Skip to content

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

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

Bioguide B000825FEC H0CO03165

Portrait of Lauren Boebert, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
96%
of House Republicans score to the left of Boebert on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +1.47 (approximate range +1.46 to +1.49, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 9,164 donors and 2,781 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Boebert sits among House Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 46% of Boebert’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%). The policy areas Boebert talks about and legislates on agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of House Republicans.

The measures on which Boebert 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.

CSIP ideology

+1.47

More conservative than 96% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Small donations, 2026

46%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 16th of 220

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.72

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 17th of 221

Personal attacks

3.7%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 43rd of 221

Policy discussion

62%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 171st of 221

Attendance

95.5%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 169th of 221 · 674 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Boebert says

Boebert attacks opponents personally more than 80% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 3.7% of 873 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 43rd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Boebert’s 873 statements in the 119th Congress (587 posts on X, 121 newsletters, 103 press releases, 62 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Boebert
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion545 statements
62%
68%
171st of 221
Credit claiming320 statements
37%
37%
120th of 221
Policy criticism145 statements
17%
15%
78th of 221
Bipartisanship72 statements
8%
9%
96th of 221
Personal attacks32 statements
4%
2%
43rd of 221
Show the data
Boebert's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBoebertPeers
Policy discussion62%68%
Credit claiming37%37%
Policy criticism17%15%
Bipartisanship8%9%
Personal attacks4%2%
873

statements classified

587 posts on X, 121 newsletters, 103 press releases, 62 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 587 (67.2%)posts on X 587newsletters: 121 (13.9%)press releases: 103 (11.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 62 (7.1%)
Show the data
Boebert's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X587
newsletters121
press releases103
Congressional Record speeches62
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Boebert used extreme labels in 4.2% of statements, above the peer average. 37 statements, most often aimed at Biden agenda; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”20
  2. “woke”6
  3. “extreme”4
  4. “MAGA”2
  5. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden agenda2
  2. radical left2
  3. America First1
  4. bill1
  5. Court expansion1
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: 382025-02: 322025-03: 372025-04: 312025-05: 322025-06: 252025-07: 302025-08: 172025-09: 352025-10: 182025-11: 152025-12: 262026-01: 192026-02: 692026-03: 862026-04: 542026-05: 322026-06: 432026-07: 632026-08: 512026-09: 662026-10: 54peak 86 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 13.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.6% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-02: 6.3% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-03: 8.1% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.2% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.6% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-11: 13.3% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.9% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.3% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-03: 9.3% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-04: 7.4% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.2% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.5% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 54Policy criticismpeak 31.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 9.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 31.6% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-02: 31.3% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-03: 27.0% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-04: 29.0% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.3% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-06: 24.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-07: 26.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-08: 17.6% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.3% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-10: 11.1% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.3% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-12: 15.4% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-02: 8.7% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-03: 10.5% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-05: 18.8% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-06: 27.9% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-07: 7.9% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.9% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-09: 28.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-10: 9.3% of 54Policy discussionpeak 90.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 88.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.7% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-02: 81.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-03: 67.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-04: 74.2% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-06: 52.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-07: 66.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-08: 52.9% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-09: 51.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-10: 55.6% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-11: 33.3% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-12: 84.6% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-01: 57.9% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-02: 31.9% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-03: 27.9% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-04: 61.1% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.9% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-06: 65.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-07: 44.4% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.2% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-09: 89.4% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-10: 88.9% of 54Bipartisanshippeak 26.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 13.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 26.3% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.7% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.7% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 9.4% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 23.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 11.1% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 19.2% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.8% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 2.3% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.6% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 21.9% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 1.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.0% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 13.6% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 13.0% of 54Credit claimingpeak 71.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 48.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 71.0% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-02: 46.9% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-03: 37.8% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-04: 48.4% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-05: 65.6% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-07: 60.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-08: 47.1% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-09: 25.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-10: 33.3% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-11: 6.7% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-12: 38.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-01: 36.8% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-03: 7.0% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-04: 33.3% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-05: 53.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-06: 32.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-07: 15.9% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-08: 41.2% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-09: 43.9% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-10: 48.1% of 54Extreme labelspeak 16.1% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 10.5% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.4% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.4% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-04: 16.1% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-05: 6.3% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-06: 12.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.9% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.7% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-10: 5.6% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-12: 7.7% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-01: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.3% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.1% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.7% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 54Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Boebert, 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 ’25382.6%31.6%73.7%26.3%71.0%10.5%
Feb ’25326.3%31.3%81.3%0.0%46.9%9.4%
Mar ’25378.1%27.0%67.6%2.7%37.8%5.4%
Apr ’25313.2%29.0%74.2%9.7%48.4%16.1%
May ’25323.1%6.3%75.0%9.4%65.6%6.3%
Jun ’25258.0%24.0%52.0%12.0%28.0%12.0%
Jul ’25300.0%26.7%66.7%23.3%60.0%3.3%
Aug ’25170.0%17.6%52.9%5.9%47.1%5.9%
Sep ’25350.0%14.3%51.4%5.7%25.7%5.7%
Oct ’25185.6%11.1%55.6%11.1%33.3%5.6%
Nov ’251513.3%13.3%33.3%0.0%6.7%0.0%
Dec ’25263.9%15.4%84.6%19.2%38.5%7.7%
Jan ’26190.0%5.3%57.9%5.3%36.8%5.3%
Feb ’26694.3%8.7%31.9%5.8%30.4%4.3%
Mar ’26869.3%10.5%27.9%2.3%7.0%2.3%
Apr ’26547.4%11.1%61.1%5.6%33.3%1.8%
May ’26320.0%18.8%71.9%21.9%53.1%3.1%
Jun ’26430.0%27.9%65.1%0.0%32.6%4.7%
Jul ’26633.2%7.9%44.4%1.6%15.9%0.0%
Aug ’26510.0%5.9%90.2%2.0%41.2%0.0%
Sep ’26661.5%28.8%89.4%13.6%43.9%1.5%
Oct ’26540.0%9.3%88.9%13.0%48.1%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 Boebert’s words

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

Policy criticism

REP. BOEBERT ANNOUNCES INTENT TO CODIFY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORT COLLINS/CSU REGIONAL HUB RELOCATION IN FY2027 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL Lone Tree, CO — Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO-04) sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, House leadership, and Appropr…

Oct 21, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

CONGRESSWOMAN BOEBERT DENIES ALLEGATIONS IN SEPTEMBER 17 FILING WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO-04) issued the following statement making clear there is zero truth to the allegations in a politically motivated September 17 filing to the House Ethics Committee. She rejected these…

Sep 20, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law; target: David Wheeler · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured. It is an independent branch of our government,…

Sep 2, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; Law; Immigration; extreme label “far left, radical” aimed at Court expansion, far left · 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. Press releases

    CONGRESSWOMAN BOEBERT DENIES ALLEGATIONS IN SEPTEMBER 17 FILING WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CO-04) issued the following statement making clear there is zero truth to the allegations in a politically motivated September 17 filing to the House Ethics Committee. She rejected these baseless and utterly false claims in their entirety: “I reject these baseless allegations as utterly false and there is…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: David WheelerSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Anthony FauciSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · target: RepublicansSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Cole AllenSource

  5. 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 · Finance and Financial Sector · target: membersSource

All 873 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: 587 posts on X, 121 newsletters, 103 press releases, 62 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Boebert talks about most: 25% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 17th 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 Boebert talks about. The bills Boebert sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Boebert talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Boebert
Peers
Government Operations and Politics137 statements
25%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security133 statements
24%
24%
Agriculture and Food117 statements
21%
9%
Economics and Public Finance95 statements
17%
19%
Health92 statements
17%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Boebert talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowBoebertPeers
Government Operations and Politics25%19%
Armed Forces and National Security24%24%
Agriculture and Food21%9%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Health17%15%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Boebert’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 onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 19%)25%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 12%)18%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 24%)24%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 8%)5%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 9%)21%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 3%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%HealthHealth, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 15%)17%Health, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 11%)7%
Show the data
Boebert's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics25%19%18%12%
Armed Forces and National Security24%24%5%8%
Agriculture and Food21%9%5%3%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%1%2%
Health17%15%7%11%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 17th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Boebert sits at +1.47 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 96% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.46 to +1.49, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,164 donors and 2,781 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”.

+1.47

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.46 to +1.49. From 9,164 donors and 2,781 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Boebert +1.5House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Boebert, 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 Boebert’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 Boebert sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Boebert +1.5All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Boebert's CSIP score of +1.47 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Boebert
House Republicans221+1.095%
All House439+0.398%
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 Boebert 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 Boebert.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Boebert raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 46% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 51% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.

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
$1.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 679 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): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $515.4K (42.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $444.0K (36.2%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)PACs and other committees: $184.0K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $82.8K (6.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)42 squares$515.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)36 squares$444.0K
  • PACs and other committees15 squares$184.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)7 squares$82.8K
Show the data
Sources of Boebert's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$515.4K42.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$444.0K36.2%
PACs and other committees$184.0K15.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$82.8K6.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M20202022 cycle: $7.8M$7.8M20222024 cycle: $4.8M$4.8M20242026 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Boebert's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.0M
2022 cycle$7.8M
2024 cycle$4.8M
2026 cycle$1.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 51% came from Colorado.

  1. Colorado$213.1K
  2. Texas$30.1K
  3. California$20.8K
  4. Florida$20.8K
  5. Virginia$14.9K

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%
Boebert
Median
2026
46%
9%
2024
52%
9%
2022
53%
9%
2020
52%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowBoebertMedian
2026 cycle46%9%
2024 cycle52%9%
2022 cycle53%9%
2020 cycle52%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $779AKMaine: $104MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $783NHWashington: $2,394WAIdaho: $2,479IDMontana: $3,090MTNorth Dakota: $918NDMinnesota: $1,298MNIllinois: $2,423ILWisconsin: $5,376WIMichigan: $2,515MINew York: $11.9KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,024MAOregon: $1,522ORNevada: $1,745NVWyoming: $4,000WYSouth Dakota: $7,100SDIowa: $540IAIndiana: $2,197INOhio: $6,010OHPennsylvania: $2,058PANew Jersey: $4,416NJConnecticut: $609CTCalifornia: $20.8KCAUtah: $200UTColorado: $213.1KCONebraska: $4,668NEMissouri: $944MOKentucky: $1,288KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $14.9KVAMaryland: $2,462MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $8,409AZNew Mexico: $545NMKansas: $760KSArkansas: $2,695ARTennessee: $1,827TNNorth Carolina: $2,368NCSouth Carolina: $876SCDistrict of Columbia: $3,500DCOklahoma: $5,647OKLouisiana: $655LAMississippi: $933MSAlabama: $637ALGeorgia: $9,017GAHawaii: $3,042HITexas: $30.1KTXFlorida: $20.8KFL
Show the data
Boebert's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Colorado$213.1K
Texas$30.1K
California$20.8K
Florida$20.8K
Virginia$14.9K
New York$11.9K
Georgia$9,017
Arizona$8,409
South Dakota$7,100
Ohio$6,010
Oklahoma$5,647
Wisconsin$5,376
Nebraska$4,668
New Jersey$4,416
Wyoming$4,000
District of Columbia$3,500
Montana$3,090
Hawaii$3,042
Massachusetts$3,024
Arkansas$2,695
Michigan$2,515
Idaho$2,479
Maryland$2,462
Illinois$2,423
Washington$2,394
North Carolina$2,368
Indiana$2,197
Pennsylvania$2,058
Tennessee$1,827
Nevada$1,745
Oregon$1,522
Minnesota$1,298
Kentucky$1,288
Missouri$944
Mississippi$933
North Dakota$918
South Carolina$876
New Hampshire$783
Alaska$779
Kansas$760
Louisiana$655
Alabama$637
Connecticut$609
New Mexico$545
Iowa$540
Utah$200
Maine$104
VermontNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
679

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

51%

from Colorado

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 20%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 36%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 36%36%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Boebert's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.75: 20% between +0.75 and +1.00, 36% between +1.00 and +1.25, 36% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0020%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2536%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5036%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Boebert’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Boebert’s own score is +1.47.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$163.1K 353 donors
  2. CEO$20.1K 13 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$7,400 4 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$7,313 9 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$6,300 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
  2. MAKING A SENSIBLE SHIFT IN ELECTIONS PAC$10.0K
  3. THE EYE OF THE TIGER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$7,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. 76 GROUP$2,250 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Boebert voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.9% of party-line votes and missed 4.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Boebert voted against the majority of House Republicans 76 times.

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

76

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 96.9%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 162nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Boebert
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.5%
96.3%
169th of 221
Party unity
96.9%
97.1%
162nd of 221
Show the data
Boebert's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowBoebertPeers
Attendance95.5%96.3%
Party unity96.9%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
Did not vote—PassedD 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 Boebert most often

  1. Andrew Ogles IVR588 shared votes95%
  2. Paul GosarR604 shared votes95%
  3. Byron DonaldsR577 shared votes95%
  4. Eli CraneR629 shared votes95%
  5. Mark E. GreenR163 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Boebert least often

  1. Frederica WilsonD458 shared votes18%
  2. Delia RamirezD611 shared votes18%
  3. Rashida TlaibD631 shared votes19%
  4. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD451 shared votes19%
  5. Gregorio CasarD551 shared votes19%
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

Boebert sponsored 22 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 272 others. 18% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 71st of 216).

The bills Boebert 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

Sponsored22 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2222Sponsored, In committee: 2222Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored272 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 272272Cosponsored, In committee: 272272Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2424Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Boebert sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2222310
Cosponsored2722722422
How to read the blocks

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

18%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 71st of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Paul Gosar50
  2. Mary Miller47
  3. Andy Biggs39
  4. Nancy Mace39
  5. Eli Crane38
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 Boebert’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. 10648Veterans’ Mental Health Access ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10669LANDs ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10618STOP Medicaid Fraud Act of 2026CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10456Renewing the Dream ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 81 times in 90 days. Boebert’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Boebert posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Boebert’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 Boebert 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 Boebert posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of eight adults pose together for a photograph in an office or conference room. No visible text.
    A group of eight adults pose together for a photograph in an office or conference room. No visible text.View post
  • A group of people, many wearing police uniforms, gather and talk in a room. A woman with glasses speaks with a uniformed officer in the foreground, while others sit around a table. An American flag, framed pictures, and a wall-mounted television are visible. There is text on some clothing and objects.
    A group of people, many wearing police uniforms, gather and talk in a room. A woman with glasses speaks with a uniformed officer in the foreground, while others sit around a table. An American flag, framed pictures, and a wall-mounted television are visible. There is text on some clothing and objects.View post
  • A uniformed police officer and a smiling woman pose together inside a room with several people in the background. There is text on the officer’s uniform.
    A uniformed police officer and a smiling woman pose together inside a room with several people in the background. There is text on the officer’s uniform.View post
  • A woman speaks to a group of seated people in a meeting room. American flags stand beside her, and several attendees appear to be wearing uniforms. A wall sign is visible in the background.
    A woman speaks to a group of seated people in a meeting room. American flags stand beside her, and several attendees appear to be wearing uniforms. A wall sign is visible in the background.View post
  • A red agricultural machine is unloading root vegetables into a large white container. Several vegetables are visible falling through the air against a clear blue sky. The machine has visible branding text.
    A red agricultural machine is unloading root vegetables into a large white container. Several vegetables are visible falling through the air against a clear blue sky. The machine has visible branding text.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 Boebert 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
B000825
Bioguide
B000825
FEC candidate ids
H0CO03165

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