Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001295FEC H4IL12060

Portrait of Mike Bost, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1,131
statements classified

659 posts on X, 337 Congressional Record speeches, 81 newsletters in the 119th Congress. No measure in the 119th Congress stands far from the peer average.

Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Bost sits at +0.84 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 74% of House Republicans. 65% of Bost’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Illinois, in the top half of House Republicans. 64% of Bost’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom half of House Republicans (average 68%).

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

CSIP ideology

+0.84

More liberal than 74% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

From Illinois, 2026

65%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 61st of 216 House Republicans

Policy discussion

64%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 151st of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.68

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 69th of 221

Personal attacks

0.5%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 147th of 221

Raised, 2026

$1.6M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 142nd of 220

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bost says

Bost attacks opponents personally less than 66% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 1,131 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 147th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Bost’s 1,131 statements in the 119th Congress (659 posts on X, 337 Congressional Record speeches, 81 newsletters, 54 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Bost
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion727 statements
64%
68%
151st of 221
Credit claiming439 statements
39%
37%
105th of 221
Policy criticism176 statements
16%
15%
87th of 221
Bipartisanship82 statements
7%
9%
114th of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
147th of 221
Show the data
Bost's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBostPeers
Policy discussion64%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Policy criticism16%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,131

statements classified

659 posts on X, 337 Congressional Record speeches, 81 newsletters, 54 press releases.

posts on X: 659 (58.3%)posts on X 659Congressional Record speeches: 337 (29.8%)Congressional Record speeches 337newsletters: 81 (7.2%)press releases: 54 (4.8%)
Show the data
Bost's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X659
Congressional Record speeches337
newsletters81
press releases54
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Bost used extreme labels in 2.6% of statements, below the peer average. 29 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “woke”12
  2. “radical”10
  3. “far left”8
  4. “communist”2
  5. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats3
  2. foreign aid3
  3. DEI policies2
  4. Green Deal2
  5. Biden policies1
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: 632025-02: 622025-03: 472025-04: 842025-05: 972025-06: 682025-07: 532025-08: 252025-09: 1232025-10: 282025-11: 302025-12: 342026-01: 492026-02: 582026-03: 262026-04: 232026-05: 752026-06: 242026-07: 662026-08: 292026-09: 302026-10: 37peak 123 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 4.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.5% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 123Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.7% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 37Policy criticismpeak 35.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 13.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 7.9% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-02: 27.4% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-03: 19.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-04: 20.2% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-05: 14.4% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-06: 11.8% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-07: 15.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.4% of 123Policy criticism, 2025-10: 35.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-11: 6.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-12: 17.6% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.2% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.5% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.1% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-04: 8.7% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-05: 22.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-06: 16.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.1% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-10: 13.5% of 37Policy discussionpeak 86.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 83.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 54.0% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-02: 79.0% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-03: 83.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-04: 60.7% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-05: 53.6% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-06: 67.7% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-07: 62.3% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-08: 84.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-09: 48.0% of 123Policy discussion, 2025-10: 78.6% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-11: 60.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-12: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.6% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.3% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-03: 80.8% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-04: 56.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-05: 61.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-06: 54.2% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-07: 47.0% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-08: 86.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-09: 83.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-10: 83.8% of 37Bipartisanshippeak 17.2% · Feb ’26 · latest 2.7%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 1.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.5% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.8% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.5% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.3% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 1.5% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.7% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.1% of 123Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 17.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 16.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 6.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 3.5% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 2.7% of 37Credit claimingpeak 72.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 43.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 44.4% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-02: 53.2% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-03: 44.7% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.9% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-05: 33.0% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-06: 35.3% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-07: 37.7% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-08: 72.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-09: 30.9% of 123Credit claiming, 2025-10: 39.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-11: 36.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-12: 50.0% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-01: 46.9% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-02: 44.8% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-03: 42.3% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-04: 43.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-05: 41.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-06: 16.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-07: 27.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-08: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-09: 36.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-10: 43.2% of 37Extreme labelspeak 10.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.8% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-03: 8.5% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-06: 8.8% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-07: 7.5% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 123Extreme labels, 2025-10: 10.7% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-12: 5.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.3% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 37Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Bost, 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 ’25630.0%7.9%54.0%1.6%44.4%0.0%
Feb ’25620.0%27.4%79.0%6.5%53.2%4.8%
Mar ’25474.3%19.1%83.0%12.8%44.7%8.5%
Apr ’25840.0%20.2%60.7%9.5%30.9%1.2%
May ’25970.0%14.4%53.6%8.3%33.0%0.0%
Jun ’25681.5%11.8%67.7%1.5%35.3%8.8%
Jul ’25530.0%15.1%62.3%5.7%37.7%7.5%
Aug ’25250.0%12.0%84.0%0.0%72.0%4.0%
Sep ’251230.0%15.4%48.0%8.1%30.9%0.0%
Oct ’25280.0%35.7%78.6%3.6%39.3%10.7%
Nov ’25300.0%6.7%60.0%6.7%36.7%3.3%
Dec ’25342.9%17.6%70.6%5.9%50.0%5.9%
Jan ’26490.0%10.2%79.6%8.2%46.9%2.0%
Feb ’26580.0%15.5%60.3%17.2%44.8%1.7%
Mar ’26260.0%23.1%80.8%7.7%42.3%0.0%
Apr ’26230.0%8.7%56.5%0.0%43.5%0.0%
May ’26752.7%22.7%61.3%16.0%41.3%1.3%
Jun ’26240.0%16.7%54.2%4.2%16.7%4.2%
Jul ’26660.0%9.1%47.0%6.1%27.3%0.0%
Aug ’26290.0%0.0%86.2%3.5%34.5%0.0%
Sep ’26300.0%13.3%83.3%3.3%36.7%0.0%
Oct ’26370.0%13.5%83.8%2.7%43.2%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Bost’s words

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

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Finance and Financial Sector · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay for veterans. As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely aware of the true cost…

May 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Health; target: Republicans · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education; extreme label “far left” aimed at far-left · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay for veterans. As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely aware of the true cost of war. We see it in disability compensation, in survivor benefits, in prosthetics, in mental health care, and in long-…

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

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 6047, as amended, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, introduced by my friend and fellow veteran, Representative Tom Barrett. I will speak to you today about some of the great Americans this bill will impact. Sharri Briley is the survivor and spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan ``…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Housing and Community DevelopmentSource

  3. Newsletters

    The Bost Bulletin | Dear Friend, In case you missed it, President Trump unveiled some big news in a primetime address to the nation from the White House on Wednesday. He announced a $1,776 "Warrior Dividend" bonus for U.S. service members this Christmas and announced TrumpRx to help lower prescription drug costs, among other items on the agenda. The President also highlighted progress being made on bringing inflatio…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · Health · target: Michael Madigan

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: liberalsSource

  5. Newsletters

    The Bost Bulletin News from Rep. Bost The Bost Bulletin Dear Friend, We've had another busy week fighting to put America First - stopping taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants, securing our elections, and protecting our universities from foreign influence. I also met with law enforcement, farmers, and business leaders to discuss the challenges they're facing and how we can keep Southern Illinois strong. St…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Agriculture and Food · Commerce · International Affairs · Health · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Transportation and Public Works

All 1,131 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: 659 posts on X, 337 Congressional Record speeches, 81 newsletters, 54 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Bost talks about most: 45% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 69th of 221).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Bost talks about. The bills Bost sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Bost talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%49%
Bost
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security325 statements
45%
24%
Health180 statements
25%
15%
Government Operations and Politics127 statements
17%
19%
Economics and Public Finance120 statements
17%
19%
Agriculture and Food111 statements
15%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Bost talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowBostPeers
Armed Forces and National Security45%24%
Health25%15%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Agriculture and Food15%9%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 49%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 45% (House Republicans 24%)45%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 16% (House Republicans 8%)16%HealthHealth, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 15%)25%Health, legislates on: 11% (House Republicans 11%)11%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 12%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 9%)15%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 3%)7%
Show the data
Bost's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security45%24%16%8%
Health25%15%11%11%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%12%12%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%0%2%
Agriculture and Food15%9%7%3%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 69th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Bost sits at +0.84 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 74% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,523 donors and 6,167 roll calls.

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

+0.84

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86. From 2,523 donors and 6,167 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Bost, 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 Bost’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 Bost sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Bost +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Bost's CSIP score of +0.84 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bost
House Republicans221+1.026%
All House439+0.363%
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 Bost 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 Bost.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Bost raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 8.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 65% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.

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
$1.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 351 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $531.8K (33.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.1K (2.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.1K (2.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.1K (2.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (64.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$531.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$46.1K
  • PACs and other committees64 squares$1.0M
  • Party committees$500
Show the data
Sources of Bost's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$531.8K33.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$46.1K2.9%
PACs and other committees$1.0M64.2%
Party committees$5000.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M20202022 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20222024 cycle: $3.2M$3.2M20242026 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Bost's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.9M
2022 cycle$1.7M
2024 cycle$3.2M
2026 cycle$1.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 65% came from Illinois.

  1. Illinois$302.8K
  2. Florida$34.3K
  3. District of Columbia$22.3K
  4. Connecticut$17.4K
  5. Texas$17.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Bost
Median
2026
8%
9%
2024
9%
9%
2022
14%
9%
2020
13%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowBostMedian
2026 cycle8%9%
2024 cycle9%9%
2022 cycle14%9%
2020 cycle13%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $298NHWashington: $250WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $302.8KILWisconsin: $2,794WIMichigan: $114MINew York: $3,250NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $2,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $740INOhio: $3,000OHPennsylvania: $1,000PANew Jersey: $1,000NJConnecticut: $17.4KCTCalifornia: $3,727CAUtah: $1,500UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $12.1KMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $14.4KVAMaryland: $3,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $788AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $500TNNorth Carolina: $7,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $22.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $100MSAlabama: $13.5KALGeorgia: $98GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $17.0KTXFlorida: $34.3KFL
Show the data
Bost's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Illinois$302.8K
Florida$34.3K
District of Columbia$22.3K
Connecticut$17.4K
Texas$17.0K
Virginia$14.4K
Alabama$13.5K
Missouri$12.1K
North Carolina$7,000
California$3,727
Maryland$3,500
New York$3,250
Ohio$3,000
Wisconsin$2,794
Nevada$2,000
Utah$1,500
Pennsylvania$1,000
New Jersey$1,000
Arizona$788
Indiana$740
Massachusetts$500
Tennessee$500
New Hampshire$298
Washington$250
Michigan$114
Mississippi$100
Georgia$98
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
HawaiiNo data
351

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

65%

from Illinois

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.5%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 7.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 10%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 68%68%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 2.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Bost's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 5.0% between 0.00 and +0.25, 7.7% between +0.25 and +0.50, 10% between +0.50 and +0.75, 68% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.5%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.507.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7510%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0068%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.252.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Bost’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Bost’s own score is +0.84.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$52.5K 75 donors
  2. OWNER$37.4K 21 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$22.8K 16 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$22.1K 26 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$19.5K 12 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (CRNA-PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ASA PAC)$10.0K
  5. DOCUMENT STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC. (DSS PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOTS LOGISTICS$15.5K 3 donors
  2. MEDICAL PLACE$13.5K 3 donors
  3. MEHLMAN CONSULTING$8,705 6 donors
  4. VETERANS GUARDIAN$8,500 3 donors
  5. BGR GROUP$4,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Bost voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 1.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bost voted against the majority of House Republicans 15 times.

674 roll calls Bost could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Bost voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

15

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 109th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Bost
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.3%
96.3%
92nd of 221
Party unity
98.2%
97.1%
109th of 221
Show the data
Bost's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowBostPeers
Attendance98.3%96.3%
Party unity98.2%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bost most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR516 shared votes99%
  2. Doug LamalfaR336 shared votes98%
  3. Andy BarrR620 shared votes98%
  4. Brad FinstadR657 shared votes98%
  5. Rick AllenR652 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bost least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD647 shared votes23%
  2. Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD631 shared votes24%
  4. Gregorio CasarD568 shared votes24%
  5. Brittany PettersenD561 shared votes25%
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

Bost sponsored 25 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 310 others. 16% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 85th of 216).

The bills Bost 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

Sponsored25 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2525Sponsored, In committee: 2525Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored310 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 310310Cosponsored, In committee: 310310Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3636Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Bost sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2525200
Cosponsored3103103643
How to read the blocks

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

16%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 85th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Mary Miller33
  2. Tracey Mann27
  3. Claudia Tenney24
  4. Randy Weber Sr.22
  5. Nicole (Nikki) Budzinski22
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 Bost’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. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1564Recognizing September 17, 2026, as National Teach Ag Day.CosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 17, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 3, 2026
H.R. 10115Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization Act of 2026CosponsorAug 17, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Aug 17, 2026
H.R. 9868Preventing Forced Abortions Act of 2026CosponsorJul 22, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jul 22, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 90 times in 90 days. Bost’s official site had 54 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Bost posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    bost.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    54

    pages crawled

    90

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    bostforcongress.com

    Last crawled Oct 18, 2026

    1

    pages crawled

    0

    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 Bost posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three older men stand talking in a meeting room with rows of chairs and a conference table. There is some text visible on objects in the room.
    Three older men stand talking in a meeting room with rows of chairs and a conference table. There is some text visible on objects in the room.View post
  • A group of seven adults pose together in a room with dark blue walls, framed pictures, and a tiled floor. Some clothing and wall art contain text.
    A group of seven adults pose together in a room with dark blue walls, framed pictures, and a tiled floor. Some clothing and wall art contain text.View post
  • A dark blue official-looking pledge poster with a circular government seal at the upper right, a large headline, several paragraphs and a numbered list, a faint eagle emblem in the background, and a handwritten signature near the bottom. The image is primarily text.
    A dark blue official-looking pledge poster with a circular government seal at the upper right, a large headline, several paragraphs and a numbered list, a faint eagle emblem in the background, and a handwritten signature near the bottom. The image is primarily text.View post
  • Several adults are gathered in a classroom or community room, talking in front of a wall covered with schedules, pictures, and other materials. A table and chairs are in the foreground. There is text on a display board and on some posted materials.
    Several adults are gathered in a classroom or community room, talking in front of a wall covered with schedules, pictures, and other materials. A table and chairs are in the foreground. There is text on a display board and on some posted materials.View post
  • Three men wearing hard hats talk inside a building under construction. One man gestures while the other two listen. The unfinished interior has exposed ceiling insulation, brick walls, construction materials, equipment, and work lights. Text is visible on the hard hats and some objects.
    Three men wearing hard hats talk inside a building under construction. One man gestures while the other two listen. The unfinished interior has exposed ceiling insulation, brick walls, construction materials, equipment, and work lights. Text is visible on the hard hats and some objects.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 Bost is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. That is the case for Bost in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
B001295
Bioguide
B001295
FEC candidate ids
H4IL12060

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