycle	$1.0M
2024 cycle	$1.3M
2026 cycle	$1.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 38% came from Missouri.

Missouri$277.7K
Kansas$112.1K
Virginia$56.0K
New York$54.9K
District of Columbia$36.8K

Small donations

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

0%20%40%60%

Alford

Median

2026

2024

2022

Show the data

Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row	Alford	Median
2026 cycle	2%	9%
2024 cycle	6%	9%
2022 cycle	8%	9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Show the data

Alford's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State	Value
Missouri	$277.7K
Kansas	$112.1K
Virginia	$56.0K
New York	$54.9K
District of Columbia	$36.8K
Texas	$34.8K
Florida	$24.3K
California	$13.0K
Maryland	$11.8K
Iowa	$10.0K
Massachusetts	$8,500
Colorado	$8,500
Arizona	$7,000
Tennessee	$5,500
Minnesota	$4,000
North Carolina	$3,750
Nevada	$3,500
Mississippi	$3,500
Illinois	$3,250
Washington	$3,000
Oregon	$3,000
Connecticut	$2,875
Georgia	$2,500
Alaska	$2,000
Indiana	$2,000
Utah	$2,000
South Carolina	$2,000
Idaho	$1,500
Ohio	$1,500
New Mexico	$1,500
Arkansas	$1,500
Oklahoma	$1,500
South Dakota	$1,000
Pennsylvania	$1,000
Nebraska	$1,000
Kentucky	$1,000
Montana	$500
Wisconsin	$500
Michigan	$500
New Jersey	$500
Alabama	$250
Maine	No data
Vermont	No data
New Hampshire	No data
North Dakota	No data
Rhode Island	No data
Wyoming	No data
West Virginia	No data
Delaware	No data
Louisiana	No data
Hawaii	No data

518

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

38%

from Missouri

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

Show the data

Ideology of Alford's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 8.8% between +0.50 and +0.75, 61% between +0.75 and +1.00, 17% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item	Value
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75	0.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50	1.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25	2.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00	2.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25	2.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50	4.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75	8.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00	61%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25	17%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50	0.5%

How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Alford’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Alford’s own score is +0.99.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

CEO$81.1K 23 donors
REAL ESTATE BROKER$70.5K 127 donors
RETIRED$67.4K 38 donors
OWNER$36.7K 17 donors
CONSULTANT$29.0K 21 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
CONSERVATIVE OPPORTUNITY LEADERSHIP AND ENTERPRISE PAC$10.0K
MR. SOUTHERN MISSOURIAN IN THE HOUSE PAC$10.0K
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL PORK PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$8,750 9 donors
HB STRATEGIES$5,500 6 donors
GOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE$2,500 4 donors
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY$2,000 4 donors
HBS$1,750 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Votes

Alford voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed 1.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Alford voted against the majority of House Republicans 18 times.

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

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 152nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%90%100%

Alford

Peers

Rank

Attendance

98.3%

96.3%

92nd of 221

Party unity

97.2%

97.1%

152nd of 221

Show the data

Alford's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row	Alford	Peers
Attendance	98.3%	96.3%
Party unity	97.2%	97.1%

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	Yea	With majority	Passed	D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay	became 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	Yea	With majority	Passed	D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay	close vote
Sep 16, 2026	H.R. 10326 PROOF Act On Passage	Yea	With majority	Passed	D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay	close vote
Sep 16, 2026	H.R. 9576 National Fraud Enforcement Division Act On Passage	Yea	With majority	Passed	D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay	party 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	Yea	With majority	Passed	D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay	became 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 Alford most often

Mike JohnsonR512 shared votes99%
Hal RogersR652 shared votes99%
Mike RogersR642 shared votes99%
Cliff BentzR662 shared votes98%
John MoolenaarR662 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Alford least often

Adelita GrijalvaD384 shared votes23%
Rashida TlaibD647 shared votes25%
Delia RamirezD630 shared votes25%
Dan GoldmanD580 shared votes26%
Gregorio CasarD566 shared votes26%

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

Legislation

Alford sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 201 others. 10% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 134th of 216).

The bills Alford 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

Show the data

Bills Alford sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role	Introduced	In committee	Passed one chamber	Passed both chambers	Became law
Sponsored	29	29	2	0	0
Cosponsored	201	201	19	3	2

How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Alford sponsored, ochre blocks bills Alford cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

10%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 134th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

Tracey Mann19
Pete Stauber14
Brad Finstad12
Michael Lawler11
Sharice Davids11

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 Alford’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

RoleFurthest stagePolicy areaIntroduced in this window

Bills sponsored and cosponsored

H.R. 10745	Yaeli Martinez Child Protection Act	Cosponsor	Oct 5, 2026	In committee	Families	Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and 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 5, 2026
H.R. 10644	Faith and Rural Small Business Act	Sponsor	Oct 1, 2026	In committee	Commerce	Referred to the House Committee on Small Business. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10658	Critical Biomanufacturing Input Assessment Act	Cosponsor	Oct 1, 2026	In committee	Health	Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10556	VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026	Cosponsor	Sep 24, 2026	In committee	Armed Forces and National Security	Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10582	Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act	Cosponsor	Sep 24, 2026	In committee	Taxation	Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026

Online

A site that changed 37 times in 90 days. Alford’s official site had 19 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Alford posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Alford’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 Alford posts with a vision model.

Websites

Official site
alford.house.gov
Last crawled Oct 25, 2026
19
pages crawled
37
changes in 90 days
Campaign site
alfordforcongress.com
Last crawled Oct 25, 2026
5
pages crawled
7
changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Social accounts

Images Alford posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

A political campaign-style graphic showing two men speaking in an indoor office or public building. One man gestures while the other listens. Bold headline text appears across the top, with a campaign logo and additional text at the bottom.Oct 26, 2026View post
A political promotional graphic about rural healthcare, set over a rural field. Blue road signs showing a hospital symbol and a right-pointing arrow stand in the foreground. Large headline and subheadline text fill the top, with logos in the upper-right and lower-right corners.Oct 26, 2026View post
A political graphic overlays a photograph of a long border fence beside a dirt road. Large central lettering highlights a claimed 95% decrease in illegal border crossings compared with the Biden administration. A logo appears at the top, with a source and explanatory statement along the bottom.Oct 26, 2026View post
A congressional casework success graphic with a shield logo, a stylized map background, and a large testimonial panel. The testimonial says a constituent received a Medicaid number and thanks the office for its help. Contact information for three district offices appears along the bottom.Oct 24, 2026View post
A blue-tinted promotional graphic shows a couple standing arm in arm in front of a suburban house. Large headline text is placed across the top and bottom, with a small shield-shaped logo in the upper-right corner.Oct 24, 2026View 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.

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 Alford is most unusual among House Republicans, 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: A000379
Bioguide: A000379
FEC candidate ids: H2MO04207

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

At a glance

What Alford says

Kinds of statement

Extreme labels

Who gets the labels

Month by month

In Alford’s words

Examples by category

All 3,323 statements

Policy

What Alford talks about

Talks about · legislates on

Ideology

Where Alford sits

Money

Where the money came from

Receipts by cycle

Top donor states, 2026

Small donations

Where itemized donors live

Donors’ ideology

Top donor occupations

Top committees

Top employers

Votes

Attendance and party unity

Key votes

Votes most often with

Votes least often with

Full voting record

Legislation

Bills by stage

Cosponsorship partners

Bill list

Online

Websites

Social accounts

Images Alford posted

Methods and sources

The headline

Identifiers

Freshness of this profile’s data

How the measures work