Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, North Carolina

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide B001305FEC H6NC13129, S2NC00505

Portrait of Ted Budd, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
83%
of statements discuss policy, in the top 5% of Senate Republicans

83% of 1,371 statements discuss policy (1,142 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 70%. Ranks 2nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.

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

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 49% of Budd’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from North Carolina, in the top tenth of Senate Republicans. 38% of Budd’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (median 17%).

The measures on which Budd 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.

Policy discussion

83%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 2nd of 52

From North Carolina, 2026

49%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 3rd of 50 Senate Republicans

Small donations, 2026

38%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 10th of 51

CSIP ideology

+1.16

More conservative than 79% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.02

Bipartisanship

15%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 14th of 52

Out of committee

11%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 39th of 51

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Budd says

Budd attacks opponents personally less than 71% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 1,371 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 38th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Budd’s 1,371 statements in the 119th Congress (1,171 posts on X, 116 press releases, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 17 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Budd
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,142 statements
83%
70%
2nd of 52
Credit claiming533 statements
39%
36%
23rd of 52
Policy criticism225 statements
16%
17%
27th of 52
Bipartisanship211 statements
15%
13%
14th of 52
Personal attacks5 statements
0%
2%
38th of 52
Show the data
Budd's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBuddPeers
Policy discussion83%70%
Credit claiming39%36%
Policy criticism16%17%
Bipartisanship15%13%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,371

statements classified

1,171 posts on X, 116 press releases, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,171 (85.4%)posts on X 1,171press releases: 116 (8.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 67 (4.9%)newsletters: 17 (1.2%)
Show the data
Budd's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,171
press releases116
Congressional Record speeches67
newsletters17
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Budd used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, below the peer average. 26 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”17
  2. “far left”4
  3. “communist”3
  4. “extreme”2
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats6
  2. Dems2
  3. anti-Israel base1
  4. China1
  5. DEI1
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: 422025-02: 262025-03: 382025-04: 432025-05: 532025-06: 632025-07: 482025-08: 362025-09: 692025-10: 882025-11: 532025-12: 722026-01: 832026-02: 772026-03: 922026-04: 732026-05: 732026-06: 1042026-07: 822026-08: 492026-09: 782026-10: 29peak 104 · Jun ’26Personal attackspeak 3.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.1% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.8% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.2% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 29Policy criticismpeak 39.8% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.8% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.4% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-04: 9.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-05: 7.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-06: 34.9% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-08: 8.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.9% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-10: 39.8% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-11: 15.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.7% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-01: 8.4% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-02: 18.2% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.9% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.0% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-05: 12.3% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.3% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-07: 12.2% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-08: 14.3% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-09: 7.7% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 29Policy discussionpeak 96.5% · Oct ’26 · latest 96.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 61.9% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-02: 76.9% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-03: 60.5% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-04: 65.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.1% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-06: 95.2% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-07: 77.1% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-08: 80.6% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-09: 71.0% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-10: 81.8% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-11: 75.5% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-12: 83.3% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-01: 91.6% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-02: 87.0% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-03: 91.3% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-04: 91.8% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-05: 93.2% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-06: 85.6% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-07: 89.0% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-08: 89.8% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-09: 87.2% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-10: 96.5% of 29Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 3.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 28.6% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 15.4% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.5% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 10.4% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 13.9% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 13.0% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 13.6% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 20.8% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 15.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 24.7% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 19.6% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 15.1% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 15.1% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 18.3% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 23.2% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.7% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.5% of 29Credit claimingpeak 55.6% · Aug ’25 · latest 41.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 54.8% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-02: 38.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-03: 31.6% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-04: 51.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-05: 24.5% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-06: 33.3% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-07: 41.7% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-08: 55.6% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-09: 31.9% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-10: 23.9% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-11: 39.6% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-12: 48.6% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-01: 28.9% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-02: 50.6% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-03: 37.0% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-04: 41.1% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-05: 46.6% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-06: 44.2% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-07: 35.4% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-08: 28.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-09: 39.7% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-10: 41.4% of 29Extreme labelspeak 4.8% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.4% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.2% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-10: 4.5% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.8% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.4% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.3% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.8% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-08: 2.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 29Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Budd, 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 ’25422.4%23.8%61.9%28.6%54.8%2.4%
Feb ’25260.0%15.4%76.9%15.4%38.5%0.0%
Mar ’25380.0%13.2%60.5%10.5%31.6%0.0%
Apr ’25430.0%9.3%65.1%7.0%51.2%0.0%
May ’25530.0%7.5%64.1%11.3%24.5%1.9%
Jun ’25630.0%34.9%95.2%9.5%33.3%3.2%
Jul ’25480.0%10.4%77.1%10.4%41.7%2.1%
Aug ’25360.0%8.3%80.6%13.9%55.6%0.0%
Sep ’25690.0%15.9%71.0%13.0%31.9%2.9%
Oct ’25881.1%39.8%81.8%13.6%23.9%4.5%
Nov ’25533.8%15.1%75.5%20.8%39.6%3.8%
Dec ’25720.0%16.7%83.3%15.3%48.6%1.4%
Jan ’26830.0%8.4%91.6%8.4%28.9%0.0%
Feb ’26770.0%18.2%87.0%24.7%50.6%1.3%
Mar ’26920.0%23.9%91.3%19.6%37.0%3.3%
Apr ’26730.0%11.0%91.8%15.1%41.1%0.0%
May ’26730.0%12.3%93.2%15.1%46.6%0.0%
Jun ’261040.0%18.3%85.6%18.3%44.2%4.8%
Jul ’26821.2%12.2%89.0%23.2%35.4%2.4%
Aug ’26490.0%14.3%89.8%10.2%28.6%2.0%
Sep ’26780.0%7.7%87.2%16.7%39.7%0.0%
Oct ’26290.0%0.0%96.5%3.5%41.4%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 Budd’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Budd, Rosen Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen U.S. Cybersecurity Readiness by Driving a Partnership Between the DoD & Universities Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced the bipartisan Cyber Cente…

Oct 2, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Education; Labor and Employment; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 21, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; International Affairs; extreme label “radical” aimed at anti-Israel base; target: Mamdani · Source

Extreme label

Budd, Blackburn, Colleagues Lead Legislation to Permanently Restore Biological Sex Standard in Title IX Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) joined Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and several of their Republican Senate colleagues in introducing the Title IX Clarification Act to ensu…

Aug 4, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education; extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at Title IX reinterpretation, radical 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. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · International Affairs · extreme label “radical” aimed at anti-Israel base · target: MamdaniSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: DemocratsSource

  3. Press releases

    New Budd Bill Would Hold Mamdani, Municipalities Accountable Following Threats To Enforce International Criminal Court Arrest Warrants Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) recently introduced the American Allies Protection Act, legislation which would disqualify a state or local government from receiving Department of Justice grant money for a four-year period if it enforces an International Criminal Co…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · extreme label “radical” aimed at Mamdani base · target: Zohran MamdaniSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Joe BidenSource

All 1,371 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: 1,171 posts on X, 116 press releases, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Budd talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 29th 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 Budd talks about. The bills Budd sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Budd talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Budd
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security356 statements
31%
25%
International Affairs187 statements
16%
11%
Emergency Management146 statements
13%
5%
Science, Technology, Communications140 statements
12%
9%
Commerce123 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Budd talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBuddPeers
Armed Forces and National Security31%25%
International Affairs16%11%
Emergency Management13%5%
Science, Technology, Communications12%9%
Commerce11%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Budd’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.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 31% (Senate Republicans 25%)31%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 8%)9%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 11%)16%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (Senate Republicans 8%)12%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 5%)13%Emergency Management, legislates on: 3% (Senate Republicans 1%)3%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 12% (Senate Republicans 9%)12%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 5% (Senate Republicans 3%)5%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 10%)11%Commerce, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 3%)2%
Show the data
Budd's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security31%25%9%8%
International Affairs16%11%12%8%
Emergency Management13%5%3%1%
Science, Technology, Communications12%9%5%3%
Commerce11%10%2%3%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 29th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Budd sits at +1.16 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 79% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.15 to +1.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,497 donors and 3,001 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”.

+1.16

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.15 to +1.18. From 1,497 donors and 3,001 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Budd +1.2Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Budd, 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 Budd’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 Budd sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Budd +1.2All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Budd's CSIP score of +1.16 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Budd
Senate Republicans51+1.078%
All Senate98+0.489%
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 Budd 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 Budd.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Budd raised $1.8M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 38% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 49% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.

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
$1.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 939 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): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $655.4K (35.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $405.4K (22.2%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)PACs and other committees: $338.8K (18.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $427.6K (23.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$655.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)22 squares$405.4K
  • PACs and other committees19 squares$338.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)23 squares$427.6K
Show the data
Sources of Budd's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$655.4K35.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$405.4K22.2%
PACs and other committees$338.8K18.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$427.6K23.4%
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.

2020 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20202022 cycle: $14.8M$14.8M20222024 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20242026 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Budd's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.3M
2022 cycle$14.8M
2024 cycle$2.1M
2026 cycle$1.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 49% came from North Carolina.

  1. North Carolina$265.1K
  2. California$40.0K
  3. Virginia$30.6K
  4. Florida$26.2K
  5. New York$21.1K

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%
Budd
Median
2026
38%
17%
2024
43%
17%
2022
32%
17%
2020
30%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowBuddMedian
2026 cycle38%17%
2024 cycle43%17%
2022 cycle32%17%
2020 cycle30%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,161AKMaine: $809MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $1,101WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $394MTNorth Dakota: $99NDMinnesota: $352MNIllinois: $4,365ILWisconsin: $1,476WIMichigan: $4,445MINew York: $21.1KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $6,277MAOregon: $1,311ORNevada: $307NVWyoming: $2,605WYSouth Dakota: $1,160SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $2,313INOhio: $5,080OHPennsylvania: $4,180PANew Jersey: $4,012NJConnecticut: $1,490CTCalifornia: $40.0KCAUtah: $2,513UTColorado: $8,657CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,022MOKentucky: $442KYWest Virginia: $375WVVirginia: $30.6KVAMaryland: $13.7KMDDelaware: $600DEArizona: $3,027AZNew Mexico: $587NMKansas: $1,644KSArkansas: $1,569ARTennessee: $9,519TNNorth Carolina: $265.1KNCSouth Carolina: $8,808SCDistrict of Columbia: $20.5KDCOklahoma: $3,500OKLouisiana: $2,776LAMississippi: $975MSAlabama: $1,513ALGeorgia: $10.6KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $18.9KTXFlorida: $26.2KFL
Show the data
Budd's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
North Carolina$265.1K
California$40.0K
Virginia$30.6K
Florida$26.2K
New York$21.1K
District of Columbia$20.5K
Texas$18.9K
Maryland$13.7K
Georgia$10.6K
Tennessee$9,519
South Carolina$8,808
Colorado$8,657
Massachusetts$6,277
Ohio$5,080
Michigan$4,445
Illinois$4,365
Pennsylvania$4,180
New Jersey$4,012
Oklahoma$3,500
Arizona$3,027
Louisiana$2,776
Wyoming$2,605
Utah$2,513
Indiana$2,313
Alaska$2,161
Kansas$1,644
Arkansas$1,569
Alabama$1,513
Connecticut$1,490
Wisconsin$1,476
Oregon$1,311
South Dakota$1,160
Washington$1,101
Missouri$1,022
Mississippi$975
Maine$809
Delaware$600
New Mexico$587
Kentucky$442
Montana$394
West Virginia$375
Minnesota$352
Nevada$307
North Dakota$99
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
HawaiiNo data
939

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

49%

from North Carolina

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 North Carolina. 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: 0.4%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 4.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 28%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 58%58%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 1.5%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Budd's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 28% between +0.75 and +1.00, 58% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.4%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.754.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0028%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2558%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.501.5%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Budd’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Budd’s own score is +1.16.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$182.8K 655 donors
  2. CEO$64.6K 21 donors
  3. OWNER$31.1K 12 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$23.2K 12 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$18.2K 11 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL PORK PAC$10.0K
  2. CARDINAL HEALTH INC. PAC$7,500
  3. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC PAC (GSK PAC)$6,000
  4. SIEMENS CORPORATION PAC$6,000
  5. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GOOGLE$12.6K 4 donors
  2. INMAR$9,500 7 donors
  3. INMAR INTELLIGENCE$9,500 9 donors
  4. RETIRED USMC$261 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Budd voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.6% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Budd voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 13 times.

915 roll calls Budd 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 Budd voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

13

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.6%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 28th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Budd
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.2%
97.1%
31st of 53
Party unity
99.6%
98.4%
28th of 53
Show the data
Budd's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowBuddPeers
Attendance97.2%97.1%
Party unity99.6%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

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
YeaWith 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
NayWith 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
YeaWith 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 Budd most often

  1. Marsha BlackburnR852 shared votes99%
  2. Bernie MorenoR885 shared votes99%
  3. Jim BanksR878 shared votes99%
  4. Bill HagertyR858 shared votes99%
  5. John BarrassoR886 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Budd least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD883 shared votes2.5%
  2. Bernie SandersI827 shared votes2.5%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD876 shared votes2.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD865 shared votes3.5%
  5. Chris Van HollenD876 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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Budd sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 412 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 39th of 51).

The bills Budd 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

Sponsored61 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6161Sponsored, In committee: 6161Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored412 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 412412Cosponsored, In committee: 403403Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5858Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Budd sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6161400
Cosponsored4124035866
How to read the blocks

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

11%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 39th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn123
  2. Rick Scott102
  3. Ted Cruz95
  4. Pete Ricketts87
  5. Thom Tillis84
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 Budd’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.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S. 5571Biosimilars Access and Affordability ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 91 times in 90 days. Budd’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Budd posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Budd posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A red-toned commemorative poster dated October 26, 2026, with large centered lettering and a photograph of military transport aircraft on an airfield as uniformed soldiers walk in the foreground.
    A red-toned commemorative poster dated October 26, 2026, with large centered lettering and a photograph of military transport aircraft on an airfield as uniformed soldiers walk in the foreground.View post
  • A group of eight men pose on an airport runway in front of a glider, with mountains and a cloudy sky in the background. Some clothing and the aircraft have visible text or logos.
    A group of eight men pose on an airport runway in front of a glider, with mountains and a cloudy sky in the background. Some clothing and the aircraft have visible text or logos.View post
  • A group of young adults in military-style camouflage uniforms and a man in a blue jacket pose for a photo inside a large, brightly lit room. An American flag hangs behind them. Uniform name patches contain text.
    A group of young adults in military-style camouflage uniforms and a man in a blue jacket pose for a photo inside a large, brightly lit room. An American flag hangs behind them. Uniform name patches contain text.View post
  • A group of ten adults pose together outdoors beside a modern glass building, with pine trees and mountainous scenery in the background. Some clothing has small visible text or logos.
    A group of ten adults pose together outdoors beside a modern glass building, with pine trees and mountainous scenery in the background. Some clothing has small visible text or logos.View post
  • A U.S. Navy birthday graphic over a photograph of a surfaced submarine beside a pier. Sailors in white uniforms stand in formation on the submarine and dock, with American flags visible. There is prominent celebratory text and smaller text near the bottom.
    A U.S. Navy birthday graphic over a photograph of a surfaced submarine beside a pier. Sailors in white uniforms stand in formation on the submarine and dock, with American flags visible. There is prominent celebratory text and smaller text near the bottom.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 Budd 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
B001305
Bioguide
B001305
FEC candidate ids
H6NC13129, S2NC00505

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