Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; target: Neville Singham · Source
5.6%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans
5.6% of 107 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for Senate Republicans is 22%. Ranks 49th of 51, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Banks sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among Senate Republicans. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 4.4% of Banks’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 13%). Banks sits at +1.24 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 87% of Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Banks sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
5.6%
Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 49th of 51
Bipartisanship
4.4%
Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 48th of 52
CSIP ideology
+1.24
More conservative than 87% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01
Party unity
99.8%
Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 9th of 53 · 8 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Extreme labels
5.3%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 9th of 52
Policy discussion
64%
Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 43rd of 52
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Banks, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Banks is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Banks says
Banks stresses bipartisanship less than 90% of Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 4.4% of 2,376 statements, against 13% for the average Senate Republican; 48th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Banks’s 2,376 statements in the 119th Congress (2,067 posts on X, 184 press releases, 65 newsletters, 60 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Banks
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,516 statements
64%
70%
43rd of 52
Credit claiming790 statements
33%
36%
35th of 52
Policy criticism313 statements
13%
17%
41st of 52
Bipartisanship105 statements
4%
13%
48th of 52
Personal attacks72 statements
3%
2%
14th of 52
Show the data
| Row | Banks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 64% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 36% |
| Policy criticism | 13% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 2% |
2,376
statements classified
2,067 posts on X, 184 press releases, 65 newsletters, 60 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2,067 |
| press releases | 184 |
| newsletters | 65 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 60 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Banks; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Banks does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Banks used extreme labels in 5.3% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 127 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.
- “radical”46
- “communist”24
- “woke”14
- “extreme”7
- “far left”6
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats19
- China4
- Democrat Party3
- Democratic Party3
- left3
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 80 | 2.5% | 17.5% | 76.3% | 3.8% | 51.2% | 8.8% |
| Feb ’25 | 77 | 6.5% | 15.6% | 55.8% | 2.6% | 45.5% | 7.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 83 | 3.6% | 24.1% | 61.5% | 4.8% | 39.8% | 13.3% |
| Apr ’25 | 86 | 5.8% | 17.4% | 54.6% | 3.5% | 44.2% | 10.5% |
| May ’25 | 91 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 39.6% | 6.6% | 29.7% | 2.2% |
| Jun ’25 | 139 | 4.3% | 14.4% | 60.4% | 4.3% | 30.2% | 5.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 59 | 3.4% | 6.8% | 59.3% | 3.4% | 32.2% | 3.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 43.6% | 1.8% | 36.4% | 1.8% |
| Sep ’25 | 58 | 1.7% | 10.3% | 39.7% | 3.5% | 34.5% | 3.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 65 | 4.6% | 20.0% | 49.2% | 0.0% | 26.2% | 6.2% |
| Nov ’25 | 89 | 1.1% | 20.2% | 58.4% | 1.1% | 22.5% | 6.7% |
| Dec ’25 | 90 | 3.3% | 14.4% | 65.6% | 1.1% | 36.7% | 4.4% |
| Jan ’26 | 92 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 55.4% | 2.2% | 29.3% | 1.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 161 | 0.0% | 13.7% | 53.4% | 3.1% | 32.3% | 5.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 97 | 0.0% | 18.6% | 62.9% | 9.3% | 29.9% | 7.2% |
| Apr ’26 | 92 | 9.8% | 15.2% | 72.8% | 1.1% | 31.5% | 3.3% |
| May ’26 | 123 | 3.3% | 18.7% | 63.4% | 4.1% | 30.1% | 4.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 146 | 2.7% | 22.6% | 61.6% | 6.2% | 33.6% | 9.6% |
| Jul ’26 | 233 | 3.4% | 9.0% | 78.1% | 9.0% | 32.2% | 6.4% |
| Aug ’26 | 191 | 4.7% | 7.8% | 70.2% | 5.2% | 32.5% | 2.6% |
| Sep ’26 | 174 | 3.5% | 5.2% | 81.6% | 5.2% | 31.6% | 2.9% |
| Oct ’26 | 95 | 1.1% | 8.4% | 82.1% | 3.2% | 31.6% | 2.1% |
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 Banks’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 8, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Finance and Financial Sector; Science, Technology, Communications; International Affairs · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “far left” aimed at media · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Neville SinghamSource
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: Nancy PelosiSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Jack SmithSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · target: truck driverSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · target: DemocratsSource
All 2,376 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: 2,067 posts on X, 184 press releases, 65 newsletters, 60 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Banks talks about most: 32% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 28th of 52).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Banks talks about. The bills Banks sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Banks talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Banks
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security488 statements
32%
25%
Immigration439 statements
29%
10%
Government Operations and Politics247 statements
16%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement184 statements
12%
11%
International Affairs177 statements
12%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Banks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 32% | 25% |
| Immigration | 29% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 11% |
| International Affairs | 12% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Banks’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 32% | 25% | 21% | 8% |
| Immigration | 29% | 10% | 6% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% | 7% | 11% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 11% | 4% | 8% |
| International Affairs | 12% | 11% | 6% | 8% |
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 28th of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Banks legislates on exactly the areas Banks 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 Banks sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Banks sits at +1.24 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 87% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.22 to +1.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,493 donors and 4,315 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”.
+1.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.22 to +1.25. From 2,493 donors and 4,315 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Banks, 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 Banks’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 Banks sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Banks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 86% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 93% |
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 Banks 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 Banks.
Money
Banks raised $2.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 23% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 20% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.
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.
$2.7M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 698 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)32 squares$872.7K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$262.7K
- PACs and other committees22 squares$593.8K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)36 squares$954.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $872.7K | 32.5% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $262.7K | 9.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $593.8K | 22.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $954.0K | 35.6% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $2.7M |
| 2024 cycle | $7.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $2.7M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 20% came from Indiana.
- Indiana$168.9K
- New York$136.2K
- California$108.5K
- Florida$80.0K
- Virginia$67.4K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Banks
Median
2026
23%
17%
2024
29%
17%
2022
40%
17%
2020
24%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Banks | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 23% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 29% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 40% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 24% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Indiana | $168.9K |
| New York | $136.2K |
| California | $108.5K |
| Florida | $80.0K |
| Virginia | $67.4K |
| District of Columbia | $57.1K |
| Texas | $36.9K |
| Maryland | $21.3K |
| Colorado | $17.1K |
| New Jersey | $14.1K |
| Connecticut | $14.0K |
| Illinois | $13.7K |
| Nevada | $13.7K |
| Arizona | $13.6K |
| Missouri | $9,910 |
| Utah | $7,140 |
| Pennsylvania | $5,712 |
| Minnesota | $4,575 |
| Alabama | $3,893 |
| Idaho | $3,841 |
| Wisconsin | $3,470 |
| North Carolina | $3,357 |
| Washington | $3,216 |
| Ohio | $3,178 |
| Kentucky | $2,510 |
| Georgia | $2,427 |
| South Carolina | $2,235 |
| Michigan | $2,217 |
| Maine | $2,052 |
| Mississippi | $1,871 |
| West Virginia | $1,609 |
| Oklahoma | $1,579 |
| Hawaii | $1,562 |
| Massachusetts | $1,402 |
| Tennessee | $1,151 |
| South Dakota | $1,000 |
| New Hampshire | $768 |
| Louisiana | $766 |
| Arkansas | $740 |
| Oregon | $434 |
| Delaware | $368 |
| Kansas | $300 |
| Wyoming | $261 |
| New Mexico | $219 |
| Nebraska | $200 |
| Alaska | $92 |
| North Dakota | $46 |
| Vermont | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
698
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
20%
from Indiana
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 Indiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 3.3% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 3.2% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 2.1% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 2.4% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 4.6% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 9.6% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 32% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 42% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.3% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Banks’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Banks’s own score is +1.24.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$208.6K 369 donors
- CEO$65.5K 20 donors
- PRESIDENT$37.1K 16 donors
- FOUNDER$32.0K 7 donors
- CONSULTANT$26.4K 16 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NORPAC$20.6K
- A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
- APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARAPAC)$10.0K
- ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ELEVANCE HEALTH PAC)$10.0K
- HALL RENDER KILLIAN HEATH & LYMAN PC EMPLOYEE PAC AKA HALLWAY PAC FEDERAL$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BLACKSTONE$10.0K 4 donors
- ROBINHOOD$9,000 3 donors
- BGR GROUP$4,500 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Banks voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Banks voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 8 times.
915 roll calls Banks could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Banks voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
8
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.8%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 9th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Banks, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Banks
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
97.1%
19th of 53
Party unity
99.8%
98.4%
9th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Banks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 98.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party 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 | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close 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 Banks most often
- Bill HagertyR871 shared votes100%
- Marsha BlackburnR854 shared votes99%
- John BarrassoR899 shared votes99%
- Bernie MorenoR899 shared votes99%
- Eric SchmittR892 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Banks least often
- Ed MarkeyD896 shared votes2.6%
- Bernie SandersI841 shared votes2.6%
- Elizabeth WarrenD889 shared votes2.8%
- Christopher MurphyD880 shared votes3.4%
- Chris Van HollenD889 shared votes3.9%
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
Legislation
Banks sponsored 107 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 263 others. 5.6% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 49th of 51).
The bills Banks 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 107 | 107 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 263 | 258 | 43 | 6 | 5 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Banks sponsored, ochre blocks bills Banks cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.6%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 49th of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Banks, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Ted Budd68
- Marsha Blackburn66
- Tommy Tuberville51
- Dave McCormick48
- Pete Ricketts47
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 Banks’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5590 | Electric Grid Supply Chain Security Act | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5595 | Weapons Resupply, Stockpile, and Assurance Act | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5596 | Military DEI Repeal Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5597 | Service Academy Testing Enhancement Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5598 | Blocking Foreign Cellular Modules in Defense Systems Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Sep 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 103 times in 90 days. Banks’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Banks posted on Oct 22, 2026.
The lab crawls Banks’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 Banks posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 29
pages crawled
103changes 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
- XRepJimBanks
- FacebookRepJimBanks
- Instagramrepjimbanks
- Emailoutreach@banks.senate.gov
Images Banks posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A screenshot of a dense government funding table listing disaster assistance projects for Indiana, including project numbers, costs, federal shares, grant types, categories, and lengthy summaries. There is text throughout.View post 
A screenshot of a social media post from Donald J. Trump, with a profile photo and a long block of text about Stephen Hubbard being released from prison in Russia and returning home.View post 
A screenshot of a social media post from Donald J. Trump announcing a judicial nomination. The post includes a profile picture and verification badges, with a long block of text on a white background.View post 
A political immigration scorecard featuring a portrait of a suited man between U.S. and Indiana flags, a large green grade badge, and a list of immigration policy categories with grades. The image contains text.View post 
A man in a digital camouflage U.S. Navy uniform, cap, and sunglasses poses on a beach. A ship marked with medical symbols is visible offshore. There is text on his uniform.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.
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 Banks is most unusual among Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- B001299
- Bioguide
- B001299
- FEC candidate ids
- H6IN03229, S4IN00196
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