Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, New Jersey

Serving since Oct 31, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001288FEC S4NJ00185

Portrait of Cory Booker, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
13%
of itemized money from New Jersey donors, in the bottom 5% of Senate Democrats

13% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in New Jersey. Ranks 40th of 41, where 1st is the highest share. 12,967 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in New Jersey, ranked among Senate Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Booker raised $21.3M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M). 60% of Booker’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of Senate Democrats (median 35%).

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

From New Jersey, 2026

13%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 40th of 41 Senate Democrats

Raised, 2026

$21.3M

Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 3rd of 45

Small donations, 2026

60%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 6th of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.41

More liberal than 83% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01

Out of committee

6.9%

Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 38th of 45

Attendance

95.6%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 35th of 45 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Booker says

Booker attacks opponents personally about as often as the median Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 8.9% of 1,656 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 26th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Booker’s 1,656 statements in the 119th Congress (967 posts on X, 540 press releases, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 2 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Booker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,222 statements
74%
78%
33rd of 45
Policy criticism579 statements
35%
37%
31st of 45
Credit claiming379 statements
23%
26%
29th of 45
Bipartisanship259 statements
16%
18%
23rd of 45
Personal attacks148 statements
9%
11%
26th of 45
Show the data
Booker's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowBookerPeers
Policy discussion74%78%
Policy criticism35%37%
Credit claiming23%26%
Bipartisanship16%18%
Personal attacks9%11%
1,656

statements classified

967 posts on X, 540 press releases, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 2 newsletters.

posts on X: 967 (58.4%)posts on X 967press releases: 540 (32.6%)press releases 540Congressional Record speeches: 147 (8.9%)newsletters: 2 (0.1%)
Show the data
Booker's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X967
press releases540
Congressional Record speeches147
newsletters2
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Booker used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 27 statements, most often aimed at government censorship; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”14
  2. “radical”7
  3. “MAGA”6
  4. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. government censorship2
  2. Republicans2
  3. Democratic Party1
  4. Democrats1
  5. Dobbs decision1
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: 1072025-02: 762025-03: 982025-04: 1542025-05: 782025-06: 982025-07: 1072025-08: 392025-09: 672025-10: 832025-11: 332025-12: 932026-01: 562026-02: 572026-03: 752026-04: 872026-05: 482026-06: 622026-07: 582026-08: 522026-09: 942026-10: 34peak 154 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 15.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 11.8%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.7% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-02: 15.8% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-03: 11.2% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.3% of 154Personal attacks, 2025-05: 10.3% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-06: 12.2% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-07: 14.9% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-08: 10.3% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-09: 7.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-10: 12.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-11: 6.1% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.2% of 93Personal attacks, 2026-01: 14.3% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-02: 14.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-03: 8.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.9% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.2% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-06: 3.2% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-07: 13.8% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.6% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.4% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-10: 11.8% of 34Policy criticismpeak 54.8% · Jun ’26 · latest 20.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.1% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-02: 40.8% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-03: 36.7% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-04: 24.0% of 154Policy criticism, 2025-05: 41.0% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-06: 40.8% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-07: 38.3% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-08: 51.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-09: 43.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-10: 42.2% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-11: 39.4% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-12: 29.0% of 93Policy criticism, 2026-01: 23.2% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-02: 38.6% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-03: 38.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-04: 43.7% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-05: 29.2% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-06: 54.8% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-07: 25.9% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-08: 26.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-09: 24.5% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-10: 20.6% of 34Policy discussionpeak 94.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 76.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 47.7% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-02: 73.7% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-03: 66.3% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-04: 50.0% of 154Policy discussion, 2025-05: 79.5% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.4% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-07: 72.9% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-08: 76.9% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-10: 80.7% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-12: 87.1% of 93Policy discussion, 2026-01: 91.1% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-02: 82.5% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-03: 85.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.8% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.2% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-06: 82.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-07: 82.8% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-08: 94.2% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-09: 73.4% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.5% of 34Bipartisanshippeak 31.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 11.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 14.9% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 18.4% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 19.4% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.2% of 154Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 7.7% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.1% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 29.8% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 31.3% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 18.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 18.3% of 93Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.3% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 22.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.7% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 11.5% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 20.8% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 22.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 19.0% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 9.6% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 13.8% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 11.8% of 34Credit claimingpeak 38.6% · Feb ’26 · latest 23.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 18.7% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-02: 31.6% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-03: 25.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-04: 7.8% of 154Credit claiming, 2025-05: 19.2% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.2% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-07: 21.5% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-08: 10.3% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-09: 22.4% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-10: 18.1% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-11: 24.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-12: 24.7% of 93Credit claiming, 2026-01: 25.0% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-02: 38.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-04: 29.9% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.3% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-06: 30.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-07: 29.3% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-09: 24.5% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-10: 23.5% of 34Extreme labelspeak 5.2% · Jul ’26 · latest 2.9%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.3% of 154Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.3% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.8% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.4% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 93Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.8% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-04: 4.6% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-07: 5.2% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.9% of 34Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Booker, 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 ’251074.7%27.1%47.7%14.9%18.7%0.0%
Feb ’257615.8%40.8%73.7%18.4%31.6%0.0%
Mar ’259811.2%36.7%66.3%19.4%25.5%5.1%
Apr ’251543.3%24.0%50.0%5.2%7.8%1.3%
May ’257810.3%41.0%79.5%7.7%19.2%1.3%
Jun ’259812.2%40.8%68.4%9.2%10.2%3.1%
Jul ’2510714.9%38.3%72.9%13.1%21.5%2.8%
Aug ’253910.3%51.3%76.9%5.1%10.3%0.0%
Sep ’25677.5%43.3%73.1%29.8%22.4%1.5%
Oct ’258312.0%42.2%80.7%31.3%18.1%2.4%
Nov ’25336.1%39.4%72.7%18.2%24.2%0.0%
Dec ’25933.2%29.0%87.1%18.3%24.7%0.0%
Jan ’265614.3%23.2%91.1%14.3%25.0%1.8%
Feb ’265714.0%38.6%82.5%22.8%38.6%1.8%
Mar ’26758.0%38.7%85.3%18.7%28.0%0.0%
Apr ’26876.9%43.7%82.8%11.5%29.9%4.6%
May ’26484.2%29.2%79.2%20.8%31.3%0.0%
Jun ’26623.2%54.8%82.3%22.6%30.6%0.0%
Jul ’265813.8%25.9%82.8%19.0%29.3%5.2%
Aug ’26529.6%26.9%94.2%9.6%38.5%0.0%
Sep ’26946.4%24.5%73.4%13.8%24.5%0.0%
Oct ’263411.8%20.6%76.5%11.8%23.5%2.9%
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 Booker’s words

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

Credit claiming

Booker, Warren Urge FTC to Investigate Anticompetitive, Deceptive Practices in Online Home-Buying Marketplace WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, and Elizabet…

Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Commerce; Finance and Financial Sector; Transportation and Public Works · Source

Personal attacks

Booker Demands Answers Regarding Unjustified Prison Transfer of Convicted Child Sexual Predator Ghislaine Maxwell WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) is pressing Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director William Marshall III for answer…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; target: Ghislaine Maxwell · Source

Extreme label

Booker Introduces Bill to Combat Trump’s Pardons for Sale Scheme WASHINGTON, D.C.–U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced the Presidential Pardon Integrity Act, a bill to combat the abuse of the pardon power to reward political allies and campaign don…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; Law; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA; target: Trump · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Press releases

    Booker Introduces Bill to Combat Trump’s Pardons for Sale Scheme WASHINGTON, D.C.–U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced the Presidential Pardon Integrity Act, a bill to combat the abuse of the pardon power to reward political allies and campaign donors at the expense of crime victims and American taxpayers. The legislation would deter the corrupt practice of “pardons…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Law · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · target: TrumpSource

  2. Press releases

    Booker Demands Answers Regarding Unjustified Prison Transfer of Convicted Child Sexual Predator Ghislaine Maxwell WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) is pressing Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director William Marshall III for answers about Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer from FCI Tallahassee, a maximum security penitentiary to Federal Prison Camp (FPC)…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Ghislaine MaxwellSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Health · Families · target: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    ICYMI: Booker “Takes Command of Room” at Jack Smith Hearing & Calls out Republicans with “Fury In His Truth” WASHINGTON, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Cory Booker, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is drawing national praise for his forceful oversight comments during Tuesday’s hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith. Booker’s criticism of Republicans for focusing on debunked claims about the 202…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Commerce · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: RepublicansSource

  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 · target: RepublicansSource

All 1,656 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: 967 posts on X, 540 press releases, 147 Congressional Record speeches, 2 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Booker talks about most: 29% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 15th of 45).

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

What Booker talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Booker
Peers
Health355 statements
29%
27%
Government Operations and Politics295 statements
24%
22%
Economics and Public Finance238 statements
19%
24%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues181 statements
15%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security174 statements
14%
21%
Show the data
Policy areas Booker talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowBookerPeers
Health29%27%
Government Operations and Politics24%22%
Economics and Public Finance19%24%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%11%
Armed Forces and National Security14%21%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 29% (Senate Democrats 27%)29%Health, legislates on: 23% (Senate Democrats 14%)23%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 24% (Senate Democrats 22%)24%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 9%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (Senate Democrats 24%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 15% (Senate Democrats 11%)15%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 5%)5%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 21%)14%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%
Show the data
Booker's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Health29%27%23%14%
Government Operations and Politics24%22%5%9%
Economics and Public Finance19%24%0%0%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%11%5%5%
Armed Forces and National Security14%21%6%7%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 15th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Booker sits at −1.41 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 83% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.42 to −1.40, which understates the uncertainty; from 28,118 donors and 4,363 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”.

−1.41

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.42 to −1.40. From 28,118 donors and 4,363 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Booker −1.4Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Booker, 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 Booker’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 Booker sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Booker −1.4All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Booker's CSIP score of −1.41 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Booker
Senate Democrats45−1.116%
All Senate98+0.47%
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 Booker 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 Booker.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Booker raised $21.3M in the 2026 cycle, 8.1 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 60% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 13% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.

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
$21.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 12,967 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.3M (29.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $9.4M (44.0%)PACs and other committees: $512.8K (2.4%)PACs and other committees: $512.8K (2.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.1M (23.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)30 squares$6.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)44 squares$9.4M
  • PACs and other committees2 squares$512.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)24 squares$5.1M
Show the data
Sources of Booker's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$6.3M29.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$9.4M44.0%
PACs and other committees$512.8K2.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$5.1M23.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M20202022 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M20222024 cycle: $7.9M$7.9M20242026 cycle: $21.3M$21.3M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Booker's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$6.0M
2022 cycle$6.0M
2024 cycle$7.9M
2026 cycle$21.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 13% came from New Jersey.

  1. California$1.0M
  2. New York$800.6K
  3. New Jersey$675.5K
  4. Massachusetts$273.1K
  5. Maryland$211.6K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Booker
Median
2026
60%
35%
2024
55%
35%
2022
60%
35%
2020
35%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowBookerMedian
2026 cycle60%35%
2024 cycle55%35%
2022 cycle60%35%
2020 cycle35%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $9,921AKMaine: $30.7KMEVermont: $17.7KVTNew Hampshire: $29.7KNHWashington: $193.9KWAIdaho: $14.1KIDMontana: $8,745MTNorth Dakota: $1,070NDMinnesota: $51.7KMNIllinois: $168.9KILWisconsin: $35.7KWIMichigan: $61.6KMINew York: $800.6KNYRhode Island: $12.1KRIMassachusetts: $273.1KMAOregon: $73.8KORNevada: $29.2KNVWyoming: $13.4KWYSouth Dakota: $3,317SDIowa: $14.5KIAIndiana: $37.7KINOhio: $79.1KOHPennsylvania: $147.0KPANew Jersey: $675.5KNJConnecticut: $89.6KCTCalifornia: $1.0MCAUtah: $14.3KUTColorado: $119.3KCONebraska: $13.8KNEMissouri: $40.9KMOKentucky: $17.9KKYWest Virginia: $3,841WVVirginia: $102.0KVAMaryland: $211.6KMDDelaware: $14.7KDEArizona: $105.8KAZNew Mexico: $31.9KNMKansas: $17.9KKSArkansas: $16.8KARTennessee: $57.3KTNNorth Carolina: $67.4KNCSouth Carolina: $20.9KSCDistrict of Columbia: $69.6KDCOklahoma: $10.4KOKLouisiana: $13.0KLAMississippi: $4,620MSAlabama: $8,700ALGeorgia: $58.2KGAHawaii: $18.7KHITexas: $156.4KTXFlorida: $200.6KFL
Show the data
Booker's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.0M
New York$800.6K
New Jersey$675.5K
Massachusetts$273.1K
Maryland$211.6K
Florida$200.6K
Washington$193.9K
Illinois$168.9K
Texas$156.4K
Pennsylvania$147.0K
Colorado$119.3K
Arizona$105.8K
Virginia$102.0K
Connecticut$89.6K
Ohio$79.1K
Oregon$73.8K
District of Columbia$69.6K
North Carolina$67.4K
Michigan$61.6K
Georgia$58.2K
Tennessee$57.3K
Minnesota$51.7K
Missouri$40.9K
Indiana$37.7K
Wisconsin$35.7K
New Mexico$31.9K
Maine$30.7K
New Hampshire$29.7K
Nevada$29.2K
South Carolina$20.9K
Hawaii$18.7K
Kentucky$17.9K
Kansas$17.9K
Vermont$17.7K
Arkansas$16.8K
Delaware$14.7K
Iowa$14.5K
Utah$14.3K
Idaho$14.1K
Nebraska$13.8K
Wyoming$13.4K
Louisiana$13.0K
Rhode Island$12.1K
Oklahoma$10.4K
Alaska$9,921
Montana$8,745
Alabama$8,700
Mississippi$4,620
West Virginia$3,841
South Dakota$3,317
North Dakota$1,070
12,967

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

13%

from New Jersey

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.25 to −2.00: 0%CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.1%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 21%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 44%44%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 21%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.4%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Booker's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.25 to +0.75: 21% between −1.50 and −1.25, 44% between −1.25 and −1.00, 21% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.25 to −2.000%
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.1%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2521%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0044%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7521%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.4%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Booker’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Booker’s own score is −1.41.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$2.1M 6,566 donors
  2. RETIRED$753.1K 2,259 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$314.0K 447 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$107.9K 86 donors
  5. INVESTOR$99.2K 48 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. A NEW DIRECTION PAC$10.0K
  2. ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K
  3. ALSOPAC$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$30.8K 8 donors
  2. BLACKSTONE$26.8K 6 donors
  3. APOLLO$17.7K 6 donors
  4. WELLS FARGO$8,959 7 donors
  5. APOLLO MANAGEMENT$8,100 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Booker voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 97.1% of party-line votes and missed 4.4% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Booker voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 50 times.

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

50

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 97.1%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 20th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Booker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.6%
97.0%
35th of 45
Party unity
97.1%
95.3%
20th of 45
Show the data
Booker's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowBookerPeers
Attendance95.6%97.0%
Party unity97.1%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Booker most often

  1. Alex PadillaD836 shared votes97%
  2. Angela AlsobrooksD854 shared votes96%
  3. Ron WydenD852 shared votes95%
  4. Elizabeth WarrenD860 shared votes95%
  5. Chris Van HollenD855 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Booker least often

  1. Jim BanksR859 shared votes5.8%
  2. Cynthia LummisR841 shared votes5.9%
  3. John CurtisR853 shared votes6.1%
  4. Bernie MorenoR866 shared votes6.1%
  5. Bill HagertyR837 shared votes6.2%
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

Booker sponsored 131 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 756 others. 6.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 38th of 45).

The bills Booker 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

Sponsored131 billsSponsored, Introduced: 131131Sponsored, In committee: 130130Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 55Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored756 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 756756Cosponsored, In committee: 754754Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 9797Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Booker sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored131130500
Cosponsored7567549755
How to read the blocks

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

6.9%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 38th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Richard Blumenthal293
  2. Alex Padilla267
  3. Jeff Merkley250
  4. Chris Van Hollen233
  5. Ed Markey229
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 Booker’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5687Presidential Pardon Integrity ActSponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedUnassignedUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5618Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeLawRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5626Higher Education Grant Flexibility Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5627John Lewis Equality in Medicare and Medicaid Treatment Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5631SOAR ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCommerceRead twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 78 times in 90 days. Booker’s official site had 46 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Booker posted on Oct 7, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    www.booker.senate.gov

    Last crawled Oct 18, 2026

    46

    pages crawled

    78

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    corybooker.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    25

    pages crawled

    37

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Social accounts

Images Booker posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man in a suit and red tie poses beside a woman at an event, holding a small button. An American flag and dark curtains are in the background. There is text on the button and on the woman’s badge.
    A man in a suit and red tie poses beside a woman at an event, holding a small button. An American flag and dark curtains are in the background. There is text on the button and on the woman’s badge.View post
  • A graphic poster with a medical cross icon and bold lettering promoting immigrant healthcare workers and a healthcare workforce day of action. A small slogan block appears at the lower right. The poster has a black border and background bands.
    A graphic poster with a medical cross icon and bold lettering promoting immigrant healthcare workers and a healthcare workforce day of action. A small slogan block appears at the lower right. The poster has a black border and background bands.View post
  • A book display table in a library, covered with brochures, magazines, and other publications. A person stands behind the table, with bookshelves and a promotional display in the background. The tablecloth has prominent text and a government seal.
    A book display table in a library, covered with brochures, magazines, and other publications. A person stands behind the table, with bookshelves and a promotional display in the background. The tablecloth has prominent text and a government seal.View post
  • A young man stands behind a table covered with books and pamphlets in a library. The table has a dark blue cloth with a large seal and text. Bookshelves and library signage are visible in the background, along with another person seated nearby.
    A young man stands behind a table covered with books and pamphlets in a library. The table has a dark blue cloth with a large seal and text. Bookshelves and library signage are visible in the background, along with another person seated nearby.View post
  • A group of people pose indoors, holding a large ceremonial funding check in front of a health organization display. There is text on the check and signs in the background.
    A group of people pose indoors, holding a large ceremonial funding check in front of a health organization display. There is text on the check and signs in the background.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 Booker is most unusual among Senate 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
B001288
Bioguide
B001288
FEC candidate ids
S4NJ00185

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