Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Labor and Employment; Housing and Community Development · Source
80%
of itemized money from Arkansas donors, in the top tenth of House Republicans
80% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Arkansas. Ranks 18th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 215 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Arkansas, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 5.3% of the 19 bills Crawford sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans. The policy areas Crawford talks about and legislates on agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans.
The measures on which Crawford sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Arkansas, 2026
80%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 18th of 216 House Republicans
Out of committee
5.3%
House Republicans average 17% · ranks 188th of 216
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.60
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 180th of 221
Raised, 2026
$1.1M
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 174th of 220
Extreme labels
1.0%
House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 166th of 221
CSIP ideology
+0.95
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Crawford, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Crawford is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Crawford says
Crawford attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.0% of 503 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 121st of 221.
An AI model reads each of Crawford’s 503 statements in the 119th Congress (401 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 40 press releases, 9 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Crawford
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion346 statements
69%
68%
112th of 221
Credit claiming160 statements
32%
37%
154th of 221
Policy criticism70 statements
14%
15%
117th of 221
Bipartisanship43 statements
9%
9%
92nd of 221
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
2%
121st of 221
Show the data
| Row | Crawford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 69% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 32% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 9% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
503
statements classified
401 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 40 press releases, 9 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 401 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 53 |
| press releases | 40 |
| newsletters | 9 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Crawford; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Crawford does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Crawford used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, 33% of the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”2
- “communist”1
- “fascist”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats2
- Chinese Communist Party1
- Senate Democrats1
- Trump1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 10.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 73.3% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 68.0% | 8.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 27 | 3.7% | 11.1% | 77.8% | 0.0% | 25.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 72.2% | 16.7% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 24.0% | 80.0% | 8.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 12 | 8.3% | 16.7% | 66.7% | 25.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 13.8% | 72.4% | 10.3% | 44.8% | 3.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 23.8% | 76.2% | 9.5% | 47.6% | 4.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 34 | 0.0% | 14.7% | 67.7% | 5.9% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 33 | 6.1% | 3.0% | 66.7% | 6.1% | 30.3% | 3.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 15.0% | 30.0% | 5.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 11.5% | 65.4% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 17.5% | 55.0% | 12.5% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 53.8% | 23.1% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 44.4% | 77.8% | 16.7% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 44.4% | 5.6% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.7% | 5.9% | 41.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 36 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 83.3% | 5.6% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 91.7% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 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%. One month is hatched here.
In Crawford’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, Mr. Mast, for yielding and for his leadership on highlighting the error of removing the United States' Armed Forces from a conflict that will bring an end to a 47-year engagement. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: The Iranian regime is the larg…
Mar 4, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 12, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “communist” aimed at Chinese Communist Party · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, Mr. Mast, for yielding and for his leadership on highlighting the error of removing the United States' Armed Forces from a conflict that will bring an end to a 47-year engagement. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: The Iranian regime is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Despite extensive diplomatic efforts, the regime refuses to give up its nuc…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for yielding and for his leadership on this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we are not at war with Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro is a murderer, an autocrat, a narcoterrorist, and a thug who has oppressed his own people, stolen elections, and turned a once prosperous and free country into a desperate nation that millions have fled. Most importantly, as for the acti…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law EnforcementSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for those outstanding comments. Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in highlighting the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, I wish we all could speak with one voice on this issue. It should never be partisan or controversial to praise the arrest of a man like Nicolas Maduro. Make no mistake about it, Nicolas Maduro is a murderer, an autocr…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Crime and Law Enforcement · HealthSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: James ComeySource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: FBI leadershipSource
All 503 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: 401 posts on X, 53 Congressional Record speeches, 40 press releases, 9 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Crawford talks about most: 47% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 180th of 221).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Crawford talks about. The bills Crawford sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Crawford talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%52%
Crawford
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security163 statements
47%
24%
Agriculture and Food70 statements
20%
9%
International Affairs43 statements
12%
9%
Economics and Public Finance39 statements
11%
19%
Government Operations and Politics39 statements
11%
19%
Show the data
| Row | Crawford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 47% | 24% |
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 12% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 19% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Crawford’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 52%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 47% | 24% | 15% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 9% | 12% | 3% |
| International Affairs | 12% | 9% | 6% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 19% | 0% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% | 8% | 12% |
0.60
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 180th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Crawford legislates on exactly the areas Crawford 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 Crawford sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Crawford sits at +0.95 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 59% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.94 to +0.97, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,371 donors and 7,283 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”.
+0.95
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.94 to +0.97. From 1,371 donors and 7,283 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Crawford, 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 Crawford’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 Crawford sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Crawford |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 41% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 70% |
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 Crawford 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 Crawford.
Money
Crawford raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 3.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 80% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.
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.
$1.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 215 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)34 squares$385.7K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$13.6K
- PACs and other committees60 squares$681.8K
- Party committees$2,000
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)5 squares$52.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $385.7K | 34.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $13.6K | 1.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $681.8K | 60.0% |
| Party committees | $2,000 | 0.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $52.6K | 4.6% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $961.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $1.1M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.1M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.1M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 80% came from Arkansas.
- Arkansas$260.9K
- California$23.5K
- Virginia$16.4K
- Florida$9,750
- Texas$3,250
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Crawford
Median
2026
3%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
5%
9%
2020
9%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Crawford | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 3% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 3% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 5% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 9% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Arkansas | $260.9K |
| California | $23.5K |
| Virginia | $16.4K |
| Florida | $9,750 |
| Texas | $3,250 |
| District of Columbia | $3,000 |
| Massachusetts | $2,600 |
| Maryland | $2,500 |
| Kentucky | $1,750 |
| Idaho | $1,000 |
| Oklahoma | $1,000 |
| Alabama | $1,000 |
| Pennsylvania | $500 |
| Arizona | $500 |
| Georgia | $449 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
215
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
80%
from Arkansas
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 Arkansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 5.1% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 5.5% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 5.6% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 78% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 2.3% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Crawford’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Crawford’s own score is +0.95.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$37.5K 22 donors
- PRESIDENT$33.3K 19 donors
- RETIRED$27.7K 23 donors
- FARMER$23.2K 23 donors
- PHYSICIAN$18.1K 12 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- HERZOG PAC$10.0K
- HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$10.0K
- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- LIFEPLUS$6,250 3 donors
- BAXTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER$3,700 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Crawford voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.7% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Crawford voted against the majority of House Republicans 10 times.
674 roll calls Crawford could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Crawford voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
10
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 98.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 80th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Crawford, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Crawford
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
96.3%
127th of 221
Party unity
98.7%
97.1%
80th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Crawford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.7% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 98.7% | 97.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Crawford most often
- Mike JohnsonR509 shared votes100%
- Tony GonzalesR417 shared votes99%
- Claudia TenneyR654 shared votes98%
- Robert LattaR659 shared votes98%
- Neal DunnR536 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Crawford least often
- Adelita GrijalvaD382 shared votes24%
- Rashida TlaibD643 shared votes24%
- Delia RamirezD627 shared votes24%
- Jan SchakowskyD614 shared votes25%
- Frederica WilsonD471 shared votes25%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Crawford sponsored 19 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 114 others. 5.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 188th of 216).
The bills Crawford sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 114 | 114 | 12 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Crawford sponsored, ochre blocks bills Crawford cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.3%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 188th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Crawford, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- John Moolenaar8
- Donald Davis8
- Tracey Mann7
- Randy Feenstra6
- Nathaniel Moran6
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 Crawford’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.Res. 1564 | Recognizing September 17, 2026, as National Teach Ag Day. | Cosponsor | Sep 17, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food | Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 17, 2026 |
| H.R. 10442 | To require the Ronald A. Robinson Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to replace certain exterior signage, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1511 | Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' families | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026 |
| H.R. 9776 | FLOWS Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Jul 20, 2026 | In committee | Water Resources Development | Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. Jul 20, 2026 |
| H.R. 9624 | Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 | Sponsor | Jul 9, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. Jul 20, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 95 times in 90 days. Crawford’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Crawford posted on Oct 16, 2026.
The lab crawls Crawford’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 Crawford posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 26
pages crawled
95changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
6changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XRepRickCrawford
- FacebookRepRickCrawford
- Instagramreprickcrawford
- YouTubeRepRickCrawford
Images Crawford posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A man speaks at a podium to a seated audience inside a large industrial-style building. A promotional banner hangs behind him, and there is text on the banner.View post 
A man in a suit speaks at a podium on a stage, with several flags and branded banners behind him, a blue chair to the side, and a small teddy bear at the foot of the podium. Text is visible on the banners and an illuminated wall sign.View post 
A promotional graphic featuring a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier sailing across the ocean, with large celebratory lettering and a faint eagle emblem in the background. A small political organization logo appears near the bottom.View post 
A rural field with rows of tall green plants growing between dry, bare soil. Trees line the distant horizon beneath a blue, partly cloudy sky, with power lines crossing overhead. Small plant markers are visible. No prominent text is present.View post 
An outdoor ceremony is underway. A man wearing sunglasses and a white shirt speaks at a wooden podium with a microphone while an audience watches. An American flag and two red flags stand behind him, with trees and water in the background. Some flags have text.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.
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 Crawford is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- C001087
- Bioguide
- C001087
- FEC candidate ids
- H0AR01083
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