Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Arkansas

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide B001236FEC H2AR03176, S0AR00150

Portrait of John Boozman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.3%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, the lowest of 51 Senate Republicans

0.3% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 51st of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $579.2K raised in all.

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

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0.1% of Boozman’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 2.1%). 9.0% of Boozman’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 17%).

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

Small donations, 2026

0.3%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 51st of 51

Personal attacks

0.1%

Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 50th of 52

Policy criticism

9.0%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 49th of 52

Out of committee

38%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 5th of 51

Raised, 2026

$579.2K

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 46th of 51

CSIP ideology

+0.83

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Boozman says

Boozman attacks opponents personally less than 94% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,686 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 50th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Boozman’s 1,686 statements in the 119th Congress (1,357 posts on X, 236 press releases, 93 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Boozman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,263 statements
75%
70%
19th of 52
Credit claiming695 statements
41%
36%
13th of 52
Bipartisanship322 statements
19%
13%
8th of 52
Policy criticism152 statements
9%
17%
49th of 52
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
50th of 52
Show the data
Boozman's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBoozmanPeers
Policy discussion75%70%
Credit claiming41%36%
Bipartisanship19%13%
Policy criticism9%17%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,686

statements classified

1,357 posts on X, 236 press releases, 93 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,357 (80.5%)posts on X 1,357press releases: 236 (14.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 93 (5.5%)
Show the data
Boozman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,357
press releases236
Congressional Record speeches93
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Boozman used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 15% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at abortion agenda; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”6
  2. “extreme”1
  3. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. abortion agenda1
  2. Democrats1
  3. gender ideology1
  4. programs1
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: 962025-02: 1022025-03: 722025-04: 942025-05: 1162025-06: 1122025-07: 832025-08: 802025-09: 822025-10: 482025-11: 552025-12: 622026-01: 812026-02: 652026-03: 872026-04: 1022026-05: 702026-06: 522026-07: 762026-08: 482026-09: 592026-10: 44peak 116 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 1.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 116Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 102Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 44Policy criticismpeak 37.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 6.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 11.5% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.7% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-03: 6.9% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.4% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.9% of 116Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.0% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-07: 9.6% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-08: 6.3% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-09: 1.2% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.5% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-11: 16.4% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-12: 8.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-01: 2.5% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.3% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-03: 12.6% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-04: 2.9% of 102Policy criticism, 2026-05: 4.3% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-06: 7.7% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-07: 5.3% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-08: 2.1% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-09: 1.7% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-10: 6.8% of 44Policy discussionpeak 93.2% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 84.4% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-02: 85.3% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.4% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.6% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-05: 70.7% of 116Policy discussion, 2025-06: 64.3% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.5% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-08: 70.0% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-09: 69.5% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-10: 81.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-11: 63.6% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.2% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.5% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-02: 73.9% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-03: 69.0% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-04: 79.4% of 102Policy discussion, 2026-05: 70.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-06: 73.1% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-07: 60.5% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-08: 83.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-09: 86.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.2% of 44Bipartisanshippeak 33.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 11.4%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 24.0% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 26.5% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 25.0% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 18.1% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 15.5% of 116Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.3% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 25.3% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 12.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 14.6% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 33.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 23.6% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.1% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 7.4% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 26.2% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 21.8% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 22.6% of 102Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 23.1% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 26.3% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 22.9% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 25.4% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 11.4% of 44Credit claimingpeak 57.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 40.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 57.3% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-02: 54.9% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-03: 44.4% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-04: 36.2% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-05: 39.7% of 116Credit claiming, 2025-06: 23.2% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-07: 50.6% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-08: 42.5% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-09: 47.6% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-10: 22.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-11: 36.4% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-12: 46.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-01: 40.7% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.8% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-03: 37.9% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-04: 39.2% of 102Credit claiming, 2026-05: 30.0% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-06: 42.3% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-07: 36.8% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-08: 41.7% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.6% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-10: 40.9% of 44Extreme labelspeak 2.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.7% of 116Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.9% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-11: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 44Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Boozman, 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 ’25961.0%11.5%84.4%24.0%57.3%1.0%
Feb ’251020.0%15.7%85.3%26.5%54.9%0.0%
Mar ’25720.0%6.9%76.4%25.0%44.4%0.0%
Apr ’25940.0%7.4%76.6%18.1%36.2%0.0%
May ’251160.0%6.9%70.7%15.5%39.7%1.7%
Jun ’251120.0%17.0%64.3%6.3%23.2%0.9%
Jul ’25830.0%9.6%73.5%25.3%50.6%1.2%
Aug ’25800.0%6.3%70.0%12.5%42.5%0.0%
Sep ’25820.0%1.2%69.5%14.6%47.6%0.0%
Oct ’25480.0%37.5%81.3%33.3%22.9%2.1%
Nov ’25550.0%16.4%63.6%23.6%36.4%1.8%
Dec ’25620.0%8.1%74.2%8.1%46.8%0.0%
Jan ’26810.0%2.5%81.5%7.4%40.7%0.0%
Feb ’26650.0%12.3%73.9%26.2%53.8%0.0%
Mar ’26870.0%12.6%69.0%21.8%37.9%0.0%
Apr ’261020.0%2.9%79.4%22.6%39.2%0.0%
May ’26700.0%4.3%70.0%10.0%30.0%0.0%
Jun ’26520.0%7.7%73.1%23.1%42.3%0.0%
Jul ’26760.0%5.3%60.5%26.3%36.8%0.0%
Aug ’26480.0%2.1%83.3%22.9%41.7%0.0%
Sep ’26590.0%1.7%86.4%25.4%35.6%0.0%
Oct ’26440.0%6.8%93.2%11.4%40.9%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Boozman’s words

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

Policy criticism

Boozman, Alsobrooks, Armstrong, Blunt Rochester Introduce the Ecological Restoration Project Permitting Act Oct 09 2026 U.S. Senators John Boozman (R-AR), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Alan Armstrong (R-OK) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) have introduced the bipartisan Ecological Restoration Project Per…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development; Government Operations and Politics; Agriculture and Food · Source

Personal attacks

WASHINGTON––US Senator John Boozman (R-AR) joined the chairmen of the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committees, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Congressman Mike Bost (R-IL-12) to introduce legislation to strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) authority to hold poor-performing employ…

Jan 17, 2025 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; Health · Source

Extreme label

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

Nov 8, 2025 · Posts on X · extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrats · 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

    WASHINGTON––US Senator John Boozman (R-AR) joined the chairmen of the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committees, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Congressman Mike Bost (R-IL-12) to introduce legislation to strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) authority to hold poor-performing employees accountable. In 2017, Congress passed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act with overwhelming bipar…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · HealthSource

All 1,686 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: 1,357 posts on X, 236 press releases, 93 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Boozman talks about most: 27% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 21st of 52).

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

What Boozman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Boozman
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security344 statements
27%
25%
Health274 statements
22%
15%
Agriculture and Food231 statements
18%
9%
Economics and Public Finance139 statements
11%
17%
Education136 statements
11%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Boozman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBoozmanPeers
Armed Forces and National Security27%25%
Health22%15%
Agriculture and Food18%9%
Economics and Public Finance11%17%
Education11%8%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 27% (Senate Republicans 25%)27%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 17% (Senate Republicans 8%)17%HealthHealth, talks about: 22% (Senate Republicans 15%)22%Health, legislates on: 17% (Senate Republicans 11%)17%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 9%)18%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 4%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 17%)11%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Republicans 1%)0%EducationEducation, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 8%)11%Education, legislates on: 3% (Senate Republicans 4%)3%
Show the data
Boozman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security27%25%17%8%
Health22%15%17%11%
Agriculture and Food18%9%9%4%
Economics and Public Finance11%17%0%1%
Education11%8%3%4%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 21st of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Boozman sits at +0.83 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 72% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.82 to +0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,136 donors and 4,926 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”.

+0.83

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.82 to +0.85. From 4,136 donors and 4,926 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Boozman +0.8Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Boozman, 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 Boozman’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 Boozman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Boozman +0.8All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Boozman's CSIP score of +0.83 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Boozman
Senate Republicans51+1.027%
All Senate98+0.462%
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 Boozman 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 Boozman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Boozman raised $579.2K in the 2026 cycle, 18% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 0.3% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 9.4% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.

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
$579.2K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 83 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $207.8K (35.9%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)PACs and other committees: $302.2K (52.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $68.7K (11.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$207.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$572
  • PACs and other committees52 squares$302.2K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)12 squares$68.7K
Show the data
Sources of Boozman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$207.8K35.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5720.1%
PACs and other committees$302.2K52.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$68.7K11.9%
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $701.0K$701.0K20202022 cycle: $6.8M$6.8M20222024 cycle: $726.9K$726.9K20242026 cycle: $579.2K$579.2K2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Boozman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$701.0K
2022 cycle$6.8M
2024 cycle$726.9K
2026 cycle$579.2K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 9.4% came from Arkansas.

  1. Maryland$38.3K
  2. California$25.1K
  3. Arkansas$21.3K
  4. Missouri$19.6K
  5. Virginia$19.3K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Boozman
Median
2026
0%
17%
2024
12%
17%
2022
5%
17%
2020
9%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowBoozmanMedian
2026 cycle0%17%
2024 cycle12%17%
2022 cycle5%17%
2020 cycle9%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: $1,000NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $15.5KILWisconsin: $2,500WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $14.0KNYRhode Island: $2,000RIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,500INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $25.1KCAUtah: $2,500UTColorado: $14.0KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $19.6KMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $19.3KVAMaryland: $38.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $21.3KARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,000NCSouth Carolina: $5,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $10.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $6,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $800ALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $6,750TXFlorida: $16.0KFL
Show the data
Boozman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Maryland$38.3K
California$25.1K
Arkansas$21.3K
Missouri$19.6K
Virginia$19.3K
Florida$16.0K
Illinois$15.5K
New York$14.0K
Colorado$14.0K
District of Columbia$10.3K
Texas$6,750
Louisiana$6,500
South Carolina$5,000
Indiana$3,500
Wisconsin$2,500
Utah$2,500
Rhode Island$2,000
Georgia$2,000
North Dakota$1,000
North Carolina$1,000
Alabama$800
Pennsylvania$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
MichiganNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
OhioNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
83

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

9.4%

from Arkansas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.4%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 29%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 15%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 43%43%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 3.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Boozman's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 29% between +0.25 and +0.50, 15% between +0.50 and +0.75, 43% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.4%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5029%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7515%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0043%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.253.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Boozman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Boozman’s own score is +0.83.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$37.3K 14 donors
  2. CEO$25.5K 9 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$10.4K 6 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$4,500 3 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$4,000 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. EQUIPMENT LEASING AND FINANCE ASSN PAC (LEASEPAC)$10.0K
  2. NATIONAL PECAN FEDERATION INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PECAN PAC)$10.0K
  3. WATERPAC - NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION POLITICAL COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. FARMERS' RICE COOPERATIVE FUND$7,500
  5. PEPSICO, INC. CONCERNED CITIZENS FUND$7,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Boozman voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Boozman voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 7 times.

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

7

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.1%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 40th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Boozman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.4%
97.1%
22nd of 53
Party unity
99.1%
98.4%
40th of 53
Show the data
Boozman's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowBoozmanPeers
Attendance98.4%97.1%
Party unity99.1%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
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 Boozman most often

  1. Shelley CapitoR884 shared votes100%
  2. Lindsey O. GrahamR782 shared votes100%
  3. Markwayne MullinR676 shared votes100%
  4. Mike RoundsR893 shared votes100%
  5. Pete RickettsR892 shared votes100%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Boozman least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD894 shared votes3.9%
  2. Bernie SandersI844 shared votes4.0%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD887 shared votes4.2%
  4. Christopher MurphyD876 shared votes4.7%
  5. Chris Van HollenD888 shared votes5.4%
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

Boozman sponsored 26 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 263 others. 38% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 5th of 51).

The bills Boozman 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

Sponsored26 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2626Sponsored, In committee: 2525Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored263 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 263263Cosponsored, In committee: 259259Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6969Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Boozman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2625600
Cosponsored2632596954
How to read the blocks

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

38%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 5th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Cindy Hyde-Smith43
  2. Thom Tillis43
  3. Marsha Blackburn43
  4. Jerry Moran41
  5. Shelley Capito40
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 Boozman’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
S.Res. 945A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberEnvironmental ProtectionSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5588Ecological Restoration Project Permitting Act of 2026SponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionRead twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sep 29, 2026
S. 5591Veterans Crisis Line Support and Safety Act of 2026CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityRead twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".SponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 45 times in 90 days. Boozman’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Boozman posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Boozman’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 Boozman 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.

Social accounts

Images Boozman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three people stand inside a medical imaging room beside a large piece of scanning equipment. One man holds a takeaway cup, while another appears to explain or demonstrate the machine. Text is visible on the equipment and clothing.
    Three people stand inside a medical imaging room beside a large piece of scanning equipment. One man holds a takeaway cup, while another appears to explain or demonstrate the machine. Text is visible on the equipment and clothing.View post
  • A man in a suit and a woman wearing a badge stand beside a large medical imaging scanner. The woman gestures toward the padded patient table, and the man holds a takeaway cup. There is text on the scanner, the badge, and a nearby display.
    A man in a suit and a woman wearing a badge stand beside a large medical imaging scanner. The woman gestures toward the padded patient table, and the man holds a takeaway cup. There is text on the scanner, the badge, and a nearby display.View post
  • A large mobile lung-screening medical truck is parked outdoors at a fairground on a sunny day. A Ferris wheel and other fairground structures are visible in the background. The truck has prominent text and graphics.
    A large mobile lung-screening medical truck is parked outdoors at a fairground on a sunny day. A Ferris wheel and other fairground structures are visible in the background. The truck has prominent text and graphics.View post
  • Four adults pose on a wooden outdoor stage beneath a pavilion, holding a large ceremonial funding check. Another person stands at the left, with empty chairs and a display board nearby. The check and board contain text.
    Four adults pose on a wooden outdoor stage beneath a pavilion, holding a large ceremonial funding check. Another person stands at the left, with empty chairs and a display board nearby. The check and board contain text.View post
  • A group of people in business attire sit around a conference table in a meeting room. A large university agriculture division sign hangs on the wall, and a television is mounted on the opposite wall. Text is visible on the sign and some papers.
    A group of people in business attire sit around a conference table in a meeting room. A large university agriculture division sign hangs on the wall, and a television is mounted on the opposite wall. Text is visible on the sign and some papers.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 Boozman is most unusual among Senate 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
B001236
Bioguide
B001236
FEC candidate ids
H2AR03176, S0AR00150

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