Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Ohio’s 3rd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001281FEC H2OH03125

Portrait of Joyce Beatty, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
66%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats

66% of 1,039 statements discuss policy (681 statements); the average for House Democrats is 73%. Ranks 189th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Beatty’s press releases, posts on X, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Beatty missed 5.6% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.9%). 8.3% of the 24 bills Beatty sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of House Democrats.

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

Policy discussion

66%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 189th of 216

Attendance

94.3%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 190th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Out of committee

8.3%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 38th of 207

Policy criticism

21%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 160th of 216

Credit claiming

26%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 67th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.04

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Beatty says

Beatty attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Democrat. Personal attacks in 4.6% of 1,039 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 129th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Beatty’s 1,039 statements in the 119th Congress (843 posts on X, 139 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 13 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Beatty
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion681 statements
66%
73%
189th of 216
Credit claiming271 statements
26%
23%
67th of 216
Policy criticism223 statements
21%
28%
160th of 216
Bipartisanship78 statements
8%
10%
129th of 216
Personal attacks48 statements
5%
7%
129th of 216
Show the data
Beatty's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowBeattyPeers
Policy discussion66%73%
Credit claiming26%23%
Policy criticism21%28%
Bipartisanship8%10%
Personal attacks5%7%
1,039

statements classified

843 posts on X, 139 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 13 newsletters.

posts on X: 843 (81.1%)posts on X 843press releases: 139 (13.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 44 (4.2%)newsletters: 13 (1.3%)
Show the data
Beatty's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X843
press releases139
Congressional Record speeches44
newsletters13
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Beatty used extreme labels in 2.0% of statements, close to the peer average. 21 statements, most often aimed at Elon Musk; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”12
  2. “extreme”6
  3. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Elon Musk2
  2. MAGA2
  3. Congressional Republicans1
  4. ICE1
  5. MAGA Republicans1
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: 502025-02: 712025-03: 502025-04: 612025-05: 552025-06: 432025-07: 562025-08: 362025-09: 392025-10: 592025-11: 612025-12: 552026-01: 562026-02: 692026-03: 402026-04: 362026-05: 412026-06: 802026-07: 542026-08: 192026-09: 62026-10: 2peak 80 · Jun ’26Personal attackspeak 16.7% · Jul ’26 · latest 5.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-02: 12.7% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.6% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.6% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-07: 5.4% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.8% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.1% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-11: 1.6% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.6% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.1% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.8% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-03: 5.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.4% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-07: 16.7% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.3% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 44.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 5.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-02: 26.8% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.4% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-05: 25.4% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-06: 23.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-07: 33.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-08: 33.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-09: 25.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-10: 44.1% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-11: 18.0% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.7% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.1% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.6% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-03: 20.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-05: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 83.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 79.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 58.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-02: 69.0% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-03: 50.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.9% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-05: 60.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-06: 72.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-07: 78.6% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-08: 83.3% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-09: 79.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.3% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-11: 62.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-12: 58.2% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-01: 78.6% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-02: 62.3% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-03: 55.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.4% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-05: 70.7% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-06: 45.0% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-07: 64.8% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-08: 79.0% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 19.5% · May ’26 · latest 10.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.2% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.3% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 7.3% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.9% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.3% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.5% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.5% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.8% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 13.0% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.8% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 19.5% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.0% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.6% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 51.2% · May ’26 · latest 10.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 34.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.4% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-03: 30.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.2% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-05: 16.4% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-06: 32.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.2% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-08: 25.0% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-09: 33.3% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-10: 27.1% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-11: 39.3% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.9% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-01: 19.6% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-04: 13.9% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-05: 51.2% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-06: 11.3% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-07: 14.8% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 11.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 8.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-02: 11.3% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.3% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-08: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.8% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Beatty, 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 ’25504.0%26.0%58.0%6.0%34.0%8.0%
Feb ’257112.7%26.8%69.0%4.2%25.4%11.3%
Mar ’25504.0%14.0%50.0%14.0%30.0%4.0%
Apr ’25611.6%16.4%63.9%3.3%26.2%3.3%
May ’25553.6%25.4%60.0%7.3%16.4%0.0%
Jun ’25430.0%23.3%72.1%9.3%32.6%0.0%
Jul ’25565.4%33.9%78.6%8.9%23.2%0.0%
Aug ’25362.8%33.3%83.3%8.3%25.0%2.8%
Sep ’25390.0%25.6%79.5%12.8%33.3%0.0%
Oct ’25595.1%44.1%76.3%8.5%27.1%1.7%
Nov ’25611.6%18.0%62.3%6.6%39.3%0.0%
Dec ’25553.6%12.7%58.2%5.5%30.9%0.0%
Jan ’26567.1%7.1%78.6%1.8%19.6%1.8%
Feb ’26695.8%24.6%62.3%13.0%30.4%1.5%
Mar ’26405.0%20.0%55.0%5.0%27.5%0.0%
Apr ’26360.0%11.1%69.4%2.8%13.9%0.0%
May ’26412.4%12.2%70.7%19.5%51.2%0.0%
Jun ’26801.3%23.8%45.0%5.0%11.3%1.3%
Jul ’265416.7%11.1%64.8%5.6%14.8%0.0%
Aug ’26195.3%5.3%79.0%10.5%10.5%0.0%
Sep ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’262— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 2 months are hatched here.

In Beatty’s words

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

Bipartisanship

BEATTY CELEBRATES GROUNDBREAKING OF 166 NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES IN DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS Opportunity Pointe will bring affordable housing to Columbus State campus as Beatty touts federal investments and bipartisan housing reforms to address Central Ohio’s affordability crisis COLUMBUS, OH — This week, Cong…

Aug 25, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Taxation; Education · Source

Personal attacks

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

Aug 20, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Housing and Community Development; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 23, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “woke” · 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 · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Housing and Community Development · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  3. 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Todd BlancheSource

All 1,039 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: 843 posts on X, 139 press releases, 44 Congressional Record speeches, 13 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Beatty talks about most: 24% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 121st of 216).

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

What Beatty talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Beatty
Peers
Health166 statements
24%
26%
Economics and Public Finance154 statements
23%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues151 statements
22%
13%
Government Operations and Politics143 statements
21%
20%
Finance and Financial Sector105 statements
15%
2%
Show the data
Policy areas Beatty talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowBeattyPeers
Health24%26%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues22%13%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%
Finance and Financial Sector15%2%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Beatty’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 26%)24%Health, legislates on: 21% (House Democrats 16%)21%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 20%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 13%)22%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 5%)7%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 11%)8%Finance and Financial SectorFinance and Financial Sector, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 2%)15%Finance and Financial Sector, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 3%)9%
Show the data
Beatty's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health24%26%21%16%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%0%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues22%13%7%5%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%8%11%
Finance and Financial Sector15%2%9%3%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 121st of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Beatty sits at −1.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 57% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.06 to −1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,890 donors and 7,348 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−1.04

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.06 to −1.02. From 1,890 donors and 7,348 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Beatty −1.0House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Beatty, 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 Beatty’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 Beatty sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Beatty −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Beatty's CSIP score of −1.04 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Beatty
House Democrats217−1.042%
All House439+0.321%
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 Beatty 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 Beatty.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Beatty raised $1.5M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 9.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 55% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 263 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $350.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.7K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.7K (2.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.7K (2.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (72.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $9,099 (0.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)24 squares$350.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$37.7K
  • PACs and other committees72 squares$1.1M
  • Party committees$2,800
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$9,099
Show the data
Sources of Beatty's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$350.3K24.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$37.7K2.6%
PACs and other committees$1.1M72.5%
Party committees$2,8000.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$9,0990.6%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20202022 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20222024 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20242026 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Beatty's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.2M
2022 cycle$2.2M
2024 cycle$1.8M
2026 cycle$1.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 55% came from Ohio.

  1. Ohio$154.3K
  2. Florida$35.6K
  3. District of Columbia$29.8K
  4. Michigan$11.0K
  5. Illinois$10.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Beatty
Median
2026
10%
13%
2024
6%
13%
2022
5%
13%
2020
10%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowBeattyMedian
2026 cycle10%13%
2024 cycle6%13%
2022 cycle5%13%
2020 cycle10%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $750WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $500MNIllinois: $10.0KILWisconsin: $250WIMichigan: $11.0KMINew York: $3,800NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $4,000INOhio: $154.3KOHPennsylvania: $1,000PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $3,750CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: $300WVVirginia: $8,750VAMaryland: $6,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $600AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $5,400TNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $29.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $1,000TXFlorida: $35.6KFL
Show the data
Beatty's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Ohio$154.3K
Florida$35.6K
District of Columbia$29.8K
Michigan$11.0K
Illinois$10.0K
Virginia$8,750
Maryland$6,500
Tennessee$5,400
Indiana$4,000
New York$3,800
California$3,750
Pennsylvania$1,000
Georgia$1,000
Texas$1,000
Washington$750
Arizona$600
Minnesota$500
West Virginia$300
Wisconsin$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
263

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

55%

from Ohio

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.4%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 48%48%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 31%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 8.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 1.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Beatty's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 48% between −1.25 and −1.00, 31% between −1.00 and −0.75, 8.1% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.4%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0048%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7531%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.508.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.001.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Beatty’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Beatty’s own score is −1.04.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$37.6K 50 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$30.0K 25 donors
  3. CEO$18.5K 13 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$12.5K 7 donors
  5. OWNER$10.0K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. BREAD FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. PAC (AKA BREAD FINANCIAL PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MINDSET$4,500 5 donors
  2. OSU$4,250 4 donors
  3. AMERICAN SHARE INSURANCE$3,000 3 donors
  4. OHIOHEALTH$2,050 3 donors
  5. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY$1,650 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Beatty voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 5.6% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Beatty voted against the majority of House Democrats 10 times.

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

10

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.4%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 110th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Beatty
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.3%
96.9%
190th of 217
Party unity
98.4%
96.4%
110th of 217
Show the data
Beatty's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowBeattyPeers
Attendance94.3%96.9%
Party unity98.4%96.4%
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 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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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 Beatty most often

  1. Shontel BrownD634 shared votes99%
  2. Frederica WilsonD453 shared votes99%
  3. Hakeem JeffriesD631 shared votes99%
  4. Jennifer McClellanD631 shared votes99%
  5. Emanuel Cleaver IID607 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Beatty least often

  1. Chip RoyR597 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR563 shared votes18%
  3. Eric BurlisonR605 shared votes18%
  4. Keith SelfR628 shared votes18%
  5. Andy BiggsR572 shared votes18%
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

Beatty sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 439 others. 8.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 38th of 207).

The bills Beatty 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

Sponsored24 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2424Sponsored, In committee: 2424Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored439 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 439439Cosponsored, In committee: 439439Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1414Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Beatty sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2424200
Cosponsored4394391432
How to read the blocks

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

8.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 38th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton59
  2. Rashida Tlaib31
  3. Hank Johnson Jr.30
  4. André Carson28
  5. Shontel Brown23
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 Beatty’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. 10844Mobile Stroke Units Improve Health Outcomes Act of 2026CosponsorOct 19, 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 19, 2026
H.R. 10646To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into intergovernmental support agreements on behalf of Defense Agencies, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1603Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10634To prohibit the demolition of Presidential memorials.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10604Zeus 95 Memorial ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Beatty’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Beatty posted on Aug 11, 2026.

The lab crawls Beatty’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 Beatty 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 Beatty posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue event flyer with star and city skyline graphics, announcing mobile office hours hosted by the office of a U.S. congresswoman. It includes event details and a note that the congresswoman will not be present.
    A blue event flyer with star and city skyline graphics, announcing mobile office hours hosted by the office of a U.S. congresswoman. It includes event details and a note that the congresswoman will not be present.View post
  • A two-panel before-and-after comparison of the Kennedy Center exterior. The upper image shows the bright, unobstructed facade; the lower image shows part of the facade covered with dark sheeting and barriers, with workers nearby. Both panels have text overlays.
    A two-panel before-and-after comparison of the Kennedy Center exterior. The upper image shows the bright, unobstructed facade; the lower image shows part of the facade covered with dark sheeting and barriers, with workers nearby. Both panels have text overlays.View post
  • A photograph of an older woman in a red suit seated in an office, holding a framed black-and-white photograph. American and Ohio flags stand behind her. Large headline text overlays the top, with a photo credit near the bottom.
    A photograph of an older woman in a red suit seated in an office, holding a framed black-and-white photograph. American and Ohio flags stand behind her. Large headline text overlays the top, with a photo credit near the bottom.View post
  • A woman poses on a balcony overlooking a city at night, with a crowd and illuminated buildings below and fireworks bursting in the sky. No visible text.
    A woman poses on a balcony overlooking a city at night, with a crowd and illuminated buildings below and fireworks bursting in the sky. No visible text.View post
  • A political graphic featuring Donald Trump in a suit, with a dilapidated house and a foreclosure notice with keys in the background. Large red quote text overlays the lower portion, with a smaller attribution beneath it and a logo in the corner.
    A political graphic featuring Donald Trump in a suit, with a dilapidated house and a foreclosure notice with keys in the background. Large red quote text overlays the lower portion, with a smaller attribution beneath it and a logo in the corner.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 Beatty is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
B001281
Bioguide
B001281
FEC candidate ids
H2OH03125

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