Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Maine

Serving since Jan 7, 1997119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001035FEC S6ME00159

Portrait of Susan Collins, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
144
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 83%, the lowest of 53 Senate Republicans (average 98.4%). 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Collins voted with the majority of Senate Republicans; it is ranked among Senate Republicans. The count covers every roll call where Collins voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 35% of Collins’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.8 times the Senate Republican average of 13%. Collins raised $22.5M in the 2026 cycle, the highest of 51 Senate Republicans (median $3.2M).

The measures on which Collins 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.

Party unity

83%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 53rd of 53 · 144 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Bipartisanship

35%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 1st of 52

Raised, 2026

$22.5M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 1st of 51

Credit claiming

60%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 2nd of 52

CSIP ideology

+0.23

More liberal than 97% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Attendance

100%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 2nd of 53 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Collins says

Collins attacks opponents personally less than 92% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,243 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 49th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Collins’s 1,243 statements in the 119th Congress (553 press releases, 457 posts on X, 143 Congressional Record speeches, 90 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%
Collins
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion999 statements
80%
70%
4th of 52
Credit claiming750 statements
60%
36%
2nd of 52
Bipartisanship432 statements
35%
13%
1st of 52
Policy criticism321 statements
26%
17%
7th of 52
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
49th of 52
Show the data
Collins's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCollinsPeers
Policy discussion80%70%
Credit claiming60%36%
Bipartisanship35%13%
Policy criticism26%17%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,243

statements classified

553 press releases, 457 posts on X, 143 Congressional Record speeches, 90 newsletters.

press releases: 553 (44.5%)press releases 553posts on X: 457 (36.8%)posts on X 457Congressional Record speeches: 143 (11.5%)newsletters: 90 (7.2%)
Show the data
Collins's statements by source
PartValue
press releases553
posts on X457
Congressional Record speeches143
newsletters90
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Collins used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 11% of the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at far-left activists; peers 2.9%.

  1. “extreme”2
  2. “far left”2
  3. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far-left activists1
  2. far-left organizations1
  3. far-right organizations1
  4. home health agencies1
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: 382025-02: 252025-03: 352025-04: 402025-05: 462025-06: 522025-07: 852025-08: 352025-09: 452025-10: 532025-11: 712025-12: 672026-01: 802026-02: 842026-03: 582026-04: 632026-05: 582026-06: 652026-07: 602026-08: 692026-09: 572026-10: 57peak 85 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 1.8% · Sep ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.8% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Policy criticismpeak 60.0% · Apr ’25 · latest 8.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.7% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-02: 40.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-03: 45.7% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-04: 60.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-05: 32.6% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-06: 26.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-07: 24.7% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-08: 8.6% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-09: 28.9% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-10: 22.6% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-11: 18.3% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-01: 22.5% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-02: 21.4% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-03: 31.0% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-04: 39.7% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-05: 20.7% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.4% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-07: 25.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-08: 29.0% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.8% of 57Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 86.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-02: 100.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-03: 94.3% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-04: 82.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-05: 82.6% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-06: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-07: 87.1% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-08: 77.1% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-09: 80.0% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.1% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-11: 80.3% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-12: 88.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-01: 68.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-02: 78.6% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-03: 82.8% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-04: 88.9% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-05: 84.5% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-06: 66.1% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-07: 66.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.4% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.5% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-10: 86.0% of 57Bipartisanshippeak 65.7% · Mar ’25 · latest 19.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.4% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 56.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 65.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 62.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 26.1% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 42.3% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 28.2% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 31.4% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 35.6% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 24.5% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 43.7% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 44.8% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 26.3% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 30.9% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 43.1% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 36.5% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 27.6% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 35.4% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 23.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 34.8% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 36.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 19.3% of 57Credit claimingpeak 82.9% · Mar ’25 · latest 63.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.8% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-02: 72.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-03: 82.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-04: 55.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-05: 67.4% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-06: 50.0% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-07: 75.3% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-08: 62.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-09: 55.6% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-10: 41.5% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-11: 70.4% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-12: 67.2% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-01: 46.3% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-02: 64.3% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-03: 67.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-04: 55.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-05: 63.8% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-06: 63.1% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-07: 50.0% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-08: 65.2% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-09: 49.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-10: 63.2% of 57Extreme labelspeak 2.5% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.6% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.5% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Collins, 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 ’25380.0%23.7%76.3%18.4%36.8%0.0%
Feb ’25250.0%40.0%100.0%56.0%72.0%0.0%
Mar ’25350.0%45.7%94.3%65.7%82.9%0.0%
Apr ’25400.0%60.0%82.5%62.5%55.0%2.5%
May ’25460.0%32.6%82.6%26.1%67.4%0.0%
Jun ’25520.0%26.9%76.9%42.3%50.0%0.0%
Jul ’25850.0%24.7%87.1%28.2%75.3%0.0%
Aug ’25350.0%8.6%77.1%31.4%62.9%0.0%
Sep ’25450.0%28.9%80.0%35.6%55.6%0.0%
Oct ’25530.0%22.6%64.1%24.5%41.5%0.0%
Nov ’25710.0%18.3%80.3%43.7%70.4%0.0%
Dec ’25670.0%28.4%88.1%44.8%67.2%0.0%
Jan ’26800.0%22.5%68.8%26.3%46.3%0.0%
Feb ’26840.0%21.4%78.6%30.9%64.3%0.0%
Mar ’26580.0%31.0%82.8%43.1%67.2%1.7%
Apr ’26630.0%39.7%88.9%36.5%55.6%1.6%
May ’26580.0%20.7%84.5%27.6%63.8%0.0%
Jun ’26650.0%15.4%66.1%35.4%63.1%0.0%
Jul ’26600.0%25.0%66.7%23.3%50.0%0.0%
Aug ’26690.0%29.0%88.4%34.8%65.2%1.5%
Sep ’26571.8%19.3%82.5%36.8%49.1%0.0%
Oct ’26570.0%8.8%86.0%19.3%63.2%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 Collins’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Senator Collins, Bipartisan Group of Senators Call for Investigation into Starlink Disruptions in Ukraine WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Chris Coons (D-DE), Lisa Murkowski (R…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

Senator Collins Talks Affordability, Energy Costs, and ProPublica on “All Things with Kim Strassel” Full video: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On Affordability: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On Lowering Energy Costs: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On ProPublica Art…

Sep 23, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Energy; Health; Housing and Community Development; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce · Source

Extreme label

ICYMI: New MaineCare Fraud Reporting Highlights Need for Senator Collins’ Medicare Home Health Reform Bill Reports of MaineCare provider suspensions and terminations come as Senator Marsha Blackburn joins Senator Collins’ anti-fraud legislation as a cosponsor. WASHINGTON, D.C. – As troubling new re…

Aug 11, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at home health agencies · 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. Press releases

    Senator Collins Talks Affordability, Energy Costs, and ProPublica on “All Things with Kim Strassel” Full video: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On Affordability: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On Lowering Energy Costs: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. On ProPublica Article: Click HERE to watch and HERE to download. WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins joined The Wall Street Jou…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Energy · Health · Housing and Community Development · Armed Forces and National Security · CommerceSource

All 1,243 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: 553 press releases, 457 posts on X, 143 Congressional Record speeches, 90 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Collins talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 35th 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 Collins talks about. The bills Collins sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Collins talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%43%
Collins
Peers
Economics and Public Finance395 statements
40%
17%
Health361 statements
36%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security251 statements
25%
25%
Education202 statements
20%
8%
Government Operations and Politics186 statements
19%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Collins talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCollinsPeers
Economics and Public Finance40%17%
Health36%15%
Armed Forces and National Security25%25%
Education20%8%
Government Operations and Politics19%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Collins’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 43%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 40% (Senate Republicans 17%)40%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%HealthHealth, talks about: 36% (Senate Republicans 15%)36%Health, legislates on: 23% (Senate Republicans 11%)23%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 25% (Senate Republicans 25%)25%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 8%)8%EducationEducation, talks about: 20% (Senate Republicans 8%)20%Education, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 4%)9%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (Senate Republicans 19%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (Senate Republicans 11%)6%
Show the data
Collins's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance40%17%1%1%
Health36%15%23%11%
Armed Forces and National Security25%25%8%8%
Education20%8%9%4%
Government Operations and Politics19%19%6%11%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 35th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Collins sits at +0.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 97% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.22 to +0.24, which understates the uncertainty; from 25,339 donors and 5,033 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”.

+0.23

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.22 to +0.24. From 25,339 donors and 5,033 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Collins +0.2Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Collins, 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 Collins’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 Collins sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Collins +0.2All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Collins's CSIP score of +0.23 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Collins
Senate Republicans51+1.02%
All Senate98+0.449%
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 Collins 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 Collins.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Collins raised $22.5M in the 2026 cycle, 7.0 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 17% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 9.9% of itemized individual money came from Maine.

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
$22.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 6,161 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): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $12.7M (56.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2.6M (11.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (7.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5.5M (24.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)56 squares$12.7M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)12 squares$2.6M
  • PACs and other committees7 squares$1.6M
  • Party committees$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)25 squares$5.5M
Show the data
Sources of Collins's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$12.7M56.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$2.6M11.7%
PACs and other committees$1.6M7.1%
Party committees$62.0K0.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$5.5M24.5%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $27.9M$27.9M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M20242026 cycle: $22.5M$22.5M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Collins's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$27.9M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.6M
2026 cycle$22.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 9.9% came from Maine.

  1. Florida$1.3M
  2. California$973.5K
  3. Maine$855.2K
  4. New York$851.2K
  5. Massachusetts$526.9K

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%
Collins
Median
2026
17%
17%
2024
3%
17%
2022
7%
17%
2020
23%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowCollinsMedian
2026 cycle17%17%
2024 cycle3%17%
2022 cycle7%17%
2020 cycle23%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $3,553AKMaine: $855.2KMEVermont: $9,405VTNew Hampshire: $89.8KNHWashington: $82.0KWAIdaho: $19.9KIDMontana: $16.8KMTNorth Dakota: $850NDMinnesota: $45.9KMNIllinois: $241.8KILWisconsin: $32.9KWIMichigan: $131.6KMINew York: $851.2KNYRhode Island: $9,488RIMassachusetts: $526.9KMAOregon: $33.8KORNevada: $42.4KNVWyoming: $27.9KWYSouth Dakota: $9,007SDIowa: $10.8KIAIndiana: $17.3KINOhio: $170.3KOHPennsylvania: $243.2KPANew Jersey: $312.4KNJConnecticut: $213.2KCTCalifornia: $973.5KCAUtah: $102.1KUTColorado: $147.6KCONebraska: $24.7KNEMissouri: $97.1KMOKentucky: $13.2KKYWest Virginia: $875WVVirginia: $258.3KVAMaryland: $209.1KMDDelaware: $15.6KDEArizona: $78.0KAZNew Mexico: $30.6KNMKansas: $43.5KKSArkansas: $33.5KARTennessee: $150.5KTNNorth Carolina: $97.9KNCSouth Carolina: $56.4KSCDistrict of Columbia: $113.4KDCOklahoma: $32.1KOKLouisiana: $29.5KLAMississippi: $3,209MSAlabama: $45.3KALGeorgia: $251.1KGAHawaii: $7,604HITexas: $499.0KTXFlorida: $1.3MFL
Show the data
Collins's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$1.3M
California$973.5K
Maine$855.2K
New York$851.2K
Massachusetts$526.9K
Texas$499.0K
New Jersey$312.4K
Virginia$258.3K
Georgia$251.1K
Pennsylvania$243.2K
Illinois$241.8K
Connecticut$213.2K
Maryland$209.1K
Ohio$170.3K
Tennessee$150.5K
Colorado$147.6K
Michigan$131.6K
District of Columbia$113.4K
Utah$102.1K
North Carolina$97.9K
Missouri$97.1K
New Hampshire$89.8K
Washington$82.0K
Arizona$78.0K
South Carolina$56.4K
Minnesota$45.9K
Alabama$45.3K
Kansas$43.5K
Nevada$42.4K
Oregon$33.8K
Arkansas$33.5K
Wisconsin$32.9K
Oklahoma$32.1K
New Mexico$30.6K
Louisiana$29.5K
Wyoming$27.9K
Nebraska$24.7K
Idaho$19.9K
Indiana$17.3K
Montana$16.8K
Delaware$15.6K
Kentucky$13.2K
Iowa$10.8K
Rhode Island$9,488
Vermont$9,405
South Dakota$9,007
Hawaii$7,604
Alaska$3,553
Mississippi$3,209
West Virginia$875
North Dakota$850
6,161

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

9.9%

from Maine

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.7%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 10%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 23%23%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 16%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 16%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 18%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 2.5%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Collins's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.75: 6.7% between −0.50 and −0.25, 10% between −0.25 and 0.00, 23% between 0.00 and +0.25, 16% between +0.25 and +0.50, 16% between +0.50 and +0.75, 18% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.7%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0010%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2523%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5016%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7516%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0018%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.252.5%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Collins’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Collins’s own score is +0.23.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$3.4M 3,233 donors
  2. CEO$438.3K 159 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$406.4K 295 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$294.6K 136 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$259.1K 170 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)$14.4K
  3. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$12.0K
  4. 1890 PAC$10.0K
  5. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN AIRLINES$37.6K 25 donors
  2. APOLLO$32.0K 9 donors
  3. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$24.5K 7 donors
  4. GENERAL DYNAMICS$23.3K 13 donors
  5. O'HARA CORPORATION$17.1K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Collins voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 83% of party-line votes and missed none of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Collins voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 144 times.

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

144

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 83%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 53rd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Collins
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
97.1%
2nd of 53
Party unity
83%
98.4%
53rd of 53
Show the data
Collins's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowCollinsPeers
Attendance100%97.1%
Party unity83%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
YeaAgainst 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 Collins most often

  1. Lisa MurkowskiR877 shared votes89%
  2. Markwayne MullinR683 shared votes88%
  3. Dan SullivanR887 shared votes86%
  4. Chuck GrassleyR891 shared votes86%
  5. Mitch McConnellR778 shared votes86%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Collins least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD908 shared votes18%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD901 shared votes18%
  3. Christopher MurphyD890 shared votes19%
  4. Bernie SandersI851 shared votes19%
  5. Chris Van HollenD901 shared votes20%
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

Collins sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 334 others. 32% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 10th of 51).

The bills Collins 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3030Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored334 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 334334Cosponsored, In committee: 332332Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 9999Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Collins sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3130911
Cosponsored3343329943
How to read the blocks

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

32%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 10th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Angus King Jr.83
  2. Jeanne Shaheen78
  3. Amy Klobuchar69
  4. Christopher Coons55
  5. Lisa Murkowski50
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 Collins’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S.Res. 950A resolution designating the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week".SponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedEnergyUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
S.Res. 949A resolution designating October 12, 2026, as "National Loggers Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5274) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 924A resolution designating October 7, 2026, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEnergySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176-5177) Sep 29, 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

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 38 times in 90 days. Collins’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Collins posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Collins’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 Collins 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 Collins posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A collage of portrait photographs arranged in three rows on a dark blue background. Most photos show individual people, with one photo showing two people together. Each portrait has a name label beneath it.
    A collage of portrait photographs arranged in three rows on a dark blue background. Most photos show individual people, with one photo showing two people together. Each portrait has a name label beneath it.View post
  • An aerial view of a coastal harbor with many boats anchored in the water, surrounded by wooded shores, homes, roads, and docks. No visible text.
    An aerial view of a coastal harbor with many boats anchored in the water, surrounded by wooded shores, homes, roads, and docks. No visible text.View post
  • A man in a dark suit shakes hands with a smiling woman in a light blue suit outdoors. Other people in formal attire stand behind them. There is a small badge with text on the woman's jacket.
    A man in a dark suit shakes hands with a smiling woman in a light blue suit outdoors. Other people in formal attire stand behind them. There is a small badge with text on the woman's jacket.View post
  • A group of seven people in business attire pose during a ribbon-cutting ceremony inside an industrial building. They hold a red ribbon, with scissors and flags nearby. Banners and signs are visible in the background.
    A group of seven people in business attire pose during a ribbon-cutting ceremony inside an industrial building. They hold a red ribbon, with scissors and flags nearby. Banners and signs are visible in the background.View post
  • A smiling man and woman stand together and shake hands at an indoor gathering. Other people and folding chairs are visible in the large hall. There is text on their clothing and a bag.
    A smiling man and woman stand together and shake hands at an indoor gathering. Other people and folding chairs are visible in the large hall. There is text on their clothing and a bag.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 Collins 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
C001035
Bioguide
C001035
FEC candidate ids
S6ME00159

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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