Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Texas

Serving since Nov 30, 2002119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001056FEC S2TX00106

Portrait of John Cornyn, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.73
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of Senate Republicans

Agreement 0.73 on a 0–1 scale; the average for Senate Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 2nd of 52, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Cornyn’s statements matches the mix in the bills Cornyn sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among Senate Republicans.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 46% of Cornyn’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Texas, in the top tenth of Senate Republicans. 25% of Cornyn’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 36%).

The measures on which Cornyn 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.

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.73

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 2nd of 52

From Texas, 2026

46%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 4th of 50 Senate Republicans

Party unity

100%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 4th of 53 · 3 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Credit claiming

25%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 45th of 52

Policy discussion

63%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 44th of 52

CSIP ideology

+0.75

More liberal than 83% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cornyn says

Cornyn attacks opponents personally more than 78% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 4.0% of 5,379 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 11th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Cornyn’s 5,379 statements in the 119th Congress (4,357 posts on X, 696 press releases, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 88 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%
Cornyn
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion3,409 statements
63%
70%
44th of 52
Credit claiming1,323 statements
25%
36%
45th of 52
Policy criticism752 statements
14%
17%
35th of 52
Bipartisanship405 statements
8%
13%
41st of 52
Personal attacks218 statements
4%
2%
11th of 52
Show the data
Cornyn's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCornynPeers
Policy discussion63%70%
Credit claiming25%36%
Policy criticism14%17%
Bipartisanship8%13%
Personal attacks4%2%
5,379

statements classified

4,357 posts on X, 696 press releases, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 88 newsletters.

posts on X: 4,357 (81.0%)posts on X 4,357press releases: 696 (12.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 238 (4.4%)newsletters: 88 (1.6%)
Show the data
Cornyn's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X4,357
press releases696
Congressional Record speeches238
newsletters88
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cornyn used extreme labels in 3.2% of statements, close to the peer average. 170 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”82
  2. “woke”20
  3. “far left”13
  4. “extreme”9
  5. “communist”8

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats28
  2. Left10
  3. radical left10
  4. Democratic Party6
  5. Biden administration5
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: 3412025-02: 2182025-03: 3842025-04: 2732025-05: 3442025-06: 2442025-07: 3102025-08: 2162025-09: 2492025-10: 3582025-11: 2142025-12: 2892026-01: 3302026-02: 2482026-03: 3072026-04: 992026-05: 1172026-06: 2342026-07: 1072026-08: 1352026-09: 1802026-10: 182peak 384 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 9.1% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.6% of 341Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.2% of 218Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.6% of 384Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.1% of 273Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.7% of 344Personal attacks, 2025-06: 6.6% of 244Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.4% of 310Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.6% of 216Personal attacks, 2025-09: 6.0% of 249Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.9% of 358Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.3% of 214Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.5% of 289Personal attacks, 2026-01: 9.1% of 330Personal attacks, 2026-02: 2.8% of 248Personal attacks, 2026-03: 7.2% of 307Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.1% of 99Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.3% of 117Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.4% of 234Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.1% of 180Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 182Policy criticismpeak 25.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 3.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 21.4% of 341Policy criticism, 2025-02: 25.7% of 218Policy criticism, 2025-03: 12.5% of 384Policy criticism, 2025-04: 14.6% of 273Policy criticism, 2025-05: 10.2% of 344Policy criticism, 2025-06: 16.4% of 244Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.6% of 310Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.7% of 216Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.5% of 249Policy criticism, 2025-10: 22.4% of 358Policy criticism, 2025-11: 18.7% of 214Policy criticism, 2025-12: 14.9% of 289Policy criticism, 2026-01: 2.7% of 330Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.1% of 248Policy criticism, 2026-03: 20.8% of 307Policy criticism, 2026-04: 13.1% of 99Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.6% of 117Policy criticism, 2026-06: 11.1% of 234Policy criticism, 2026-07: 10.3% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-08: 8.2% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.6% of 180Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.9% of 182Policy discussionpeak 77.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 75.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.6% of 341Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.2% of 218Policy discussion, 2025-03: 60.4% of 384Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.4% of 273Policy discussion, 2025-05: 66.0% of 344Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.7% of 244Policy discussion, 2025-07: 63.5% of 310Policy discussion, 2025-08: 51.8% of 216Policy discussion, 2025-09: 63.9% of 249Policy discussion, 2025-10: 62.8% of 358Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.9% of 214Policy discussion, 2025-12: 72.7% of 289Policy discussion, 2026-01: 70.3% of 330Policy discussion, 2026-02: 54.0% of 248Policy discussion, 2026-03: 52.1% of 307Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.7% of 99Policy discussion, 2026-05: 35.9% of 117Policy discussion, 2026-06: 49.1% of 234Policy discussion, 2026-07: 63.5% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-08: 77.0% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-09: 68.3% of 180Policy discussion, 2026-10: 75.8% of 182Bipartisanshippeak 13.1% · Apr ’26 · latest 3.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.6% of 341Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 12.8% of 218Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.9% of 384Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 8.8% of 273Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.1% of 344Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.3% of 244Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 6.5% of 310Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.2% of 216Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.0% of 249Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.7% of 358Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.9% of 214Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.7% of 289Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.4% of 330Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.0% of 248Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 6.8% of 307Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 13.1% of 99Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 5.1% of 117Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 11.5% of 234Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.3% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 5.2% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.6% of 180Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.9% of 182Credit claimingpeak 47.5% · Apr ’26 · latest 13.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 24.1% of 341Credit claiming, 2025-02: 31.2% of 218Credit claiming, 2025-03: 19.0% of 384Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.4% of 273Credit claiming, 2025-05: 27.9% of 344Credit claiming, 2025-06: 26.2% of 244Credit claiming, 2025-07: 27.4% of 310Credit claiming, 2025-08: 18.1% of 216Credit claiming, 2025-09: 26.5% of 249Credit claiming, 2025-10: 22.6% of 358Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.6% of 214Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.1% of 289Credit claiming, 2026-01: 21.8% of 330Credit claiming, 2026-02: 31.1% of 248Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.7% of 307Credit claiming, 2026-04: 47.5% of 99Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.6% of 117Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.8% of 234Credit claiming, 2026-07: 19.6% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-08: 25.2% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-09: 11.7% of 180Credit claiming, 2026-10: 13.7% of 182Extreme labelspeak 8.4% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.5% of 341Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.1% of 218Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.6% of 384Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.4% of 273Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.0% of 344Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.1% of 244Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.3% of 310Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.8% of 216Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.2% of 249Extreme labels, 2025-10: 5.3% of 358Extreme labels, 2025-11: 8.4% of 214Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.8% of 289Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.4% of 330Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.6% of 248Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.8% of 307Extreme labels, 2026-04: 4.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.6% of 117Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.4% of 234Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.7% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.6% of 180Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 182Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cornyn, 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 ’253412.6%21.4%66.6%7.6%24.1%3.5%
Feb ’252183.2%25.7%75.2%12.8%31.2%4.1%
Mar ’253842.6%12.5%60.4%9.9%19.0%2.6%
Apr ’252731.1%14.6%63.4%8.8%26.4%0.4%
May ’253444.7%10.2%66.0%8.1%27.9%2.0%
Jun ’252446.6%16.4%69.7%5.3%26.2%2.1%
Jul ’253107.4%13.6%63.5%6.5%27.4%2.3%
Aug ’252165.6%10.7%51.8%3.2%18.1%1.8%
Sep ’252496.0%16.5%63.9%10.0%26.5%5.2%
Oct ’253583.9%22.4%62.8%8.7%22.6%5.3%
Nov ’252143.3%18.7%58.9%8.9%20.6%8.4%
Dec ’252894.5%14.9%72.7%10.7%30.1%2.8%
Jan ’263309.1%2.7%70.3%2.4%21.8%2.4%
Feb ’262482.8%12.1%54.0%2.0%31.1%3.6%
Mar ’263077.2%20.8%52.1%6.8%28.7%6.8%
Apr ’26996.1%13.1%71.7%13.1%47.5%4.0%
May ’261174.3%8.6%35.9%5.1%25.6%2.6%
Jun ’262340.4%11.1%49.1%11.5%21.8%3.4%
Jul ’261070.0%10.3%63.5%10.3%19.6%1.9%
Aug ’261350.0%8.2%77.0%5.2%25.2%0.7%
Sep ’261801.1%5.6%68.3%5.6%11.7%0.6%
Oct ’261820.0%3.9%75.8%3.9%13.7%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Cornyn’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Cornyn, Warren, and Cortez Masto Statement on Treasury Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Outbound Investment Screening October 26, 2026 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and Catherine Cor…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 12, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “MAGA, extreme” aimed at JD Vance, Republicans · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Republican nomineeSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: GrifterSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Ken PaxtonSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: PaxtonSource

All 5,379 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: 4,357 posts on X, 696 press releases, 238 Congressional Record speeches, 88 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Cornyn talks about most: 24% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 2nd 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 Cornyn talks about. The bills Cornyn sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cornyn talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cornyn
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security803 statements
24%
25%
Government Operations and Politics607 statements
18%
19%
International Affairs592 statements
17%
11%
Crime and Law Enforcement536 statements
16%
11%
Immigration493 statements
14%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Cornyn talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCornynPeers
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
International Affairs17%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement16%11%
Immigration14%10%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 24% (Senate Republicans 25%)24%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 12% (Senate Republicans 8%)12%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 5% (Senate Republicans 11%)5%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 17% (Senate Republicans 11%)17%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (Senate Republicans 8%)12%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 11%)16%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 16% (Senate Republicans 8%)16%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 10%)14%Immigration, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 4%)7%
Show the data
Cornyn's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%12%8%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%5%11%
International Affairs17%11%12%8%
Crime and Law Enforcement16%11%16%8%
Immigration14%10%7%4%
0.73

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 2nd of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cornyn sits at +0.75 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 83% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.73 to +0.76, which understates the uncertainty; from 24,025 donors and 4,905 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”.

+0.75

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.73 to +0.76. From 24,025 donors and 4,905 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cornyn +0.7Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Cornyn, 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 Cornyn’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 Cornyn sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Cornyn +0.7All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Cornyn's CSIP score of +0.75 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cornyn
Senate Republicans51+1.016%
All Senate98+0.456%
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 Cornyn 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 Cornyn.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cornyn raised $6.2M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 6.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 46% of itemized individual money came from Texas.

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
$6.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,668 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): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.5M (56.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $223.7K (3.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $223.7K (3.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $223.7K (3.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (23.7%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $940.8K (15.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)57 squares$3.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$223.7K
  • PACs and other committees24 squares$1.5M
  • Party committees1 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)15 squares$940.8K
Show the data
Sources of Cornyn's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.5M56.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$223.7K3.6%
PACs and other committees$1.5M23.7%
Party committees$62.0K1.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$940.8K15.1%
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: $28.6M$28.6M20202022 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20222024 cycle: $3.4M$3.4M20242026 cycle: $6.2M$6.2M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Cornyn's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$28.6M
2022 cycle$2.3M
2024 cycle$3.4M
2026 cycle$6.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 46% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$1.6M
  2. Florida$369.3K
  3. New York$295.2K
  4. Virginia$194.3K
  5. California$181.6K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Cornyn
Median
2026
6%
17%
2024
6%
17%
2022
21%
17%
2020
35%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowCornynMedian
2026 cycle6%17%
2024 cycle6%17%
2022 cycle21%17%
2020 cycle35%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $500MEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: $2,500NHWashington: $33.0KWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,500MTNorth Dakota: $1,000NDMinnesota: $19.9KMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: $5,524WIMichigan: $23.7KMINew York: $295.2KNYRhode Island: $3,500RIMassachusetts: $79.1KMAOregon: $3,000ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $1,000SDIowa: $2,982IAIndiana: $8,756INOhio: $17.0KOHPennsylvania: $14.4KPANew Jersey: $56.5KNJConnecticut: $4,000CTCalifornia: $181.6KCAUtah: $10.8KUTColorado: $139.1KCONebraska: $1,150NEMissouri: $6,350MOKentucky: $10.5KKYWest Virginia: $1,900WVVirginia: $194.3KVAMaryland: $74.1KMDDelaware: $3,820DEArizona: $3,396AZNew Mexico: $127NMKansas: $41.3KKSArkansas: $39.5KARTennessee: $14.7KTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $66.0KDCOklahoma: $17.9KOKLouisiana: $9,204LAMississippi: $5,167MSAlabama: $3,416ALGeorgia: $98.5KGAHawaii: $500HITexas: $1.6MTXFlorida: $369.3KFL
Show the data
Cornyn's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$1.6M
Florida$369.3K
New York$295.2K
Virginia$194.3K
California$181.6K
Colorado$139.1K
Georgia$98.5K
Massachusetts$79.1K
Maryland$74.1K
District of Columbia$66.0K
New Jersey$56.5K
Kansas$41.3K
Arkansas$39.5K
Washington$33.0K
Michigan$23.7K
Minnesota$19.9K
Oklahoma$17.9K
Ohio$17.0K
Tennessee$14.7K
Pennsylvania$14.4K
Utah$10.8K
Kentucky$10.5K
Louisiana$9,204
Indiana$8,756
Missouri$6,350
Wisconsin$5,524
Mississippi$5,167
Connecticut$4,000
Delaware$3,820
Rhode Island$3,500
Alabama$3,416
Arizona$3,396
Oregon$3,000
Iowa$2,982
New Hampshire$2,500
West Virginia$1,900
Montana$1,500
Nebraska$1,150
North Dakota$1,000
South Dakota$1,000
Maine$500
Vermont$500
Hawaii$500
New Mexico$127
AlaskaNo data
IdahoNo data
IllinoisNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
2,668

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

46%

from Texas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 10%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 30%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 36%36%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 5.8%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cornyn's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 5.5% between −0.25 and 0.00, 7.2% between 0.00 and +0.25, 10% between +0.25 and +0.50, 30% between +0.50 and +0.75, 36% between +0.75 and +1.00, 5.8% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5010%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7530%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0036%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.255.8%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cornyn’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cornyn’s own score is +0.75.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$1.1M 985 donors
  2. CEO$274.6K 74 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$260.8K 138 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$155.1K 49 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE BROKER$134.5K 189 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. TEXAS FARM BUREAU AGFUND$19.2K
  3. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$15.0K
  4. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. ASSOC. POLITICAL FUND$15.0K
  5. CONOCOPHILLIPS SPIRIT PAC$15.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO$35.3K 12 donors
  2. LION STREET$33.7K 6 donors
  3. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS$25.1K 17 donors
  4. NORTH STAR RESOURCE GROUP$20.9K 3 donors
  5. STATE OF TEXAS$20.4K 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cornyn voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 1.4% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cornyn voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 3 times.

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

3

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 100%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 4th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cornyn
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
97.1%
20th of 53
Party unity
100%
98.4%
4th of 53
Show the data
Cornyn's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowCornynPeers
Attendance98.5%97.1%
Party unity100%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cornyn most often

  1. Mike CrapoR891 shared votes100%
  2. Tom CottonR889 shared votes100%
  3. James RischR879 shared votes100%
  4. Marsha BlackburnR851 shared votes100%
  5. James LankfordR896 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cornyn least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD895 shared votes2.5%
  2. Bernie SandersI838 shared votes2.5%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD888 shared votes2.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD877 shared votes3.4%
  5. Chris Van HollenD888 shared votes4.0%
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

Cornyn sponsored 139 bills in the 119th Congress; 3 became law. Cosponsored 323 others. 26% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 18th of 51).

The bills Cornyn 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

Sponsored139 billsSponsored, Introduced: 139139Sponsored, In committee: 139139Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Sponsored, Became law: 33Cosponsored323 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 323323Cosponsored, In committee: 316316Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5555Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cornyn sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1391392533
Cosponsored3233165543
How to read the blocks

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

26%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 18th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn88
  2. Ted Cruz85
  3. Ted Budd79
  4. Dave McCormick67
  5. Pete Ricketts64
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 Cornyn’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. 5671State Strategic Stockpile Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5676Strengthening Civics Education ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5677A bill to establish the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area to conserve, protect, and promote the economic benefits of the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Upper and Middle Texas Gulf Coast as a unit of the National Park System.SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 948A resolution commending and congratulating Texas A&M University for 150 years of service to the State of Texas and the United States.SponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberEducationSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5273-5274) Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 79 times in 90 days. Cornyn’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cornyn posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Cornyn posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A promotional graphic honoring deployed service members, with a photograph of uniformed soldiers wearing helmets and tactical gear. Large centered lettering and a small credit line appear over the image, with a senator’s name and logo at the bottom.
    A promotional graphic honoring deployed service members, with a photograph of uniformed soldiers wearing helmets and tactical gear. Large centered lettering and a small credit line appear over the image, with a senator’s name and logo at the bottom.View post
  • A group of U.S. Navy sailors in white uniforms walk across an aircraft carrier flight deck in front of parked fighter jets. A cloudy sky and several text overlays are visible.
    A group of U.S. Navy sailors in white uniforms walk across an aircraft carrier flight deck in front of parked fighter jets. A cloudy sky and several text overlays are visible.View post
  • A dark memorial-style graphic featuring many lit candles, with large gold lettering in the center and a small political name and office logo at the bottom.
    A dark memorial-style graphic featuring many lit candles, with large gold lettering in the center and a small political name and office logo at the bottom.View post
  • A man speaks at a wooden lectern in a formal, wood-paneled room while several men stand behind him. U.S. and Indian flags, a framed portrait, and a presentation board are visible. The board contains text.
    A man speaks at a wooden lectern in a formal, wood-paneled room while several men stand behind him. U.S. and Indian flags, a framed portrait, and a presentation board are visible. The board contains text.View post
  • A commemorative graphic for Gold Star Mother's and Family's Day, with a muted American flag as the background and a gold star emblem centered beneath the heading. A senator's name and office mark appear at the bottom.
    A commemorative graphic for Gold Star Mother's and Family's Day, with a muted American flag as the background and a gold star emblem centered beneath the heading. A senator's name and office mark appear at the bottom.View post
About the descriptions

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

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

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

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Cornyn 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
C001056
Bioguide
C001056
FEC candidate ids
S2TX00106

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