Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 12th district

Serving since Jan 4, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001257FEC H6FL09070

Portrait of Gus Bilirakis, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.7×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

15% of 1,550 statements use bipartisan language (234 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 30th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Bilirakis’s posts on X, newsletters, Congressional Record speeches and press releases and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 1.2% of Bilirakis’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (median 9.4%). 0.9% of Bilirakis’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 3.0%).

The measures on which Bilirakis 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.

Bipartisanship

15%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 30th of 221

Small donations, 2026

1.2%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 185th of 220

Extreme labels

0.9%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 174th of 221

Policy criticism

10%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 169th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.83

More liberal than 75% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Out of committee

8.1%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 162nd of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bilirakis says

Bilirakis attacks opponents personally less than 70% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 1,550 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 156th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Bilirakis’s 1,550 statements in the 119th Congress (971 posts on X, 394 Congressional Record speeches, 104 press releases, 81 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Bilirakis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,107 statements
71%
68%
89th of 221
Credit claiming693 statements
45%
37%
65th of 221
Bipartisanship234 statements
15%
9%
30th of 221
Policy criticism159 statements
10%
15%
169th of 221
Personal attacks7 statements
0%
2%
156th of 221
Show the data
Bilirakis's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBilirakisPeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming45%37%
Bipartisanship15%9%
Policy criticism10%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,550

statements classified

971 posts on X, 394 Congressional Record speeches, 104 press releases, 81 newsletters.

posts on X: 971 (62.6%)posts on X 971Congressional Record speeches: 394 (25.4%)Congressional Record speeches 394press releases: 104 (6.7%)newsletters: 81 (5.2%)
Show the data
Bilirakis's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X971
Congressional Record speeches394
press releases104
newsletters81
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Bilirakis used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, 30% of the peer average. 14 statements, most often aimed at Chinese Communist Party; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”5
  2. “extreme”3
  3. “communist”2
  4. “far left”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Chinese Communist Party1
  2. Democrats1
  3. far left1
  4. foreign aid1
  5. Green New Deal1
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: 522025-02: 492025-03: 582025-04: 1792025-05: 1082025-06: 1532025-07: 572025-08: 612025-09: 672025-10: 592025-11: 542025-12: 532026-01: 552026-02: 502026-03: 1242026-04: 612026-05: 692026-06: 482026-07: 512026-08: 472026-09: 562026-10: 39peak 179 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 3.9% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.1% of 179Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.9% of 108Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 153Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.8% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 39Policy criticismpeak 30.6% · Feb ’25 · latest 10.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.0% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-02: 30.6% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.2% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.8% of 179Policy criticism, 2025-05: 9.3% of 108Policy criticism, 2025-06: 5.9% of 153Policy criticism, 2025-07: 17.5% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-08: 4.9% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.9% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-10: 20.3% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.0% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-12: 7.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.3% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-03: 8.1% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-04: 6.6% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-05: 2.9% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.8% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-07: 2.0% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-08: 2.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-09: 1.8% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.3% of 39Policy discussionpeak 92.7% · Jan ’26 · latest 92.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.0% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.5% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-03: 69.0% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-04: 60.9% of 179Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.9% of 108Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 153Policy discussion, 2025-07: 82.5% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-08: 62.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.7% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-10: 61.0% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-11: 83.3% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-12: 86.8% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-01: 92.7% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-02: 80.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-03: 54.0% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.4% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-05: 63.8% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-06: 68.8% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-08: 80.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-09: 85.7% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-10: 92.3% of 39Bipartisanshippeak 29.2% · Jun ’26 · latest 12.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 14.3% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 19.0% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 20.1% of 179Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.6% of 108Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.2% of 153Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 21.1% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.8% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 22.4% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.4% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 22.2% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 24.5% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.5% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.7% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 13.1% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 14.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.2% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 25.5% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 12.8% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 23.2% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.8% of 39Credit claimingpeak 64.1% · Dec ’25 · latest 20.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 50.0% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-02: 61.2% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-03: 36.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-04: 34.1% of 179Credit claiming, 2025-05: 50.0% of 108Credit claiming, 2025-06: 37.3% of 153Credit claiming, 2025-07: 52.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-08: 63.9% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-09: 47.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.5% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-11: 57.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-12: 64.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-01: 58.2% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-02: 54.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-03: 46.0% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-04: 37.7% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.7% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-06: 54.2% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-07: 43.1% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.8% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-09: 28.6% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-10: 20.5% of 39Extreme labelspeak 6.1% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-02: 6.1% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 179Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.8% of 108Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.7% of 153Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.5% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.5% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 39Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Bilirakis, 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 ’25523.9%25.0%75.0%7.7%50.0%1.9%
Feb ’25490.0%30.6%75.5%14.3%61.2%6.1%
Mar ’25580.0%17.2%69.0%19.0%36.2%1.7%
Apr ’251791.1%7.8%60.9%20.1%34.1%0.0%
May ’251080.9%9.3%75.9%4.6%50.0%1.8%
Jun ’251530.0%5.9%66.7%9.2%37.3%0.7%
Jul ’25571.8%17.5%82.5%21.1%52.6%3.5%
Aug ’25610.0%4.9%62.3%14.8%63.9%0.0%
Sep ’25670.0%14.9%65.7%22.4%47.8%1.5%
Oct ’25590.0%20.3%61.0%3.4%30.5%1.7%
Nov ’25540.0%13.0%83.3%22.2%57.4%0.0%
Dec ’25530.0%7.5%86.8%24.5%64.1%1.9%
Jan ’26550.0%7.3%92.7%14.5%58.2%0.0%
Feb ’26500.0%12.0%80.0%10.0%54.0%0.0%
Mar ’261240.0%8.1%54.0%9.7%46.0%0.0%
Apr ’26610.0%6.6%75.4%13.1%37.7%0.0%
May ’26691.5%2.9%63.8%14.5%50.7%1.5%
Jun ’26480.0%18.8%68.8%29.2%54.2%0.0%
Jul ’26510.0%2.0%76.5%25.5%43.1%0.0%
Aug ’26470.0%2.1%80.8%12.8%29.8%0.0%
Sep ’26560.0%1.8%85.7%23.2%28.6%0.0%
Oct ’26390.0%10.3%92.3%12.8%20.5%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 Bilirakis’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Bilirakis Leads Bipartisan, Bicameral Effort to Expand Access to Benefits for Veterans with Rare Muscle Disease Lawmakers urge VA to recognize Inclusion Body Myositis as a presumptive service-connected condition and remove burdensome barriers to disability benefits WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congress…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Health · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 28, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: former members · Source

Extreme label

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

May 21, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; extreme label “communist” aimed at regime communists, Raul Castro; target: Raul Castro · 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. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · extreme label “communist” aimed at regime communists, Raul Castro · target: Raul CastroSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: former membersSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: DemocratsSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of S 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act by Senator Ted Cruz. The bill addresses a serious gap in our current law, a loophole that came to light in my own district. I had a meeting on this particular issue with the sheriff in Pasco County, Florida, Sheriff Nocco, and then I also talked to Senator Cruz about one of his constituents. This is h…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Crime and Law Enforcement · Science, Technology, Communications · LawSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: VASource

All 1,550 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: 971 posts on X, 394 Congressional Record speeches, 104 press releases, 81 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Bilirakis talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 163rd 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 Bilirakis talks about. The bills Bilirakis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Bilirakis talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%36%
Bilirakis
Peers
Health363 statements
33%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security263 statements
24%
24%
Science, Technology, Communications156 statements
14%
7%
Commerce152 statements
14%
9%
Economics and Public Finance134 statements
12%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Bilirakis talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowBilirakisPeers
Health33%15%
Armed Forces and National Security24%24%
Science, Technology, Communications14%7%
Commerce14%9%
Economics and Public Finance12%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Bilirakis’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 36%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 33% (House Republicans 15%)33%Health, legislates on: 31% (House Republicans 11%)31%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 24%)24%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 8%)9%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 7%)14%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 3%)5%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 9%)14%Commerce, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 2%)3%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 19%)12%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Bilirakis's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health33%15%31%11%
Armed Forces and National Security24%24%9%8%
Science, Technology, Communications14%7%5%3%
Commerce14%9%3%2%
Economics and Public Finance12%19%0%2%
0.62

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 163rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Bilirakis sits at +0.83 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 75% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.82 to +0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,380 donors and 7,385 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 2,380 donors and 7,385 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Bilirakis +0.8House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Bilirakis, 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 Bilirakis’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 Bilirakis sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Bilirakis +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Bilirakis's CSIP score of +0.83 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bilirakis
House Republicans221+1.024%
All House439+0.362%
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 Bilirakis 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 Bilirakis.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Bilirakis raised $2.3M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 1.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 47% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$2.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 398 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): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $878.3K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $177.4K (7.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)39 squares$878.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$10.7K
  • PACs and other committees53 squares$1.2M
  • Party committees$3,500
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)8 squares$177.4K
Show the data
Sources of Bilirakis's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$878.3K38.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$10.7K0.5%
PACs and other committees$1.2M52.6%
Party committees$3,5000.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$177.4K7.9%
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M20202022 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20222024 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20242026 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Bilirakis's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.6M
2022 cycle$2.0M
2024 cycle$1.8M
2026 cycle$2.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 47% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$305.5K
  2. New York$65.6K
  3. California$60.5K
  4. Virginia$51.9K
  5. District of Columbia$26.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Bilirakis
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
7%
9%
2022
9%
9%
2020
13%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowBilirakisMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle7%9%
2022 cycle9%9%
2020 cycle13%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $500NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: $250IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: $250NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $10.3KILWisconsin: $3,500WIMichigan: $1,000MINew York: $65.6KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $13.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $5,250NVWyoming: $1,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $11.5KINOhio: $7,250OHPennsylvania: $2,750PANew Jersey: $7,000NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $60.5KCAUtah: $7,000UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $1,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $51.9KVAMaryland: $21.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $250KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $5,500TNNorth Carolina: $2,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $26.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $750ALGeorgia: $7,750GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $24.6KTXFlorida: $305.5KFL
Show the data
Bilirakis's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$305.5K
New York$65.6K
California$60.5K
Virginia$51.9K
District of Columbia$26.8K
Texas$24.6K
Maryland$21.3K
Massachusetts$13.8K
Indiana$11.5K
Illinois$10.3K
Georgia$7,750
Ohio$7,250
New Jersey$7,000
Utah$7,000
Tennessee$5,500
Nevada$5,250
Wisconsin$3,500
Pennsylvania$2,750
North Carolina$2,000
Michigan$1,000
Wyoming$1,000
Kentucky$1,000
Arizona$1,000
Alabama$750
New Hampshire$500
Iowa$500
Idaho$250
North Dakota$250
Kansas$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
WashingtonNo data
MontanaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
South DakotaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
398

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

47%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.8%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 4.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 8.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 62%62%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 3.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Bilirakis's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 5.8% between −0.25 and 0.00, 7.4% between 0.00 and +0.25, 6.1% between +0.25 and +0.50, 8.7% between +0.50 and +0.75, 62% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.8%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.254.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.758.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0062%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.253.3%
How to read the columns

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. OWNER$53.2K 14 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$53.0K 26 donors
  3. CEO$51.6K 27 donors
  4. RETIRED$35.9K 30 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$31.3K 19 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$11.9K
  2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CLINICAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATON PAC (LABPAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITEE (ACRO PAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ$15.0K 3 donors
  2. CATALYST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.$8,000 3 donors
  3. STANTON PARK GROUP$4,500 3 donors
  4. CAPITOL COUNSEL$3,000 5 donors
  5. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM$1,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Bilirakis voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bilirakis voted against the majority of House Republicans 10 times.

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

10

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 112th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Bilirakis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
96.3%
127th of 221
Party unity
98.2%
97.1%
112th of 221
Show the data
Bilirakis's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowBilirakisPeers
Attendance97.7%96.3%
Party unity98.2%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bilirakis most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR513 shared votes100%
  2. Mike KellyR650 shared votes99%
  3. David KustoffR656 shared votes98%
  4. Ashley HinsonR651 shared votes98%
  5. Neal DunnR539 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bilirakis least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD383 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD643 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD628 shared votes25%
  4. Frederica WilsonD469 shared votes26%
  5. Gregorio CasarD567 shared votes26%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Bilirakis sponsored 37 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 352 others. 8.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 162nd of 216).

The bills Bilirakis 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

Sponsored37 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3737Sponsored, In committee: 3737Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored352 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 352352Cosponsored, In committee: 352352Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4646Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 88Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Bilirakis sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3737200
Cosponsored3523524686
How to read the blocks

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

8.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 162nd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler31
  2. Buddy Carter26
  3. Brian Fitzpatrick26
  4. Darren Soto26
  5. Nicole Malliotakis24
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 Bilirakis’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. 10898To direct the President's Pay Agent to establish pay localities for the Orlando metropolitan area and the Tampa metropolitan area.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10840To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to complete a study and report on retention practices with respect to non-clinical personnel at health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.SponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10789Protecting Florida's Offshore Military Readiness ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10747Puerto Rico Medicare Advantage Fairness Act of 2026CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 5, 2026
H.Res. 1611Expressing support for the designation of October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day".CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 43 times in 90 days. Bilirakis’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Bilirakis posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Bilirakis’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 Bilirakis 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 Bilirakis posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A patriotic event collage with three photographs of Congressman Gus Bilirakis posing with other attendees. The layout has a red, white, and blue border and a headline at the top.
    A patriotic event collage with three photographs of Congressman Gus Bilirakis posing with other attendees. The layout has a red, white, and blue border and a headline at the top.View post
  • A three-panel collage shows a man speaking at a podium during the grand opening of a cancer center innovation facility. The event is held under a tent, with a seated audience watching and applauding. A headline and organization logos are visible.
    A three-panel collage shows a man speaking at a podium during the grand opening of a cancer center innovation facility. The event is held under a tent, with a seated audience watching and applauding. A headline and organization logos are visible.View post
  • A framed collage of photos from a congressional legislative update at a chamber of commerce. The upper photo shows attendees seated around a conference table as a speaker addresses them, with flags and a presentation screen behind him. The lower photo shows a closer view of the speaker at a podium and the presentation screen. Text appears in the image.
    A framed collage of photos from a congressional legislative update at a chamber of commerce. The upper photo shows attendees seated around a conference table as a speaker addresses them, with flags and a presentation screen behind him. The lower photo shows a closer view of the speaker at a podium and the presentation screen. Text appears in the image.View post
  • A patriotic event collage with a red, white, and blue star-and-flag border. It contains nine photos of a congressman greeting and posing with veterans and other attendees at an Honor Flight homecoming reception. A large headline appears across the top.
    A patriotic event collage with a red, white, and blue star-and-flag border. It contains nine photos of a congressman greeting and posing with veterans and other attendees at an Honor Flight homecoming reception. A large headline appears across the top.View post
  • A group of five adults sit around a conference table in a plain meeting room, appearing to talk or listen. Several drinks and small personal items are on the table. There is some text visible on objects in the scene.
    A group of five adults sit around a conference table in a plain meeting room, appearing to talk or listen. Several drinks and small personal items are on the table. There is some text visible on objects in the scene.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 Bilirakis 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
B001257
Bioguide
B001257
FEC candidate ids
H6FL09070

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