Michael Baumgartner, U.S. House, Washington’s 5th district

Republican · U.S. House, Washington’s 5th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001322FEC H4WA05234

Official portrait

82%

of itemized money from Washington donors, in the top tenth of House Republicans

82% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Washington. Ranks 14th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 968 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 Washington, ranked among House 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 House Republicans. 22% of Baumgartner’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 37%). 9.0% of Baumgartner’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 15%).

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

From Washington, 2026

82%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 14th of 216 House Republicans

Credit claiming

22%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 197th of 221

Policy criticism

9.0%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 183rd of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.74

More liberal than 83% of House Republicans · ± 0.03

Policy discussion

63%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 170th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.61

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 165th of 221

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

What Baumgartner says

Baumgartner claims credit less than 88% of House Republicans. Credit claiming in 22% of 1,776 statements, against 37% for the average House Republican; 197th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Baumgartner’s 1,776 statements in the 119th Congress (1,470 posts on X, 152 Congressional Record speeches, 111 newsletters, 43 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%20%40%60%80%

Baumgartner

Peers

Rank

Policy discussion1,113 statements

63%

68%

170th of 221

Credit claiming387 statements

22%

37%

197th of 221

Policy criticism160 statements

15%

183rd of 221

Bipartisanship141 statements

104th of 221

Personal attacks43 statements

63rd of 221

Show the data

Baumgartner's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row	Baumgartner	Peers
Policy discussion	63%	68%
Credit claiming	22%	37%
Policy criticism	9%	15%
Bipartisanship	8%	9%
Personal attacks	2%	2%

1,776

statements classified

1,470 posts on X, 152 Congressional Record speeches, 111 newsletters, 43 press releases.

Show the data

Baumgartner's statements by source
Part	Value
posts on X	1,470
Congressional Record speeches	152
newsletters	111
press releases	43

How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Baumgartner used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, below the peer average. 31 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

“radical”9
“woke”8
“extreme”6
“communist”4
“far left”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

Democrats3
climate policy2
Democratic base2
higher education2
USAID2

What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Show the data

Monthly rates for Baumgartner, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column	Statements	Personal attacks	Policy criticism	Policy discussion	Bipartisanship	Credit claiming	Extreme labels
Jan ’25	29	0.0%	0.0%	44.8%	3.5%	17.2%	0.0%
Feb ’25	67	1.5%	7.5%	64.2%	6.0%	26.9%	3.0%
Mar ’25	122	3.3%	14.8%	59.8%	6.6%	21.3%	8.2%
Apr ’25	64	0.0%	12.5%	65.6%	18.8%	20.3%	0.0%
May ’25	73	1.4%	6.9%	60.3%	2.7%	20.5%	0.0%
Jun ’25	74	4.0%	20.3%	71.6%	2.7%	28.4%	0.0%
Jul ’25	102	0.0%	4.9%	52.9%	4.9%	19.6%	2.0%
Aug ’25	47	0.0%	6.4%	44.7%	10.6%	17.0%	0.0%
Sep ’25	106	3.8%	8.5%	50.9%	14.1%	14.1%	0.9%
Oct ’25	82	3.7%	12.2%	75.6%	6.1%	15.8%	3.7%
Nov ’25	75	5.3%	13.3%	61.3%	9.3%	17.3%	2.7%
Dec ’25	80	6.3%	10.0%	66.3%	12.5%	21.3%	2.5%
Jan ’26	97	5.1%	10.3%	67.0%	7.2%	29.9%	1.0%
Feb ’26	106	3.8%	6.6%	63.2%	6.6%	21.7%	3.8%
Mar ’26	102	2.0%	4.9%	66.7%	6.9%	11.8%	2.0%
Apr ’26	98	0.0%	7.1%	64.3%	9.2%	25.5%	0.0%
May ’26	79	0.0%	7.6%	57.0%	7.6%	25.3%	0.0%
Jun ’26	115	0.0%	6.1%	60.9%	8.7%	20.0%	0.0%
Jul ’26	66	3.0%	12.1%	62.1%	6.1%	33.3%	1.5%
Aug ’26	69	0.0%	8.7%	72.5%	10.1%	14.5%	0.0%
Sep ’26	84	5.9%	5.9%	67.9%	7.1%	23.8%	1.2%
Oct ’26	39	0.0%	7.7%	74.4%	5.1%	48.7%	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 Baumgartner’s words

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

Policy criticism

Your Voice in Congress: Weekly Update from Rep. Baumgartner [Rep. Michael Baumgartner's header image] [Rep. Baumgartner Logo] Dear political, This was a busy week at home in Eastern Washington. I was proud to welcome the U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to Spokane as part of her Returnin…

Oct 24, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Labor and Employment; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Water Resources Development; Taxation; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Commerce; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Emergency Management; Crime and Law Enforcement; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Education; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection

Credit claiming

Attention all Parents and Guardians in Eastern Washington! [Rep. Michael Baumgartner's header image] [Congressman Michael Baumgartner, serving eastern Washington] Dear political, Last year, with my support, Congress created the Childhood Investment Accounts, also known as “Trump Accounts’ under t…

Oct 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Finance and Financial Sector; Families

Extreme label

Your Voice in Congress: Weekly Update from Rep. Baumgartner [Rep. Michael Baumgartner's header image] [Rep. Baumgartner Logo] Dear political, It was a busy week back in DC. I was grateful to accept two awards recognizing my voting record and my commitment to fighting for the people of Eastern Was…

Sep 5, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Energy; Environmental Protection; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Water Resources Development; extreme label “woke” aimed at higher education

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

Sep 28, 2026Posts 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: PetittiSource
Sep 16, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Commerce · International Affairs · target: House DemocratsSource
Sep 6, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Colin CowherdSource
Sep 1, 2026Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · EducationSource
Sep 1, 2026Posts 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: DemocratsSource

All 1,776 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: 1,470 posts on X, 152 Congressional Record speeches, 111 newsletters, 43 press releases.

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Baumgartner talks about most: 37% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 165th of 221).

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

What Baumgartner talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%10%20%31%41%

Baumgartner

Peers

Armed Forces and National Security413 statements

37%

24%

International Affairs322 statements

29%

Education281 statements

25%

Government Operations and Politics197 statements

18%

19%

Economics and Public Finance180 statements

16%

19%

Show the data

Policy areas Baumgartner talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row	Baumgartner	Peers
Armed Forces and National Security	37%	24%
International Affairs	29%	9%
Education	25%	8%
Government Operations and Politics	18%	19%
Economics and Public Finance	16%	19%

How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 41%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Show the data

Baumgartner's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area	Talks about	House Republicans, talks about	Legislates on	House Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security	37%	24%	5%	8%
International Affairs	29%	9%	26%	6%
Education	25%	8%	7%	3%
Government Operations and Politics	18%	19%	6%	12%
Economics and Public Finance	16%	19%	1%	2%

0.61

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 165th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Ideology

Baumgartner sits at +0.74 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 83% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.70 to +0.77, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,271 donors and 658 roll calls.

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

+0.74

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.70 to +0.77. From 1,271 donors and 658 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

The outlined dot is Baumgartner, 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 Baumgartner’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 Baumgartner sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

House Republicans221 · median +1.0

All House439 · median +0.3

Show the data

Baumgartner's CSIP score of +0.74 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group	Officials	Median	Share left of Baumgartner
House Republicans	221	+1.0	17%
All House	439	+0.3	58%

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 Baumgartner 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 Baumgartner.

Money

Baumgartner raised $2.2M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 14% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 82% of itemized individual money came from Washington.

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.

20262024

$2.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 968 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200)65 squares$1.4M
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$234.2K
PACs and other committees22 squares$490.3K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$48.7K

Show the data

Sources of Baumgartner's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source	Amount	Share
Itemized individual (over $200)	$1.4M	65.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)	$234.2K	10.6%
PACs and other committees	$490.3K	22.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)	$48.7K	2.2%

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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

Show the data

Baumgartner's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item	Value
2024 cycle	$1.5M
2026 cycle	$2.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 82% came from Washington.

Washington$1.1M
California$38.8K
Florida$37.0K
Delaware$35.0K
Idaho$32.7K

Small donations

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

0%20%40%60%

Baumgartner

Median

2026

14%

2024

Show the data

Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row	Baumgartner	Median
2026 cycle	14%	9%
2024 cycle	9%	9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Show the data

Baumgartner's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State	Value
Washington	$1.1M
California	$38.8K
Florida	$37.0K
Delaware	$35.0K
Idaho	$32.7K
District of Columbia	$26.0K
New York	$13.3K
Arizona	$12.5K
Texas	$11.9K
Virginia	$8,874
Michigan	$7,000
Oregon	$7,000
Maryland	$5,433
Pennsylvania	$4,500
Kansas	$1,507
Colorado	$1,000
Ohio	$520
West Virginia	$520
Massachusetts	$300
South Dakota	$150
Alaska	No data
Maine	No data
Vermont	No data
New Hampshire	No data
Montana	No data
North Dakota	No data
Minnesota	No data
Illinois	No data
Wisconsin	No data
Rhode Island	No data
Nevada	No data
Wyoming	No data
Iowa	No data
Indiana	No data
New Jersey	No data
Connecticut	No data
Utah	No data
Nebraska	No data
Missouri	No data
Kentucky	No data
New Mexico	No data
Arkansas	No data
Tennessee	No data
North Carolina	No data
South Carolina	No data
Oklahoma	No data
Louisiana	No data
Mississippi	No data
Alabama	No data
Georgia	No data
Hawaii	No data

968

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

82%

from Washington

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

Show the data

Ideology of Baumgartner's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 57% between +0.50 and +0.75, 33% between +0.75 and +1.00.
Item	Value
CSIP −1.25 to −1.00	0.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75	0.4%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50	1.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25	1.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00	2.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25	1.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50	1.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75	57%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00	33%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25	1.1%

How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Baumgartner’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Baumgartner’s own score is +0.74.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

RETIRED$454.7K 413 donors
OWNER$52.4K 20 donors
ATTORNEY$45.2K 24 donors
EXECUTIVE$37.7K 18 donors
CONSULTANT$32.0K 18 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE GROUP/TUESDAY GROUP PAC$15.0K
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY RAILPAC (BNSF RAILPAC)$12.0K
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$10.0K
PREMERA BLUE CROSS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/PREMERA PAC$10.0K
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$9,494

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

MONUMENT ADVOCACY$3,033 3 donors
STCU$2,291 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Votes

Baumgartner voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 2.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Baumgartner voted against the majority of House Republicans 8 times.

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

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.9%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 65th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%90%100%

Baumgartner

Peers

Rank

Attendance

97.6%

96.3%

134th of 221

Party unity

98.9%

97.1%

65th of 221

Show the data

Baumgartner's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row	Baumgartner	Peers
Attendance	97.6%	96.3%
Party unity	98.9%	97.1%

What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Baumgartner most often

Mike JohnsonR511 shared votes100%
Mark MessmerR645 shared votes99%
Rudy YakymR658 shared votes99%
David RouzerR650 shared votes99%
Adrian SmithR647 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Baumgartner least often

Adelita GrijalvaD375 shared votes22%
Rashida TlaibD643 shared votes23%
Delia RamirezD626 shared votes24%
Gregorio CasarD560 shared votes25%
Summer LeeD658 shared votes26%

How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Legislation

Baumgartner sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 187 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 111th of 216).

The bills Baumgartner sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Show the data

Bills Baumgartner sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role	Introduced	In committee	Passed one chamber	Passed both chambers	Became law
Sponsored	24	24	3	0	0
Cosponsored	187	187	24	4	4

How to read the blocks

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

13%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 111th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

Michael Lawler18
Dan Newhouse15
Claudia Tenney14
Eugene Vindman13
Mark Messmer10

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 Baumgartner’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

RoleFurthest stagePolicy areaIntroduced in this window

Bills sponsored and cosponsored

H.R. 10604	Zeus 95 Memorial Act	Cosponsor	Sep 24, 2026	In committee	Armed Forces and National Security	Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10109	Wildfire Event Contract Prohibition Act	Sponsor	Aug 17, 2026	In committee	Finance and Financial Sector	Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Aug 17, 2026
H.R. 10064	Foreign Service Language Readiness Act	Cosponsor	Aug 6, 2026	In committee	International Affairs	Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Aug 6, 2026
H.R. 9834	No Racketeers on our Shores Act	Sponsor	Jul 22, 2026	In committee	Immigration	Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 8. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9701	Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Integrity Act.	Cosponsor	Jul 15, 2026	In committee	Government Operations and Politics	Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jul 15, 2026

Online

A site that changed 95 times in 90 days. Baumgartner’s official site had 47 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Baumgartner posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

Official site
baumgartner.house.gov
Last crawled Oct 25, 2026
47
pages crawled
95
changes in 90 days
Campaign site
www.votebaumgartner.com
Last crawled Oct 25, 2026
43
pages crawled
61
changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

XRepBaumgartner
FacebookRepBaumgartner
Instagramrepbaumgartner
Emailrepmichaelbaumgartner@mail8.housecommunications.gov

Images Baumgartner posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

A political award announcement graphic. The top section shows an aerial view of a city beneath a large award heading and a quote; the lower section shows three suited men posing in front of a branded backdrop, with the middle man holding a plaque. An American flag and a campaign-style name graphic are visible.Oct 21, 2026View post
A man wearing safety glasses and a bright yellow safety vest takes a selfie inside a large industrial facility. Complex machinery, elevated walkways, railings, stairs, and several workers are visible in the background. There is text on some equipment and clothing.Oct 21, 2026View post
A political information graphic featuring a portrait of a suited man in front of an American flag, followed by a headline and multiple bullet points about an education-related tax credit. The graphic contains substantial text.Oct 19, 2026View post
A political-style informational flyer for seniors features a smiling man in a suit beside a Medicare enrollment announcement, with a Social Security cost-of-living adjustment announcement and agency seal below. Text appears throughout.Oct 19, 2026View post
Four adults pose for a group photo in front of a blue education-themed backdrop with official seals and a large sign. A lectern is visible along the bottom. The backdrop and lectern contain text.Oct 19, 2026View post

About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Baumgartner is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id: B001322
Bioguide: B001322
FEC candidate ids: H4WA05234

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

At a glance

What Baumgartner says

Kinds of statement

Extreme labels

Who gets the labels

Month by month

In Baumgartner’s words

Examples by category

All 1,776 statements

Policy

What Baumgartner talks about

Talks about · legislates on

Ideology

Where Baumgartner sits

Money

Where the money came from

Receipts by cycle

Top donor states, 2026

Small donations

Where itemized donors live

Donors’ ideology

Top donor occupations

Top committees

Top employers

Votes

Attendance and party unity

Key votes

Votes most often with

Votes least often with

Full voting record

Legislation

Bills by stage

Cosponsorship partners

Bill list

Online

Websites

Social accounts

Images Baumgartner posted

Methods and sources

The headline

Identifiers

Freshness of this profile’s data

How the measures work