Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Connecticut’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 4, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001069FEC H2CT02112

Portrait of Joe Courtney, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
85%
of statements discuss policy, in the top 5% of House Democrats

85% of 1,299 statements discuss policy (1,105 statements); the average for House Democrats is 73%. Ranks 9th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 19% of Courtney’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.9 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%. 34% of Courtney’s statements claim credit, 1.5 times the House Democrat average of 23%.

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

Policy discussion

85%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 9th of 216

Bipartisanship

19%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 20th of 216

Credit claiming

34%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 21st of 216

Raised, 2026

$966.5K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 182nd of 214

Policy criticism

36%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 38th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.75

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Courtney says

Courtney attacks opponents personally less than 78% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 2.5% of 1,299 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 171st of 216.

An AI model reads each of Courtney’s 1,299 statements in the 119th Congress (902 posts on X, 234 press releases, 84 Congressional Record speeches, 79 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Courtney
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,105 statements
85%
73%
9th of 216
Policy criticism465 statements
36%
28%
38th of 216
Credit claiming444 statements
34%
23%
21st of 216
Bipartisanship241 statements
19%
10%
20th of 216
Personal attacks32 statements
2%
7%
171st of 216
Show the data
Courtney's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowCourtneyPeers
Policy discussion85%73%
Policy criticism36%28%
Credit claiming34%23%
Bipartisanship19%10%
Personal attacks2%7%
1,299

statements classified

902 posts on X, 234 press releases, 84 Congressional Record speeches, 79 newsletters.

posts on X: 902 (69.4%)posts on X 902press releases: 234 (18.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 84 (6.5%)newsletters: 79 (6.1%)
Show the data
Courtney's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X902
press releases234
Congressional Record speeches84
newsletters79
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Courtney used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, below the peer average. 14 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”6
  2. “far right”2
  3. “radical”2
  4. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump1
  2. GOP economist1
  3. House Republicans1
  4. HR 46241
  5. new rule1
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: 572025-02: 732025-03: 522025-04: 702025-05: 782025-06: 512025-07: 472025-08: 332025-09: 642025-10: 512025-11: 422025-12: 502026-01: 512026-02: 492026-03: 722026-04: 832026-05: 722026-06: 672026-07: 752026-08: 402026-09: 742026-10: 48peak 83 · Apr ’26Personal attackspeak 15.7% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.5% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-02: 9.6% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.8% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.9% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.6% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-01: 15.7% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Policy criticismpeak 53.1% · Sep ’25 · latest 12.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 28.1% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-02: 49.3% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-03: 46.2% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-04: 41.4% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-05: 35.9% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-06: 47.1% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-07: 46.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-08: 48.5% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-09: 53.1% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-10: 47.1% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-11: 50.0% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-12: 30.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-01: 37.3% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-02: 34.7% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-03: 43.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-04: 32.5% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-05: 33.3% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-06: 31.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-07: 20.0% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-09: 18.9% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-10: 12.5% of 48Policy discussionpeak 96.1% · Jan ’26 · latest 89.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 79.0% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-02: 87.7% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-04: 80.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-05: 79.5% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-06: 86.3% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-07: 93.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-08: 81.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-09: 82.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-10: 78.4% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-11: 81.0% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-12: 86.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-01: 96.1% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-02: 81.6% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-03: 80.6% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-04: 90.4% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-05: 86.1% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-06: 83.6% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-07: 89.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.5% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-10: 89.6% of 48Bipartisanshippeak 29.8% · Jul ’25 · latest 12.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 22.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 15.1% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 15.7% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 21.8% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 19.6% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 29.8% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 18.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 28.1% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 25.5% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 14.3% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 20.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 23.5% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 20.4% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 15.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 20.5% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 13.9% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.9% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 13.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 15.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.2% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.5% of 48Credit claimingpeak 49.1% · Jan ’25 · latest 31.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 49.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-02: 31.5% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-03: 23.1% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-04: 38.6% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-05: 33.3% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-06: 23.5% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-07: 48.9% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-08: 39.4% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-09: 32.8% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-10: 19.6% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.6% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-12: 44.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-01: 35.3% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-02: 44.9% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-03: 36.1% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-04: 27.7% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.9% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-06: 35.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-07: 34.7% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-08: 27.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-09: 36.5% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-10: 31.3% of 48Extreme labelspeak 4.7% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.5% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.7% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.3% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.7% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.4% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.3% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Courtney, 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 ’25573.5%28.1%79.0%22.8%49.1%3.5%
Feb ’25739.6%49.3%87.7%15.1%31.5%2.7%
Mar ’25525.8%46.2%76.9%7.7%23.1%0.0%
Apr ’25702.9%41.4%80.0%15.7%38.6%1.4%
May ’25782.6%35.9%79.5%21.8%33.3%1.3%
Jun ’25512.0%47.1%86.3%19.6%23.5%2.0%
Jul ’25472.1%46.8%93.6%29.8%48.9%0.0%
Aug ’25330.0%48.5%81.8%18.2%39.4%3.0%
Sep ’25640.0%53.1%82.8%28.1%32.8%4.7%
Oct ’25510.0%47.1%78.4%25.5%19.6%0.0%
Nov ’25422.4%50.0%81.0%14.3%28.6%0.0%
Dec ’25504.0%30.0%86.0%20.0%44.0%0.0%
Jan ’265115.7%37.3%96.1%23.5%35.3%0.0%
Feb ’26490.0%34.7%81.6%20.4%44.9%0.0%
Mar ’26720.0%43.1%80.6%15.3%36.1%1.4%
Apr ’26831.2%32.5%90.4%20.5%27.7%1.2%
May ’26720.0%33.3%86.1%13.9%31.9%0.0%
Jun ’26671.5%31.3%83.6%20.9%35.8%0.0%
Jul ’26750.0%20.0%89.3%13.3%34.7%1.3%
Aug ’26400.0%5.0%90.0%15.0%27.5%0.0%
Sep ’26741.4%18.9%90.5%16.2%36.5%0.0%
Oct ’26480.0%12.5%89.6%12.5%31.3%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Courtney’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Courtney Applauds Announcement of First U.S. Submarine Assigned to Submarine Rotational Force-West in Western Australia NORWICH, CT – Today, Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the bipartisan Friends of Australia C…

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

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, President Trump was asked about the future of the Qatari Air Force One plane, which, after a messy rollout in July, he flew on to Ireland this past weekend and said: ``I haven't made a decision, but it will probably go to the museum. It is scheduled to go to the museum.'…

Sep 14, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Republican Leaders Mangle Bipartisan Defense Bill WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congress Joe Courtney (CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the House passed the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act. After Republican leader…

Jul 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Health; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republican Members · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, on September 4, President Trump was asked about the future of the Qatari Air Force One plane, which, after a messy rollout in July, he flew on to Ireland this past weekend and said: ``I haven't made a decision, but it will probably go to the museum. It is scheduled to go to the museum.'' Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Press releases

    Courtney: Trump’s War with Iran Leaves the American People With Nothing But Higher Costs & A Huge Bill NORWICH, CT – Today, Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, released the following statement on the Memorandum of Understanding for a ceasefire agreed to by the U.S. and Iran. “First and foremost, it is notable that U.S. troops are one step closer t…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · target: TrumpSource

  3. Press releases

    Courtney: Speaker Mike Johnson is Blocking a Bipartisan Vote to End the War in Iran NORWICH, CT – Today, Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, released the following statement: “A War Powers Resolution to end President Trump’s war in Iran has the bipartisan votes to pass today, but Speaker Johnson is keeping the House out of session to block a vote,…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Energy · target: TrumpSource

  4. Newsletters

    Celebrating a New Class of Groton Shipbuilders, Fighting for Accountability, and more from the week | Dear Dr. , It's Joe Courtney. Here to share a quick update on the latest news from the week. As always, thanks for starting your weekend here with me. Celebrating the Next Generation of Shipbuilders Congratulations to a new class of Groton shipbuilders. On Wednesday evening, I joined the graduation ceremony for 38 s…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · Immigration · Taxation · target: Kristi Noem

  5. Press releases

    Courtney Cosponsors Impeachment Resolution Against Secretary Kristi Noem NORWICH, CT – Today, Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02) released the following statement. “My office has received numerous inquiries regarding Congresswoman Robin Kelly’s bill to start impeachment proceedings against Kristi Noem. As this list released today from Rep. Kelly’s office confirms, I am a cosponsor of this bill along with 139 other membe…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Law · target: Kristi NoemSource

All 1,299 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: 902 posts on X, 234 press releases, 84 Congressional Record speeches, 79 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Courtney talks about most: 41% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 133rd of 216).

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

What Courtney talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%45%
Courtney
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security452 statements
41%
16%
Health273 statements
25%
26%
Economics and Public Finance254 statements
23%
20%
Government Operations and Politics185 statements
17%
20%
Education175 statements
16%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Courtney talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowCourtneyPeers
Armed Forces and National Security41%16%
Health25%26%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%
Government Operations and Politics17%20%
Education16%10%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 45%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 41% (House Democrats 16%)41%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 7%)14%HealthHealth, talks about: 25% (House Democrats 26%)25%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 20%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 20%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 11%)7%EducationEducation, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 10%)16%Education, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 5%)14%
Show the data
Courtney's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security41%16%14%7%
Health25%26%12%16%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics17%20%7%11%
Education16%10%14%5%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 133rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Courtney sits at −0.75 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 79% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.77 to −0.74, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,145 donors and 7,478 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 −0.77 to −0.74. From 2,145 donors and 7,478 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Courtney −0.8House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Courtney, 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 Courtney’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 Courtney sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Courtney −0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Courtney's CSIP score of −0.75 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Courtney
House Democrats217−1.079%
All House439+0.339%
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 Courtney 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 Courtney.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Courtney raised $966.5K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 26% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 73% of itemized individual money came from Connecticut.

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
$966.5K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 373 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $317.7K (32.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.6K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)PACs and other committees: $533.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $4,942 (0.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$317.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$110.6K
  • PACs and other committees55 squares$533.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$4,942
Show the data
Sources of Courtney's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$317.7K32.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$110.6K11.4%
PACs and other committees$533.3K55.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$4,9420.5%
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $967.9K$967.9K20202022 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20222024 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M20242026 cycle: $966.5K$966.5K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Courtney's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$967.9K
2022 cycle$2.0M
2024 cycle$1.3M
2026 cycle$966.5K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 73% came from Connecticut.

  1. Connecticut$165.0K
  2. Virginia$17.5K
  3. Florida$9,650
  4. District of Columbia$6,500
  5. Texas$4,815

Small donations

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

0%60%
Courtney
Median
2026
26%
13%
2024
27%
13%
2022
21%
13%
2020
27%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowCourtneyMedian
2026 cycle26%13%
2024 cycle27%13%
2022 cycle21%13%
2020 cycle27%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,501ILWisconsin: $1,000WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: $3,750RIMassachusetts: $3,214MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: $1,000NJConnecticut: $165.0KCTCalifornia: $1,750CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $3,300CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $17.5KVAMaryland: $2,750MDDelaware: $150DEArizona: $250AZNew Mexico: $13NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,500NCSouth Carolina: $3,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $6,500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $4,815TXFlorida: $9,650FL
Show the data
Courtney's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Connecticut$165.0K
Virginia$17.5K
Florida$9,650
District of Columbia$6,500
Texas$4,815
Rhode Island$3,750
Colorado$3,300
Massachusetts$3,214
South Carolina$3,000
Maryland$2,750
California$1,750
Illinois$1,501
North Carolina$1,500
Wisconsin$1,000
New Jersey$1,000
Arizona$250
Delaware$150
New Mexico$13
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
373

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

73%

from Connecticut

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 Connecticut. 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: 15%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 69%69%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 10%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.4%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Courtney's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.00: 15% between −1.25 and −1.00, 69% between −1.00 and −0.75, 10% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0015%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7569%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5010%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.4%
How to read the columns

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$57.5K 124 donors
  2. RETIRED$14.8K 42 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$12.4K 25 donors
  4. CEO$7,300 3 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$6,000 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  4. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  5. EMPLOYEES OF RTX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ELECTRIC BOAT$17.5K 28 donors
  2. GENERAL DYNAMICS ELECTRIC BOAT$6,250 14 donors
  3. GDEB$2,500 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Courtney voted with the majority of House Democrats on 96.1% of party-line votes and missed 4.6% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Courtney voted against the majority of House Democrats 20 times.

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

20

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 96.1%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 159th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Courtney
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.4%
96.9%
180th of 217
Party unity
96.1%
96.4%
159th of 217
Show the data
Courtney's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowCourtneyPeers
Attendance95.4%96.9%
Party unity96.1%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Courtney most often

  1. David ScottD455 shared votes98%
  2. Joseph MorelleD628 shared votes98%
  3. Rosa DeLauroD637 shared votes98%
  4. Timothy KennedyD640 shared votes98%
  5. Kelly MorrisonD639 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Courtney least often

  1. Chip RoyR603 shared votes19%
  2. Eric BurlisonR611 shared votes21%
  3. Keith SelfR628 shared votes21%
  4. Josh BrecheenR610 shared votes21%
  5. Andy BiggsR577 shared votes21%
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

Courtney sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 236 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Courtney 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

Sponsored14 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1414Sponsored, In committee: 1414Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored236 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 236236Cosponsored, In committee: 236236Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Courtney sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1414000
Cosponsored236236911
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eugene Vindman13
  2. Michael Lawler11
  3. Eleanor Norton11
  4. Don Bacon9
  5. Brian Fitzpatrick8
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 Courtney’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10577To prioritize the finalization of design requirements for new Ready Reserve Force vessels, and for other purposes.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10416Housing Tariff Exclusion ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeForeign Trade and International FinanceReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10427MAGNET ActSponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10448Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 90 times in 90 days. Courtney’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Courtney posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    courtney.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    34

    pages crawled

    90

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    joecourtney.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    58

    pages crawled

    187

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Courtney posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Four adults stand together indoors for a posed photo. The man second from the left holds a wooden plaque. There is text on the plaque.
    Four adults stand together indoors for a posed photo. The man second from the left holds a wooden plaque. There is text on the plaque.View post
  • A split-screen image shows a man speaking at a microphone on the left and a framed portrait of a woman on the right. A television-style lower-third with text appears beneath the man.
    A split-screen image shows a man speaking at a microphone on the left and a framed portrait of a woman on the right. A television-style lower-third with text appears beneath the man.View post
  • A collage of photos shows an older man visiting several workplace and career-fair settings, speaking with employees and posing with groups. Each photo has a bold blue caption naming a company and location. The collage has a blue patterned background and white photo borders.
    A collage of photos shows an older man visiting several workplace and career-fair settings, speaking with employees and posing with groups. Each photo has a bold blue caption naming a company and location. The collage has a blue patterned background and white photo borders.View post
  • A blue-background collage of three photos showing people at indoor business or industry displays, including a group standing behind a table of tools and products, and two conversations at exhibit tables. There is prominent text overlaid on each photo.
    A blue-background collage of three photos showing people at indoor business or industry displays, including a group standing behind a table of tools and products, and two conversations at exhibit tables. There is prominent text overlaid on each photo.View post
  • A blue-toned political infographic about major projects in Putnam, with a location graphic, check marks beside completed project items, and a congressional campaign logo. Background photos show construction workers and equipment. Text is prominent.
    A blue-toned political infographic about major projects in Putnam, with a location graphic, check marks beside completed project items, and a congressional campaign logo. Background photos show construction workers and equipment. Text is prominent.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 Courtney is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
C001069
Bioguide
C001069
FEC candidate ids
H2CT02112

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