Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Oregon’s 2nd district

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

Bioguide B000668FEC H0OR02127

Portrait of Cliff Bentz, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

0.2% of 412 statements use an extreme label (1 statement); the average for House Republicans is 3.0%. Ranks 204th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Bentz’s posts on X, newsletters, Congressional Record speeches and press releases and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 76% of Bentz’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Oregon, in the top quarter of House Republicans. 5.9% of the 17 bills Bentz sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans.

The measures on which Bentz 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.

Attendance

99.8%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 13th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Extreme labels

0.2%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 204th of 221

From Oregon, 2026

76%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 24th of 216 House Republicans

Out of committee

5.9%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 186th of 216

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.59

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 184th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.86

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bentz says

Bentz stresses bipartisanship less than 71% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 4.9% of 412 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 158th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Bentz’s 412 statements in the 119th Congress (333 posts on X, 51 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches, 12 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%80%
Bentz
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion312 statements
76%
68%
49th of 221
Credit claiming170 statements
41%
37%
84th of 221
Policy criticism66 statements
16%
15%
86th of 221
Bipartisanship20 statements
5%
9%
158th of 221
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
2%
109th of 221
Show the data
Bentz's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBentzPeers
Policy discussion76%68%
Credit claiming41%37%
Policy criticism16%15%
Bipartisanship5%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
412

statements classified

333 posts on X, 51 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches, 12 newsletters.

posts on X: 333 (80.8%)posts on X 333press releases: 51 (12.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 16 (3.9%)newsletters: 12 (2.9%)
Show the data
Bentz's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X333
press releases51
Congressional Record speeches16
newsletters12
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Bentz used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 7.9% of the peer average. 1 statement; peers 3.0%.

    Who gets the labels

    Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

    No targets recorded.

    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: 202025-02: 192025-03: 212025-04: 82025-05: 232025-06: 242025-07: 102025-08: 192025-09: 272025-10: 62025-11: 142025-12: 392026-01: 312026-02: 292026-03: 192026-04: 372026-05: 202026-06: 222026-07: 42026-08: 52026-09: 72026-10: 8peak 39 · Dec ’25Personal attackspeak 7.1% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-02: 5.3% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.3% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.3% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal 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 28.2% · Dec ’25 · latest 13.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 20.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-02: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.3% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-05: 4.3% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-06: 12.5% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-09: 11.1% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.3% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.2% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-01: 19.4% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.2% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-05: 15.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.6% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy 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 90.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 72.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-02: 42.1% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-03: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-05: 60.9% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-06: 87.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-07: 90.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-08: 57.9% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-09: 66.7% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: 57.1% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-12: 89.7% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.9% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-02: 75.9% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-03: 89.5% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-04: 86.5% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-06: 72.7% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy 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 20.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 15.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 20.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.9% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.7% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 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 90.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 45.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 75.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-02: 21.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-05: 17.4% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-06: 29.2% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-07: 90.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-08: 31.6% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-09: 48.1% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: 35.7% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-12: 48.7% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-01: 19.4% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-02: 41.4% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-03: 47.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-04: 46.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-06: 45.5% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit 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 5.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme 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 Bentz, 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 ’25200.0%20.0%75.0%15.0%75.0%0.0%
    Feb ’25195.3%21.1%42.1%0.0%21.1%5.3%
    Mar ’25210.0%14.3%66.7%0.0%33.3%0.0%
    Apr ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
    May ’25234.3%4.3%60.9%0.0%17.4%0.0%
    Jun ’25240.0%12.5%87.5%0.0%29.2%0.0%
    Jul ’25100.0%10.0%90.0%20.0%90.0%0.0%
    Aug ’25195.3%10.5%57.9%0.0%31.6%0.0%
    Sep ’25270.0%11.1%66.7%3.7%48.1%0.0%
    Oct ’256— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
    Nov ’25147.1%14.3%57.1%7.1%35.7%0.0%
    Dec ’25392.6%28.2%89.7%5.1%48.7%0.0%
    Jan ’26310.0%19.4%83.9%0.0%19.4%0.0%
    Feb ’26290.0%17.2%75.9%6.9%41.4%0.0%
    Mar ’26190.0%26.3%89.5%0.0%47.4%0.0%
    Apr ’26370.0%16.2%86.5%2.7%46.0%0.0%
    May ’26200.0%15.0%75.0%10.0%35.0%0.0%
    Jun ’26220.0%13.6%72.7%0.0%45.5%0.0%
    Jul ’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)
    Aug ’265— (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 ’267— (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 ’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)
    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%. 6 months are hatched here.

    In Bentz’s words

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

    Personal attacks

    As Oregon’s Economic Conditions Worsen, Democrats Flounder By Congressman Cliff Bentz (R-OR) WASHINGTON, D.C.– State Representatives Lieber and Sanchez, both of whom represent parts of Portland, wrote earlier this week in the Oregonian newspaper that it's “Trump’s cuts” (in the One Big Beautiful Bil…

    Dec 8, 2025 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Economics and Public Finance; Commerce; Labor and Employment; target: Lieber, Sanchez · Source

    Bipartisanship

    Congressmen Bentz and Goldman Introduce the IMD CARE Act for Patients Suffering from Serious Mental Illnesses WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, Congressman Cliff Bentz (R-OR) and Congressman Dan Goldman (D-NY) introduced the IMD CARE Act, legislation which would expand Medicaid eligibility to include psychia…

    Oct 1, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · Source

    Extreme label

    Bentz Briefing: February 11th, 2025 News from Representative Bentz Dear Friend, This finishes up another week of legislative business in Washington, DC Below you will find some of the interesting things that are happening and have happened. If you would like to see daily updates on my work in Washi…

    Feb 11, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Environmental Protection; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Law; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Water Resources Development; Energy; Commerce; extreme label “extreme”

    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. Press releases

      As Oregon’s Economic Conditions Worsen, Democrats Flounder By Congressman Cliff Bentz (R-OR) WASHINGTON, D.C.– State Representatives Lieber and Sanchez, both of whom represent parts of Portland, wrote earlier this week in the Oregonian newspaper that it's “Trump’s cuts” (in the One Big Beautiful Bill) that are creating a “billion dollar problem for Oregon with no easy solutions”. In the same piece, they assert the im…

      personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · Commerce · Labor and Employment · target: Lieber, SanchezSource

    2. Press releases

      Congressman Bentz's Statement on the Release of the Epstein Files Washington, D.C.– Congressman Cliff Bentz (R-OR) voted YES on H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This bill will require that the Attorney General release, to the public, all documents and records in the possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffery Epstein. Said Congressman Bentz: “The horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffery Ep…

      personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Jeffery EpsteinSource

    3. Press releases

      Congressman Cliff Bentz Responds to Governor Tina Kotek’s Partisan Take on the “One Big Beautiful Bill” WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Cliff Bentz issued the following statement in response to Governor Tina Kotek’s recent comments regarding the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) on SNAP and Medicaid: “Governor Kotek recently discussed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). Her comments are misleading and…

      personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Energy · Health · Immigration · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · target: Tina KotekSource

    4. Posts on X

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

      personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Democrat colleaguesSource

    5. Newsletters

      Bentz Briefing: February 11th, 2025 News from Representative Bentz Dear Friend, This finishes up another week of legislative business in Washington, DC Below you will find some of the interesting things that are happening and have happened. If you would like to see daily updates on my work in Washington DC and Oregon's Second District, please follow us on Facebook HERE! Remarks from Congressman Bentz What some have…

      personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Agriculture and Food · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Environmental Protection · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · Health · Water Resources Development · Energy · Commerce · extreme label “extreme”

    All 412 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: 333 posts on X, 51 press releases, 16 Congressional Record speeches, 12 newsletters.

    Back to topNext: Policy

    Policy

    Public Lands and Natural Resources is what Bentz talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 7.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 184th 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 Bentz talks about. The bills Bentz sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

    What Bentz talks about

    Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

    0%35%
    Bentz
    Peers
    Public Lands and Natural Resources86 statements
    28%
    4%
    Environmental Protection59 statements
    19%
    4%
    Agriculture and Food52 statements
    17%
    9%
    Water Resources Development52 statements
    17%
    3%
    Economics and Public Finance51 statements
    16%
    19%
    Show the data
    Policy areas Bentz talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
    RowBentzPeers
    Public Lands and Natural Resources28%4%
    Environmental Protection19%4%
    Agriculture and Food17%9%
    Water Resources Development17%3%
    Economics and Public Finance16%19%
    How to read the bars

    The thick bar is the share of Bentz’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.

    Talks aboutLegislates onPublic Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 4%)28%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 3%)17%Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Protection, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 4%)19%Environmental Protection, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 3%)10%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 3%)2%Water Resources DevelopmentWater Resources Development, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 3%)17%Water Resources Development, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 0%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
    Show the data
    Bentz's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
    AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
    Public Lands and Natural Resources28%4%17%3%
    Environmental Protection19%4%10%3%
    Agriculture and Food17%9%2%3%
    Water Resources Development17%3%4%0%
    Economics and Public Finance16%19%0%2%
    0.59

    talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

    House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 184th of 221.

    What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

    Back to topNext: Ideology

    Ideology

    Bentz sits at +0.86 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 71% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.84 to +0.88, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,385 donors and 3,170 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”.

    +0.86

    CSIP ideal point

    Approximate range +0.84 to +0.88. From 1,385 donors and 3,170 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

    ← More liberalMore conservative →0Bentz +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

    The outlined dot is Bentz, 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 Bentz’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 Bentz sits

    Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

    −2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Bentz +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
    Show the data
    Bentz's CSIP score of +0.86 placed against House Republicans, All House.
    GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bentz
    House Republicans221+1.029%
    All House439+0.364%
    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 Bentz 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 Bentz.

    Back to topNext: Money

    Money

    Bentz raised $1.3M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 16% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 76% of itemized individual money came from Oregon.

    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
    $1.3M

    raised in the 2026 cycle

    From 258 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): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $508.0K (38.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $94.4K (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)PACs and other committees: $735.0K (55.0%)
    • Itemized individual (over $200)38 squares$508.0K
    • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)7 squares$94.4K
    • PACs and other committees55 squares$735.0K
    Show the data
    Sources of Bentz's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
    SourceAmountShare
    Itemized individual (over $200)$508.0K38.0%
    Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$94.4K7.1%
    PACs and other committees$735.0K55.0%
    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 Republicans’ median for 2026.

    2020 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20202022 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20222024 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20242026 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
    Show the data
    Bentz's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
    ItemValue
    2020 cycle$1.5M
    2022 cycle$1.2M
    2024 cycle$1.1M
    2026 cycle$1.3M

    Top donor states, 2026

    Itemized contributions by donor state. 76% came from Oregon.

    1. Oregon$280.2K
    2. Virginia$24.5K
    3. District of Columbia$14.8K
    4. Maryland$11.0K
    5. California$8,770

    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%60%
    Bentz
    Median
    2026
    16%
    9%
    2024
    12%
    9%
    2022
    12%
    9%
    2020
    17%
    9%
    Show the data
    Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
    RowBentzMedian
    2026 cycle16%9%
    2024 cycle12%9%
    2022 cycle12%9%
    2020 cycle17%9%

    Where itemized donors live

    Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

    Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $5,250WAIdaho: $1,750IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $6,600MINew York: $1,000NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $2,000MAOregon: $280.2KORNevada: $3,500NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,001INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $8,770CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $24.5KVAMaryland: $11.0KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,750AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $1,000ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $500NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $14.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $1,000TXFlorida: $500FL
    Show the data
    Bentz's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
    StateValue
    Oregon$280.2K
    Virginia$24.5K
    District of Columbia$14.8K
    Maryland$11.0K
    California$8,770
    Michigan$6,600
    Washington$5,250
    Nevada$3,500
    Indiana$3,001
    Massachusetts$2,000
    Idaho$1,750
    Arizona$1,750
    New York$1,000
    Colorado$1,000
    Arkansas$1,000
    Texas$1,000
    North Carolina$500
    Louisiana$500
    Georgia$500
    Florida$500
    AlaskaNo data
    MaineNo data
    VermontNo data
    New HampshireNo data
    MontanaNo data
    North DakotaNo data
    MinnesotaNo data
    IllinoisNo data
    WisconsinNo data
    Rhode IslandNo data
    WyomingNo data
    South DakotaNo data
    IowaNo data
    OhioNo data
    PennsylvaniaNo data
    New JerseyNo data
    ConnecticutNo data
    UtahNo data
    NebraskaNo data
    MissouriNo data
    KentuckyNo data
    West VirginiaNo data
    DelawareNo data
    New MexicoNo data
    KansasNo data
    TennesseeNo data
    South CarolinaNo data
    OklahomaNo data
    MississippiNo data
    AlabamaNo data
    HawaiiNo data
    258

    itemized donors

    People who gave more than $200

    76%

    from Oregon

    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 Oregon. 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: 1.5%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 2.4%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 22%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 57%57%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
    Show the data
    Ideology of Bentz's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 5.3% between +0.25 and +0.50, 22% between +0.50 and +0.75, 57% between +0.75 and +1.00.
    ItemValue
    CSIP −1.25 to −1.001.5%
    CSIP −1.00 to −0.752.4%
    CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.1%
    CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.0%
    CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.3%
    CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.3%
    CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.3%
    CSIP +0.50 to +0.7522%
    CSIP +0.75 to +1.0057%
    CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.2%
    How to read the columns

    Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Bentz’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Bentz’s own score is +0.86.

    Top donor occupations

    Itemized, 2026 cycle.

    1. RETIRED$82.5K 54 donors
    2. OWNER$20.5K 12 donors
    3. CONSULTANT$20.1K 19 donors
    4. RANCHER$15.9K 12 donors
    5. PRESIDENT$14.6K 6 donors

    Top committees

    PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

    1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$11.0K
    2. AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
    3. AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
    4. BUILD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (BUILDPAC)$10.0K
    5. KOCH, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC)$10.0K

    Top employers

    Itemized, 2026 cycle.

    1. NATIONAL HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION$3,000 4 donors
    2. ALPINE GROUP$2,500 3 donors
    3. K&L GATES LLP$2,500 4 donors
    4. MIDWATER TRAWLERS COOPERATIVE$2,500 3 donors
    5. STANTON PARK GROUP$1,000 3 donors

    Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

    Back to topNext: Votes

    Votes

    Bentz voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bentz voted against the majority of House Republicans 12 times.

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

    12

    votes against the majority of House Republicans

    Party unity 97.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 137th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

    Attendance and party unity

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

    80%100%
    Bentz
    Peers
    Rank
    Attendance
    99.8%
    96.3%
    13th of 221
    Party unity
    97.4%
    97.1%
    137th of 221
    Show the data
    Bentz's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
    RowBentzPeers
    Attendance99.8%96.3%
    Party unity97.4%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
    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
    YeaWith 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
    YeaWith 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
    YeaWith 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 Bentz most often

    1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes100%
    2. John MoolenaarR671 shared votes99%
    3. Frank LucasR662 shared votes99%
    4. Dale StrongR657 shared votes99%
    5. Robert AderholtR653 shared votes99%

    Votes least often with

    The colleagues who voted the same way as Bentz least often

    1. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes24%
    2. Rashida TlaibD657 shared votes25%
    3. Delia RamirezD640 shared votes26%
    4. Dan GoldmanD589 shared votes27%
    5. Gregorio CasarD574 shared votes27%
    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

    Bentz sponsored 17 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 106 others. 5.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 186th of 216).

    The bills Bentz 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

    Sponsored17 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1717Sponsored, In committee: 1717Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored106 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 106106Cosponsored, In committee: 106106Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2020Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
    Show the data
    Bills Bentz sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
    RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
    Sponsored1717100
    Cosponsored1061062055
    How to read the blocks

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

    5.9%

    of sponsored bills got out of committee

    House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 186th of 216.

    Cosponsorship partners

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

    1. Russ Fulcher12
    2. Dan Newhouse11
    3. Michael Rulli7
    4. Eugene Vindman7
    5. Doug Lamalfa6
    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 Bentz’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. 10647IMD CARE ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
    H.R. 10616Public Access to HHS Health Data Act of 2026SponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Workforce, and Natural Resources, 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. 10621Medicaid Fraud Fighting and Taxpayer Protection ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
    H.R. 10636Medicaid Fraud Prevention ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
    H.R. 9827Wildfire Reduction Market Expansion Act of 2026SponsorJul 22, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Jul 22, 2026

    Back to topNext: Online

    Online

    A site that changed 50 times in 90 days. Bentz’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Bentz posted on Sep 11, 2026.

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

    Websites

    • Official site

      bentz.house.gov

      Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

      32

      pages crawled

      50

      changes in 90 days

    • Campaign site

      cliffbentz.com

      Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

      21

      pages crawled

      5

      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 Bentz posted

    The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

    • A commemorative poster with a dark American flag background, silhouettes of the Twin Towers, and a gold anniversary emblem. Large text is centered on the design.
      A commemorative poster with a dark American flag background, silhouettes of the Twin Towers, and a gold anniversary emblem. Large text is centered on the design.View post
    • Two men talk in a radio studio, surrounded by microphones and recording equipment. Posters hang on the wall, and a closed folder with an emblem rests on the desk. Text is visible on the posters and other items.
      Two men talk in a radio studio, surrounded by microphones and recording equipment. Posters hang on the wall, and a closed folder with an emblem rests on the desk. Text is visible on the posters and other items.View post
    • Two men in suits sit on stools in a television news studio, smiling toward the camera. A small round table with a binder stands between them, and screens behind them display a television station logo. Text is visible on the screens.
      Two men in suits sit on stools in a television news studio, smiling toward the camera. A small round table with a binder stands between them, and screens behind them display a television station logo. Text is visible on the screens.View post
    • A colorful illustration combines a close-up side profile of a Black woman with the Statue of Liberty and a bald eagle in the background. No text is visible.
      A colorful illustration combines a close-up side profile of a Black woman with the Statue of Liberty and a bald eagle in the background. No text is visible.View post
    • Four people pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of framed landscape photos, a framed document, and a wooden state seal. Some text is visible on the wall displays and the visitors’ badges.
      Four people pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of framed landscape photos, a framed document, and a wooden state seal. Some text is visible on the wall displays and the visitors’ badges.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 Bentz 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
    B000668
    Bioguide
    B000668
    FEC candidate ids
    H0OR02127

    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