Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Missouri’s 1st district

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

Bioguide B001324FEC H4MO01134, S4MO00250

Portrait of Wesley Bell, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
11%
of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

11% of 1,030 statements criticize a policy (117 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 208th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Bell’s press releases, newsletters, posts on X and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Bell sits at −0.46 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 96% of House Democrats. 18% of Bell’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Missouri, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats.

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

Policy criticism

11%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 208th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.46

More conservative than 96% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

From Missouri, 2026

18%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 205th of 214 House Democrats

Extreme labels

0.2%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 202nd of 216

Bipartisanship

3.7%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 197th of 216

Small donations, 2026

2.6%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 195th of 214

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bell says

Bell stresses bipartisanship less than 90% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 3.7% of 1,030 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 197th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Bell’s 1,030 statements in the 119th Congress (889 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 49 press releases, 39 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Bell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion777 statements
75%
73%
89th of 216
Credit claiming203 statements
20%
23%
127th of 216
Policy criticism117 statements
11%
28%
208th of 216
Personal attacks44 statements
4%
7%
134th of 216
Bipartisanship38 statements
4%
10%
197th of 216
Show the data
Bell's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowBellPeers
Policy discussion75%73%
Credit claiming20%23%
Policy criticism11%28%
Personal attacks4%7%
Bipartisanship4%10%
1,030

statements classified

889 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 49 press releases, 39 newsletters.

posts on X: 889 (86.3%)posts on X 889Congressional Record speeches: 53 (5.1%)press releases: 49 (4.8%)newsletters: 39 (3.8%)
Show the data
Bell's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X889
Congressional Record speeches53
press releases49
newsletters39
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Bell used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 9.9% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at agenda; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”1
  2. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. agenda1
  2. far-right1
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: 142025-02: 222025-03: 652025-04: 592025-05: 792025-06: 562025-07: 522025-08: 292025-09: 402025-10: 352025-11: 312025-12: 382026-01: 302026-02: 492026-03: 552026-04: 562026-05: 482026-06: 712026-07: 652026-08: 412026-09: 532026-10: 42peak 79 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 13.9% · Jul ’26 · latest 2.4%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 7.1% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-02: 9.1% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.4% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.8% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.5% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-09: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.9% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.2% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.1% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.8% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-04: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.2% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.8% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-07: 13.9% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.8% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-09: 7.5% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.4% of 42Policy criticismpeak 21.1% · Dec ’25 · latest 7.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 0.0% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-02: 9.1% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-03: 10.8% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-04: 11.9% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.3% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-06: 14.3% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.5% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-08: 3.5% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-10: 17.1% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-11: 9.7% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.1% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.3% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-03: 12.7% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.7% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.3% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-07: 7.7% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-09: 11.3% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-10: 7.1% of 42Policy discussionpeak 96.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 81.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 85.7% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-02: 54.5% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-03: 78.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-04: 72.9% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.4% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-06: 80.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-08: 69.0% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-10: 77.1% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-11: 96.8% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-12: 63.2% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-01: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-02: 63.3% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-03: 65.5% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.2% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-05: 83.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-06: 76.1% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-07: 78.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-08: 85.4% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-09: 77.4% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-10: 81.0% of 42Bipartisanshippeak 12.5% · Sep ’25 · latest 7.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 0.0% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.8% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.1% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.6% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 2.6% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.0% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.6% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.1% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 1.4% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.1% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.9% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.5% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 7.1% of 42Credit claimingpeak 37.5% · May ’26 · latest 33.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 7.1% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-02: 4.5% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-03: 9.2% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-04: 15.3% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-05: 6.3% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.9% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-07: 11.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-08: 13.8% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-09: 22.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-10: 2.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.0% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-12: 18.4% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-01: 23.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-02: 28.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-03: 34.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-04: 19.6% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-05: 37.5% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-06: 26.8% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-07: 20.0% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-08: 24.4% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-09: 28.3% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-10: 33.3% of 42Extreme labelspeak 3.2% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.9% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.2% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 42Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Bell, 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 ’25147.1%0.0%85.7%0.0%7.1%0.0%
Feb ’25229.1%9.1%54.5%0.0%4.5%0.0%
Mar ’25653.1%10.8%78.5%0.0%9.2%0.0%
Apr ’25593.4%11.9%72.9%6.8%15.3%0.0%
May ’25790.0%6.3%73.4%5.1%6.3%0.0%
Jun ’25561.8%14.3%80.4%3.6%8.9%0.0%
Jul ’25521.9%11.5%76.9%0.0%11.5%0.0%
Aug ’25293.5%3.5%69.0%0.0%13.8%0.0%
Sep ’254010.0%15.0%75.0%12.5%22.5%0.0%
Oct ’25352.9%17.1%77.1%5.7%2.9%2.9%
Nov ’25313.2%9.7%96.8%0.0%29.0%3.2%
Dec ’25380.0%21.1%63.2%2.6%18.4%0.0%
Jan ’26303.3%13.3%73.3%3.3%23.3%0.0%
Feb ’26494.1%14.3%63.3%2.0%28.6%0.0%
Mar ’26551.8%12.7%65.5%3.6%34.5%0.0%
Apr ’26563.6%10.7%73.2%7.1%19.6%0.0%
May ’26484.2%8.3%83.3%0.0%37.5%0.0%
Jun ’26712.8%15.5%76.1%1.4%26.8%0.0%
Jul ’266513.9%7.7%78.5%3.1%20.0%0.0%
Aug ’26419.8%12.2%85.4%4.9%24.4%0.0%
Sep ’26537.5%11.3%77.4%7.5%28.3%0.0%
Oct ’26422.4%7.1%81.0%7.1%33.3%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 Bell’s words

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

Policy criticism

Representatives Bell, Costa, Bacon, and Quigley Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen U.S. Defense Innovation Through Partnership with Ukraine The bipartisan Frontline Innovation Act would let the Defense Innovation Unit evaluate and invest in Ukrainian defense technologies Years of war have pushe…

Oct 19, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Bipartisanship

Representatives Bell & Bacon Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Establish a National Day of the Deployed The bipartisan resolution designates October 26 as a day of recognition honoring all U.S. service members deployed overseas and their families Congressman Bell: “The missed birthdays, the empty c…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Extreme label

, let me re-introduce myself | Hi , Congressman Wesley Bell here. I was born and raised in North St. Louis County. I grew up in housing projects as my parents worked tirelessly as civil servants to care for our family. I'm serving in the House of Representatives because our country needs leaders wh…

Nov 19, 2025 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; Taxation; extreme label “far right” aimed at far-right

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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and PoliticsSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  5. 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: TrumpSource

All 1,030 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: 889 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 49 press releases, 39 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Bell talks about most: 23% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 23rd of 216).

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 Bell talks about. The bills Bell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Bell talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Bell
Peers
Health178 statements
23%
26%
Government Operations and Politics165 statements
21%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security115 statements
15%
16%
Economics and Public Finance112 statements
14%
20%
Crime and Law Enforcement99 statements
13%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Bell talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowBellPeers
Health23%26%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%
Economics and Public Finance14%20%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Bell’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. 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 House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 16%)13%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 11%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 7%)11%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 20%)14%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 9%)13%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 7%)10%
Show the data
Bell's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health23%26%13%16%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%13%11%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%11%7%
Economics and Public Finance14%20%0%1%
Crime and Law Enforcement13%9%10%7%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 23rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Bell sits at −0.46 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 96% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.49 to −0.44, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,092 donors and 653 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”.

−0.46

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.49 to −0.44. From 5,092 donors and 653 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Bell −0.5House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Bell, 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 Bell’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 Bell sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Bell −0.5All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Bell's CSIP score of −0.46 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bell
House Democrats217−1.096%
All House439+0.347%
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 Bell 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 Bell.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Bell raised $4.0M in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 2.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 18% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.

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
$4.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,986 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.1M (77.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $84.9K (2.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $84.9K (2.1%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $706.8K (17.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $96.7K (2.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $96.7K (2.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)78 squares$3.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$84.9K
  • PACs and other committees18 squares$706.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$96.7K
Show the data
Sources of Bell's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.1M77.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$84.9K2.1%
PACs and other committees$706.8K17.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$96.7K2.4%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $5.4M$5.4M20242026 cycle: $4.0M$4.0M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Bell's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$5.4M
2026 cycle$4.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 18% came from Missouri.

  1. California$562.1K
  2. Missouri$509.9K
  3. New York$409.0K
  4. Florida$339.9K
  5. Illinois$207.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Bell
Median
2026
3%
13%
2024
8%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowBellMedian
2026 cycle3%13%
2024 cycle8%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: $10.5KNHWashington: $36.3KWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,000MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $7,750MNIllinois: $207.0KILWisconsin: $1,050WIMichigan: $16.0KMINew York: $409.0KNYRhode Island: $1,750RIMassachusetts: $138.7KMAOregon: $9,180ORNevada: $31.8KNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $16.0KINOhio: $31.0KOHPennsylvania: $31.5KPANew Jersey: $29.4KNJConnecticut: $38.9KCTCalifornia: $562.1KCAUtah: $3,200UTColorado: $15.8KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $509.9KMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $33.2KVAMaryland: $103.3KMDDelaware: $2,500DEArizona: $13.0KAZNew Mexico: $5,500NMKansas: $18.7KKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: $2,250SCDistrict of Columbia: $32.6KDCOklahoma: $9,000OKLouisiana: $2,450LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $2,000ALGeorgia: $38.4KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $73.5KTXFlorida: $339.9KFL
Show the data
Bell's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$562.1K
Missouri$509.9K
New York$409.0K
Florida$339.9K
Illinois$207.0K
Massachusetts$138.7K
Maryland$103.3K
Texas$73.5K
Connecticut$38.9K
Georgia$38.4K
Washington$36.3K
Virginia$33.2K
District of Columbia$32.6K
Nevada$31.8K
Pennsylvania$31.5K
Ohio$31.0K
New Jersey$29.4K
Kansas$18.7K
Michigan$16.0K
Indiana$16.0K
Colorado$15.8K
Arizona$13.0K
New Hampshire$10.5K
Oregon$9,180
Oklahoma$9,000
Minnesota$7,750
New Mexico$5,500
Utah$3,200
Delaware$2,500
Louisiana$2,450
South Carolina$2,250
Alabama$2,000
Rhode Island$1,750
Wisconsin$1,050
Montana$1,000
Vermont$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,986

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

18%

from Missouri

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.0%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.8%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 14%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 21%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 24%24%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 17%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 11%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 4.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 1.7%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Bell's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.25: 14% between −1.00 and −0.75, 21% between −0.75 and −0.50, 24% between −0.50 and −0.25, 17% between −0.25 and 0.00, 11% between 0.00 and +0.25, 6.3% between +0.25 and +0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.8%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7514%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5021%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2524%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0017%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2511%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.754.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.001.7%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Bell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Bell’s own score is −0.46.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$599.6K 470 donors
  2. NOT EMPLOYED$317.3K 210 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$299.0K 251 donors
  4. CEO$147.0K 67 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$131.8K 89 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  2. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  5. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ELEVANCE HEALTH PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EDWARD JONES$28.9K 14 donors
  2. NEUBERGER BERMAN$18.8K 4 donors
  3. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP$17.6K 7 donors
  4. THE BOEING COMPANY$16.2K 29 donors
  5. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY$12.5K 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Bell voted with the majority of House Democrats on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 2.8% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bell voted against the majority of House Democrats 14 times.

674 roll calls Bell could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Bell voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

14

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 97.8%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 127th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Bell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.1%
96.9%
146th of 217
Party unity
97.8%
96.4%
127th of 217
Show the data
Bell's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowBellPeers
Attendance97.1%96.9%
Party unity97.8%96.4%
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 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bell most often

  1. Frederica WilsonD471 shared votes99%
  2. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD455 shared votes98%
  3. Julia BrownleyD633 shared votes98%
  4. Emanuel Cleaver IID633 shared votes98%
  5. Lois FrankelD627 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bell least often

  1. Chip RoyR615 shared votes15%
  2. Ralph NormanR581 shared votes17%
  3. Andy BiggsR588 shared votes18%
  4. Eric BurlisonR625 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR639 shared votes18%
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

Bell sponsored 34 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 537 others. 2.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 115th of 207).

The bills Bell 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

Sponsored34 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3434Sponsored, In committee: 3434Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored537 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 537537Cosponsored, In committee: 537537Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1818Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Bell sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3434100
Cosponsored5375371811
How to read the blocks

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

2.9%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 115th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton75
  2. Rashida Tlaib35
  3. Shri Thanedar35
  4. André Carson35
  5. Hank Johnson Jr.30
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 Bell’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10816DORIE Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10817U.S.S. Doris Miller Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10820Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10772Frontline Innovation ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 86 times in 90 days. Bell’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Bell posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    bell.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    32

    pages crawled

    86

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.bell4mo.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    10

    pages crawled

    4

    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.

Images Bell posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political-style graphic honoring deployed service members and their families, over a background showing a person in military camouflage. It includes prominent text and a campaign logo.
    A political-style graphic honoring deployed service members and their families, over a background showing a person in military camouflage. It includes prominent text and a campaign logo.View post
  • A group of nine adults wearing hard hats pose in a row with shovels at an outdoor groundbreaking ceremony. A construction fence, buildings, trees, and a stop sign are visible behind them. There is text on the stop sign and a small sign nearby.
    A group of nine adults wearing hard hats pose in a row with shovels at an outdoor groundbreaking ceremony. A construction fence, buildings, trees, and a stop sign are visible behind them. There is text on the stop sign and a small sign nearby.View post
  • An outdoor event under a canopy, where a man in a suit speaks at a clear lectern to a seated audience. A speaker, microphones, and display boards are visible, with a construction site and buildings behind a chain-link fence. There is text on the display boards and signs.
    An outdoor event under a canopy, where a man in a suit speaks at a clear lectern to a seated audience. A speaker, microphones, and display boards are visible, with a construction site and buildings behind a chain-link fence. There is text on the display boards and signs.View post
  • A promotional flyer for a health and wellness fair, with event details over a muted photo of a healthcare worker taking notes. Logos appear at the bottom.
    A promotional flyer for a health and wellness fair, with event details over a muted photo of a healthcare worker taking notes. Logos appear at the bottom.View post
  • A graphic with a dark blue textured background, a yellow rounded border, and a white page showing a formal letter. A prominent yellow heading appears at the top left, and a faint ship image is visible in the background. The letter contains dense paragraphs and numbered questions.
    A graphic with a dark blue textured background, a yellow rounded border, and a white page showing a formal letter. A prominent yellow heading appears at the top left, and a faint ship image is visible in the background. The letter contains dense paragraphs and numbered questions.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 Bell is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
B001324
Bioguide
B001324
FEC candidate ids
H4MO01134, S4MO00250

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