Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Alabama

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

Bioguide B001319FEC S2AL00145

Portrait of Katie Britt, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
38%
of itemized money from Alabama donors, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans

38% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Alabama. Ranks 7th of 50, where 1st is the highest share. 1,748 itemized donors.

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

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. The policy areas Britt talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans. 44% of Britt’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (average 36%).

The measures on which Britt 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.

From Alabama, 2026

38%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 7th of 50 Senate Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.69

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 7th of 52

Credit claiming

44%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 8th of 52

Small donations, 2026

40%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 9th of 51

Policy criticism

14%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 39th of 52

CSIP ideology

+1.07

More conservative than 72% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Britt says

Britt attacks opponents personally about as often as the median Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 3,141 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 25th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Britt’s 3,141 statements in the 119th Congress (2,705 posts on X, 329 press releases, 102 Congressional Record speeches, 5 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%
Britt
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,191 statements
70%
70%
29th of 52
Credit claiming1,388 statements
44%
36%
8th of 52
Bipartisanship443 statements
14%
13%
20th of 52
Policy criticism426 statements
14%
17%
39th of 52
Personal attacks36 statements
1%
2%
25th of 52
Show the data
Britt's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBrittPeers
Policy discussion70%70%
Credit claiming44%36%
Bipartisanship14%13%
Policy criticism14%17%
Personal attacks1%2%
3,141

statements classified

2,705 posts on X, 329 press releases, 102 Congressional Record speeches, 5 newsletters.

posts on X: 2,705 (86.1%)posts on X 2,705press releases: 329 (10.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 102 (3.2%)newsletters: 5 (0.2%)
Show the data
Britt's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,705
press releases329
Congressional Record speeches102
newsletters5
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Britt used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, below the peer average. 78 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”45
  2. “far left”17
  3. “communist”2
  4. “extreme”2
  5. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats12
  2. Democratic Party4
  3. far left4
  4. Senate Democrats4
  5. Biden Administration3
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: 3022025-02: 2072025-03: 1852025-04: 1302025-05: 1712025-06: 1492025-07: 1662025-08: 992025-09: 1792025-10: 1552025-11: 772025-12: 1302026-01: 812026-02: 1562026-03: 1592026-04: 1282026-05: 1352026-06: 1342026-07: 1072026-08: 992026-09: 1232026-10: 69peak 302 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 4.7% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.7% of 302Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.5% of 207Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 185Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 130Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 171Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.7% of 149Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.6% of 166Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.2% of 179Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.9% of 155Personal attacks, 2025-11: 1.3% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.8% of 130Personal attacks, 2026-01: 1.2% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.9% of 156Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.6% of 159Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.8% of 128Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.7% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.8% of 134Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.9% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-08: 1.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.4% of 123Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 69Policy criticismpeak 32.7% · Mar ’26 · latest 4.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 20.9% of 302Policy criticism, 2025-02: 18.8% of 207Policy criticism, 2025-03: 10.8% of 185Policy criticism, 2025-04: 10.0% of 130Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.3% of 171Policy criticism, 2025-06: 5.4% of 149Policy criticism, 2025-07: 7.8% of 166Policy criticism, 2025-08: 6.1% of 99Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.1% of 179Policy criticism, 2025-10: 32.3% of 155Policy criticism, 2025-11: 19.5% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-12: 2.3% of 130Policy criticism, 2026-01: 1.2% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-02: 22.4% of 156Policy criticism, 2026-03: 32.7% of 159Policy criticism, 2026-04: 9.4% of 128Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.4% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-06: 9.7% of 134Policy criticism, 2026-07: 7.5% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-08: 9.1% of 99Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.6% of 123Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.3% of 69Policy discussionpeak 83.6% · Feb ’25 · latest 79.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 72.5% of 302Policy discussion, 2025-02: 83.6% of 207Policy discussion, 2025-03: 68.7% of 185Policy discussion, 2025-04: 73.9% of 130Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.6% of 171Policy discussion, 2025-06: 63.8% of 149Policy discussion, 2025-07: 71.1% of 166Policy discussion, 2025-08: 65.7% of 99Policy discussion, 2025-09: 54.2% of 179Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.5% of 155Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.4% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-12: 62.3% of 130Policy discussion, 2026-01: 80.3% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-02: 66.7% of 156Policy discussion, 2026-03: 73.0% of 159Policy discussion, 2026-04: 78.9% of 128Policy discussion, 2026-05: 74.1% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-06: 51.5% of 134Policy discussion, 2026-07: 68.2% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-08: 82.8% of 99Policy discussion, 2026-09: 74.0% of 123Policy discussion, 2026-10: 79.7% of 69Bipartisanshippeak 25.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 23.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 25.5% of 302Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 20.8% of 207Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 21.6% of 185Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 22.3% of 130Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 12.9% of 171Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.0% of 149Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.0% of 166Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.1% of 99Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.6% of 179Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.3% of 155Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.0% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.9% of 130Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.9% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.3% of 156Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 17.6% of 159Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 13.3% of 128Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 15.6% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 6.7% of 134Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 16.8% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 15.2% of 99Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 11.4% of 123Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 23.2% of 69Credit claimingpeak 66.2% · Feb ’25 · latest 40.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 56.0% of 302Credit claiming, 2025-02: 66.2% of 207Credit claiming, 2025-03: 52.4% of 185Credit claiming, 2025-04: 55.4% of 130Credit claiming, 2025-05: 48.5% of 171Credit claiming, 2025-06: 33.6% of 149Credit claiming, 2025-07: 54.8% of 166Credit claiming, 2025-08: 57.6% of 99Credit claiming, 2025-09: 26.8% of 179Credit claiming, 2025-10: 27.1% of 155Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.9% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-12: 31.5% of 130Credit claiming, 2026-01: 35.8% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-02: 36.5% of 156Credit claiming, 2026-03: 32.7% of 159Credit claiming, 2026-04: 48.4% of 128Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.4% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.3% of 134Credit claiming, 2026-07: 41.1% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-08: 50.5% of 99Credit claiming, 2026-09: 30.9% of 123Credit claiming, 2026-10: 40.6% of 69Extreme labelspeak 6.7% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.6% of 302Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.9% of 207Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.1% of 185Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.8% of 130Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.8% of 171Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.7% of 149Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.4% of 166Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2025-09: 6.7% of 179Extreme labels, 2025-10: 5.8% of 155Extreme labels, 2025-11: 6.5% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.5% of 130Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.2% of 156Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.9% of 159Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 128Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.5% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 134Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-08: 5.1% of 99Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.8% of 123Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 69Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Britt, 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 ’253021.7%20.9%72.5%25.5%56.0%3.6%
Feb ’252070.5%18.8%83.6%20.8%66.2%2.9%
Mar ’251850.0%10.8%68.7%21.6%52.4%1.1%
Apr ’251300.0%10.0%73.9%22.3%55.4%0.8%
May ’251710.0%5.3%69.6%12.9%48.5%1.8%
Jun ’251494.7%5.4%63.8%4.0%33.6%0.7%
Jul ’251660.6%7.8%71.1%9.0%54.8%2.4%
Aug ’25990.0%6.1%65.7%8.1%57.6%3.0%
Sep ’251792.2%15.1%54.2%5.6%26.8%6.7%
Oct ’251551.9%32.3%64.5%10.3%27.1%5.8%
Nov ’25771.3%19.5%58.4%13.0%29.9%6.5%
Dec ’251300.8%2.3%62.3%6.9%31.5%1.5%
Jan ’26811.2%1.2%80.3%4.9%35.8%1.2%
Feb ’261561.9%22.4%66.7%10.3%36.5%3.2%
Mar ’261590.6%32.7%73.0%17.6%32.7%1.9%
Apr ’261280.8%9.4%78.9%13.3%48.4%0.0%
May ’261350.7%10.4%74.1%15.6%50.4%1.5%
Jun ’261340.8%9.7%51.5%6.7%37.3%0.0%
Jul ’261070.9%7.5%68.2%16.8%41.1%1.9%
Aug ’26991.0%9.1%82.8%15.2%50.5%5.1%
Sep ’261232.4%10.6%74.0%11.4%30.9%0.8%
Oct ’26690.0%4.3%79.7%23.2%40.6%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 Britt’s words

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

Policy criticism

U.S. Senators Katie Britt, James Lankford, Colleagues Urge Inspector General to Investigate Planned Parenthood WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) recently joined James Lankford (R-Okla.) and 128 members of Congress in sending a letter to the Inspector General (IG) of the US Departm…

Oct 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Jack Smith · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 23, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats; target: Democrats · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jack SmithSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · target: DemocratsSource

  3. Press releases

    ICYMI: U.S. Senator Katie Britt Joins Newsmax, NewsNation WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) today joined Wake Up America on Newsmax with Sharla McBride and Marc Lotter and Morning in America on NewsNation with Markie Martin. She discussed the need to win the global AI race while keeping Americans safe, the Republican Party’s agenda ahead of the midterm elections, and the need for the U.S. House of…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Democratic PartySource

  4. Press releases

    ICYMI: U.S. Senator Katie Britt Joins America’s Newsroom on Fox News to Discuss Iran, Michigan Senate Democratic Primary Results WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) today joined America’s Newsroom on Fox News with Bill Hemmer. She praised President Trump for continuing to put pressure on Iran to come to the negotiating table and spoke about the Michigan Senate Democratic primary election results, whe…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “radical” aimed at Abdul El-Sayed · target: Abdul El-SayedSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Graham PlatnerSource

All 3,141 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: 2,705 posts on X, 329 press releases, 102 Congressional Record speeches, 5 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Britt talks about most: 21% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 7th 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 Britt talks about. The bills Britt sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Britt talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Britt
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security469 statements
21%
25%
Health276 statements
13%
15%
Crime and Law Enforcement275 statements
13%
11%
Government Operations and Politics272 statements
12%
19%
Immigration249 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Britt talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowBrittPeers
Armed Forces and National Security21%25%
Health13%15%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%11%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%
Immigration11%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Britt’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: 21% (Senate Republicans 25%)21%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (Senate Republicans 8%)5%HealthHealth, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 15%)13%Health, legislates on: 10% (Senate Republicans 11%)10%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 11%)13%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 8%)8%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 12% (Senate Republicans 19%)12%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 11%)9%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 10%)11%Immigration, legislates on: 6% (Senate Republicans 4%)6%
Show the data
Britt'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 Security21%25%5%8%
Health13%15%10%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%11%8%8%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%9%11%
Immigration11%10%6%4%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 7th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Britt sits at +1.07 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 72% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.05 to +1.09, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,505 donors and 1,549 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”.

+1.07

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.05 to +1.09. From 6,505 donors and 1,549 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Britt +1.1Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Britt, 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 Britt’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 Britt sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Britt +1.1All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Britt's CSIP score of +1.07 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Britt
Senate Republicans51+1.071%
All Senate98+0.485%
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 Britt 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 Britt.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Britt raised $3.0M in the 2026 cycle, close to the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 40% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 38% of itemized individual money came from Alabama.

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
$3.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,748 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): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (49.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $974.2K (32.7%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)PACs and other committees: $490.5K (16.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $40.5K (1.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)49 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)33 squares$974.2K
  • PACs and other committees17 squares$490.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$40.5K
Show the data
Sources of Britt's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M49.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$974.2K32.7%
PACs and other committees$490.5K16.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$40.5K1.4%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $11.4M$11.4M20222024 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20242026 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Britt's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$11.4M
2024 cycle$3.9M
2026 cycle$3.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 38% came from Alabama.

  1. Alabama$524.1K
  2. Florida$113.6K
  3. Virginia$111.7K
  4. Texas$101.4K
  5. California$75.6K

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%
Britt
Median
2026
40%
17%
2024
40%
17%
2022
8%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowBrittMedian
2026 cycle40%17%
2024 cycle40%17%
2022 cycle8%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,491AKMaine: $72MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $3,712NHWashington: $9,917WAIdaho: $4,936IDMontana: $22.9KMTNorth Dakota: $901NDMinnesota: $14.5KMNIllinois: $10.6KILWisconsin: $5,524WIMichigan: $7,603MINew York: $52.7KNYRhode Island: $62RIMassachusetts: $7,090MAOregon: $4,589ORNevada: $7,225NVWyoming: $604WYSouth Dakota: $2,255SDIowa: $9,848IAIndiana: $14.0KINOhio: $9,193OHPennsylvania: $11.8KPANew Jersey: $14.2KNJConnecticut: $6,852CTCalifornia: $75.6KCAUtah: $7,147UTColorado: $7,691CONebraska: $2,750NEMissouri: $5,272MOKentucky: $8,948KYWest Virginia: $1,267WVVirginia: $111.7KVAMaryland: $20.7KMDDelaware: $5,079DEArizona: $19.7KAZNew Mexico: $2,857NMKansas: $2,772KSArkansas: $5,976ARTennessee: $20.3KTNNorth Carolina: $11.7KNCSouth Carolina: $11.7KSCDistrict of Columbia: $41.0KDCOklahoma: $5,520OKLouisiana: $17.3KLAMississippi: $6,707MSAlabama: $524.1KALGeorgia: $37.2KGAHawaii: $1,041HITexas: $101.4KTXFlorida: $113.6KFL
Show the data
Britt's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Alabama$524.1K
Florida$113.6K
Virginia$111.7K
Texas$101.4K
California$75.6K
New York$52.7K
District of Columbia$41.0K
Georgia$37.2K
Montana$22.9K
Maryland$20.7K
Tennessee$20.3K
Arizona$19.7K
Louisiana$17.3K
Minnesota$14.5K
New Jersey$14.2K
Indiana$14.0K
Pennsylvania$11.8K
North Carolina$11.7K
South Carolina$11.7K
Illinois$10.6K
Washington$9,917
Iowa$9,848
Ohio$9,193
Kentucky$8,948
Colorado$7,691
Michigan$7,603
Nevada$7,225
Utah$7,147
Massachusetts$7,090
Connecticut$6,852
Mississippi$6,707
Arkansas$5,976
Wisconsin$5,524
Oklahoma$5,520
Missouri$5,272
Delaware$5,079
Idaho$4,936
Oregon$4,589
New Hampshire$3,712
New Mexico$2,857
Kansas$2,772
Nebraska$2,750
South Dakota$2,255
Alaska$1,491
West Virginia$1,267
Hawaii$1,041
North Dakota$901
Wyoming$604
Maine$72
Rhode Island$62
VermontNo data
1,748

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

38%

from Alabama

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 Alabama. 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: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 6.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 32%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 46%46%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.6%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Britt's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 5.2% between 0.00 and +0.25, 5.3% between +0.25 and +0.50, 6.4% between +0.50 and +0.75, 32% between +0.75 and +1.00, 46% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.756.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0032%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2546%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.6%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Britt’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Britt’s own score is +1.07.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$324.5K 823 donors
  2. REAL ESTATE BROKER$114.5K 205 donors
  3. CEO$84.2K 41 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$52.2K 25 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$41.5K 25 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ELECT - THE PAC OF THE ALABAMA FARMERS FEDERATION$15.0K
  2. MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  3. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY UNITED, INC. COMMITTEE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT$7,500
  4. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, INC. FEDERAL PAC (AKA HARTFORD ADVOCATES FEDERAL FUND)$7,000
  5. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED PAC (UNITEDHEALTH GROUP PAC)$6,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BEASLEY ALLEN$21.0K 3 donors
  2. SULLIVAN BROTHERS FAMILY OF COMPANIES$10.5K 3 donors
  3. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$6,500 8 donors
  4. FORBES TATE PARTNERS$5,500 4 donors
  5. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY$4,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Britt voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Britt voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 7 times.

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

7

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 24th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Britt
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
97.1%
28th of 53
Party unity
99.7%
98.4%
24th of 53
Show the data
Britt's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowBrittPeers
Attendance97.7%97.1%
Party unity99.7%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 Britt most often

  1. Marsha BlackburnR842 shared votes100%
  2. Tim SheehyR871 shared votes99%
  3. Dave McCormickR868 shared votes99%
  4. Bill HagertyR862 shared votes99%
  5. John CornynR881 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Britt least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD887 shared votes2.9%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD880 shared votes3.2%
  3. Bernie SandersI832 shared votes3.3%
  4. Christopher MurphyD869 shared votes3.7%
  5. Chris Van HollenD880 shared votes4.4%
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

Britt sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; 2 became law. Cosponsored 346 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 31st of 51).

The bills Britt 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

Sponsored30 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3030Sponsored, In committee: 3030Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Sponsored, Became law: 22Cosponsored346 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 346346Cosponsored, In committee: 339339Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7070Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Britt sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3030322
Cosponsored3463397044
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 31st of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn76
  2. Ted Budd72
  3. Tommy Tuberville68
  4. Pete Ricketts67
  5. Cindy Hyde-Smith64
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 Britt’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. 5661A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide parity in the taxation of professional sports franchises under the limitation on the deduction for certain employee renumeration, and for other purposes.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeTaxationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026
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. 940A resolution expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs wCosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberHealthSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5270) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 926A resolution designating September 2026 as "National Literacy Month".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEducationSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186) Sep 29, 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

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 40 times in 90 days. Britt’s official site had 16 pages when last crawled on Oct 4, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Britt posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Britt’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 Britt 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.

Images Britt posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Two smiling women pose together outdoors in front of a white building and staircase. One wears a white polka-dot dress and a sash; the other wears a burgundy dress, checked blazer, and tall brown boots. Several people are visible on and beside the stairs. Text appears on the sash and a small sign.
    Two smiling women pose together outdoors in front of a white building and staircase. One wears a white polka-dot dress and a sash; the other wears a burgundy dress, checked blazer, and tall brown boots. Several people are visible on and beside the stairs. Text appears on the sash and a small sign.View post
  • A group of seven adults pose and wave on a football field inside a crowded stadium. Two wear blue astronaut-style flight suits, and one person holds a framed plaque. Text is visible on the plaque and stadium signage.
    A group of seven adults pose and wave on a football field inside a crowded stadium. Two wear blue astronaut-style flight suits, and one person holds a framed plaque. Text is visible on the plaque and stadium signage.View post
  • A group of five people pose for a photo on a football field in front of a large stadium crowd. Two people wear blue astronaut flight suits, and one wears a red striped polo shirt. There is text on clothing and a cap.
    A group of five people pose for a photo on a football field in front of a large stadium crowd. Two people wear blue astronaut flight suits, and one wears a red striped polo shirt. There is text on clothing and a cap.View post
  • A man in a blue NASA flight suit talks with a woman on the field at a crowded football stadium. Other people stand nearby, with packed stands and a scoreboard in the background. Signs and scoreboard text are visible.
    A man in a blue NASA flight suit talks with a woman on the field at a crowded football stadium. Other people stand nearby, with packed stands and a scoreboard in the background. Signs and scoreboard text are visible.View post
  • A smiling woman sits in a wooden chair during what appears to be a discussion or interview, holding papers in her lap. A blurred audience member is in the foreground. A dark display with small marks is visible behind her. There is text in the image.
    A smiling woman sits in a wooden chair during what appears to be a discussion or interview, holding papers in her lap. A blurred audience member is in the foreground. A dark display with small marks is visible behind her. There is text in the image.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 Britt 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
B001319
Bioguide
B001319
FEC candidate ids
S2AL00145

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