Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Texas

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide C001098FEC S2TX00312

Portrait of Ted Cruz, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
47%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of Senate Republicans

47% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 3rd of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $12.4M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among Senate Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 47% of Cruz’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (average 36%). The policy areas Cruz talks about and legislates on agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans.

The measures on which Cruz 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.

Small donations, 2026

47%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 3rd of 51

Credit claiming

47%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 6th of 52

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.71

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 6th of 52

Raised, 2026

$12.4M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 5th of 51

CSIP ideology

+1.23

More conservative than 85% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Attendance

94.8%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 46th of 53 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cruz says

Cruz claims credit more than 88% of Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 47% of 2,397 statements, against 36% for the average Senate Republican; 6th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Cruz’s 2,397 statements in the 119th Congress (1,868 posts on X, 290 press releases, 127 newsletters, 112 Congressional Record speeches) 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%
Cruz
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,810 statements
76%
70%
17th of 52
Credit claiming1,119 statements
47%
36%
6th of 52
Policy criticism440 statements
18%
17%
19th of 52
Bipartisanship360 statements
15%
13%
16th of 52
Personal attacks49 statements
2%
2%
22nd of 52
Show the data
Cruz's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCruzPeers
Policy discussion76%70%
Credit claiming47%36%
Policy criticism18%17%
Bipartisanship15%13%
Personal attacks2%2%
2,397

statements classified

1,868 posts on X, 290 press releases, 127 newsletters, 112 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,868 (77.9%)posts on X 1,868press releases: 290 (12.1%)newsletters: 127 (5.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 112 (4.7%)
Show the data
Cruz's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,868
press releases290
newsletters127
Congressional Record speeches112
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cruz used extreme labels in 4.0% of statements, above the peer average. 97 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”46
  2. “communist”18
  3. “extreme”14
  4. “woke”11
  5. “MAGA”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats10
  2. left-wing8
  3. Antifa3
  4. Chinese Communist Party3
  5. Cuban regime3
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: 1722025-02: 1302025-03: 1502025-04: 1712025-05: 1512025-06: 1442025-07: 1342025-08: 562025-09: 1182025-10: 1382025-11: 1442025-12: 1172026-01: 1092026-02: 882026-03: 1072026-04: 962026-05: 602026-06: 682026-07: 602026-08: 652026-09: 942026-10: 25peak 172 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 8.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 8.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.5% of 172Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.9% of 130Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.7% of 150Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.8% of 171Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 151Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 144Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.8% of 134Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.1% of 118Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.9% of 138Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.5% of 144Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 117Personal attacks, 2026-01: 1.8% of 109Personal attacks, 2026-02: 3.4% of 88Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.9% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-08: 1.5% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.1% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-10: 8.0% of 25Policy criticismpeak 30.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 8.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.2% of 172Policy criticism, 2025-02: 30.8% of 130Policy criticism, 2025-03: 16.7% of 150Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.0% of 171Policy criticism, 2025-05: 15.2% of 151Policy criticism, 2025-06: 13.2% of 144Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.4% of 134Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.3% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.4% of 118Policy criticism, 2025-10: 25.4% of 138Policy criticism, 2025-11: 26.4% of 144Policy criticism, 2025-12: 18.8% of 117Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.3% of 109Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.8% of 88Policy criticism, 2026-03: 27.1% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.5% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-06: 25.0% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-08: 13.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-09: 14.9% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.0% of 25Policy discussionpeak 92.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 88.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.0% of 172Policy discussion, 2025-02: 80.8% of 130Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.7% of 150Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.6% of 171Policy discussion, 2025-05: 80.8% of 151Policy discussion, 2025-06: 71.5% of 144Policy discussion, 2025-07: 79.8% of 134Policy discussion, 2025-08: 67.9% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-09: 61.0% of 118Policy discussion, 2025-10: 65.2% of 138Policy discussion, 2025-11: 75.0% of 144Policy discussion, 2025-12: 84.6% of 117Policy discussion, 2026-01: 86.2% of 109Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.2% of 88Policy discussion, 2026-03: 67.3% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.2% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-05: 85.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-06: 75.0% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-07: 86.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-08: 92.3% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.9% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-10: 88.0% of 25Bipartisanshippeak 35.0% · May ’26 · latest 16.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 12.2% of 172Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.0% of 130Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 16.7% of 150Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 13.5% of 171Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.3% of 151Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 8.3% of 144Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 11.2% of 134Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 10.7% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.3% of 118Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.5% of 138Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.2% of 144Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.9% of 117Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.2% of 109Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 15.9% of 88Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.7% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 15.6% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 35.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.6% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 21.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 32.3% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 26.6% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 16.0% of 25Credit claimingpeak 66.7% · May ’26 · latest 52.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 48.8% of 172Credit claiming, 2025-02: 47.7% of 130Credit claiming, 2025-03: 47.3% of 150Credit claiming, 2025-04: 52.6% of 171Credit claiming, 2025-05: 60.9% of 151Credit claiming, 2025-06: 43.8% of 144Credit claiming, 2025-07: 53.7% of 134Credit claiming, 2025-08: 33.9% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-09: 44.1% of 118Credit claiming, 2025-10: 38.4% of 138Credit claiming, 2025-11: 46.5% of 144Credit claiming, 2025-12: 53.0% of 117Credit claiming, 2026-01: 32.1% of 109Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.5% of 88Credit claiming, 2026-03: 39.3% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-04: 37.5% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-05: 66.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-06: 45.6% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-07: 43.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-08: 52.3% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-09: 44.7% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-10: 52.0% of 25Extreme labelspeak 9.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.3% of 172Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.7% of 130Extreme labels, 2025-03: 8.0% of 150Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.7% of 171Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.0% of 151Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.5% of 144Extreme labels, 2025-07: 6.0% of 134Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.6% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.1% of 118Extreme labels, 2025-10: 9.4% of 138Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.6% of 144Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.7% of 117Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 109Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2026-03: 5.6% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.1% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.9% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-07: 3.3% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cruz, 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 ’251723.5%26.2%75.0%12.2%48.8%2.3%
Feb ’251303.9%30.8%80.8%10.0%47.7%7.7%
Mar ’251502.7%16.7%64.7%16.7%47.3%8.0%
Apr ’251711.8%17.0%76.6%13.5%52.6%4.7%
May ’251510.0%15.2%80.8%11.3%60.9%2.0%
Jun ’251440.0%13.2%71.5%8.3%43.8%3.5%
Jul ’251340.8%13.4%79.8%11.2%53.7%6.0%
Aug ’25563.6%14.3%67.9%10.7%33.9%3.6%
Sep ’251185.1%14.4%61.0%9.3%44.1%5.1%
Oct ’251382.9%25.4%65.2%14.5%38.4%9.4%
Nov ’251443.5%26.4%75.0%13.2%46.5%7.6%
Dec ’251170.0%18.8%84.6%17.9%53.0%1.7%
Jan ’261091.8%7.3%86.2%9.2%32.1%0.0%
Feb ’26883.4%14.8%60.2%15.9%37.5%0.0%
Mar ’261071.9%27.1%67.3%18.7%39.3%5.6%
Apr ’26960.0%12.5%80.2%15.6%37.5%2.1%
May ’26601.7%13.3%85.0%35.0%66.7%0.0%
Jun ’26680.0%25.0%75.0%20.6%45.6%2.9%
Jul ’26601.7%15.0%86.7%21.7%43.3%3.3%
Aug ’26651.5%13.9%92.3%32.3%52.3%1.5%
Sep ’26941.1%14.9%81.9%26.6%44.7%0.0%
Oct ’26258.0%8.0%88.0%16.0%52.0%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 Cruz’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Exposing Government Waste and Protecting Freedom of Speech [Image] Good Morning, This week, I joined Fox News to highlight the victories in the Working Families Tax Cut, the single largest tax cut in American history. Every single Democrat in the House voted against it. Every single Democrat in th…

Oct 18, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Taxation; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues

Credit claiming

Delivering Results for Texans and Investing in the Next Generation [Image] Good Morning, This week, President Trump signed the bipartisan Mystic Alerts Act into law. On July 4, 2025, devastating floods in the Texas Hill Country killed 28 individuals at Camp Mystic and more than 100 others across C…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Health; Finance and Financial Sector

Extreme label

Sens. Cruz, Lee, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Close Immigration Loopholes Exploited by Human Traffickers WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) introduced t…

Aug 10, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; Families; extreme label “radical” aimed at left socialists · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Press releases

    Sen. Cruz Statement on President Trump Approving Execution of Fort Hood Terrorist Nidal Hasan WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued the following statement after reports that President Trump approved the execution of Nidal Hasan. Sen. Cruz said, “Nidal Hasan is a radical Islamist terrorist who carried out an attack in Texas that killed and injured dozens of Americans. He deserves to be executed for h…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Nidal HasanSource

  2. Newsletters

    The Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Legislation to Protect College Sports [Image] Good Morning, This was a monumental week for college athletics. The United States Senate voted 77-22 to pass the Protect College Sports Act and protect the hundreds of thousands of student athletes currently competing in college sports, the millions who will follow in their footsteps, and every college sports fan who wants to preserve th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Education · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · Finance and Financial Sector · Science, Technology, Communications · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jack Smith

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jack SmithSource

  4. Newsletters

    Fauci Must Be Held Accountable [Image] Good Morning, The reason Dr. Fauci had to plead the Fifth is that the alternative was lying to Congress, and that is something Dr. Fauci has done repeatedly. His private diaries reveal that he lied to Congress and the American people throughout the COVID pandemic. Lying to Congress is a felony. Now the DOJ and the White House must examine the paper trail: Did Biden authorize…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Education · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · International Affairs · target: Anthony Fauci

  5. Newsletters

    Monitoring Severe Weather Across Texas [Image] Good Evening, My team and I continue to monitor the storms and flooding affecting communities across Texas. I surveyed the damage from the recent flooding with Texas Game Wardens and Texas DPS. I met with local officials in both Uvalde County and Kerr County, first responders, and members of the Texas National Guard leading the response. Seeing the damage in Uvalde Cou…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · target: Senate Democrats

All 2,397 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: 1,868 posts on X, 290 press releases, 127 newsletters, 112 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Cruz talks about most: 22% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 6th 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 Cruz talks about. The bills Cruz sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cruz talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cruz
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security393 statements
22%
25%
International Affairs337 statements
19%
11%
Education256 statements
14%
8%
Science, Technology, Communications253 statements
14%
9%
Government Operations and Politics241 statements
13%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Cruz talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCruzPeers
Armed Forces and National Security22%25%
International Affairs19%11%
Education14%8%
Science, Technology, Communications14%9%
Government Operations and Politics13%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cruz’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: 22% (Senate Republicans 25%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 14% (Senate Republicans 8%)14%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 19% (Senate Republicans 11%)19%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (Senate Republicans 8%)12%EducationEducation, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 8%)14%Education, legislates on: 3% (Senate Republicans 4%)3%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 9%)14%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 3%)7%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 19%)13%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 11%)9%
Show the data
Cruz'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 Security22%25%14%8%
International Affairs19%11%12%8%
Education14%8%3%4%
Science, Technology, Communications14%9%7%3%
Government Operations and Politics13%19%9%11%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 6th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cruz sits at +1.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 85% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.22 to +1.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 118,231 donors and 4,593 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”.

+1.23

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.22 to +1.25. From 118,231 donors and 4,593 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cruz +1.2Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Cruz, 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 Cruz’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 Cruz sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Cruz +1.2All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Cruz's CSIP score of +1.23 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cruz
Senate Republicans51+1.084%
All Senate98+0.492%
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 Cruz 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 Cruz.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cruz raised $12.4M in the 2026 cycle, 3.9 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 47% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 38% 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
$12.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 9,305 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): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.5M (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.8M (38.8%)PACs and other committees: $538.1K (4.3%)PACs and other committees: $538.1K (4.3%)PACs and other committees: $538.1K (4.3%)PACs and other committees: $538.1K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.6M (12.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)44 squares$5.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)39 squares$4.8M
  • PACs and other committees4 squares$538.1K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)13 squares$1.6M
Show the data
Sources of Cruz's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$5.5M44.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$4.8M38.8%
PACs and other committees$538.1K4.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.6M12.9%
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: $13.7M$13.7M20202022 cycle: $19.4M$19.4M20222024 cycle: $74.0M$74.0M20242026 cycle: $12.4M$12.4M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Cruz's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$13.7M
2022 cycle$19.4M
2024 cycle$74.0M
2026 cycle$12.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 38% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$2.0M
  2. California$545.4K
  3. Florida$381.9K
  4. New York$205.8K
  5. Virginia$124.5K

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%
Cruz
Median
2026
47%
17%
2024
44%
17%
2022
58%
17%
2020
61%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowCruzMedian
2026 cycle47%17%
2024 cycle44%17%
2022 cycle58%17%
2020 cycle61%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $6,794AKMaine: $7,050MEVermont: $2,650VTNew Hampshire: $25.6KNHWashington: $68.1KWAIdaho: $36.5KIDMontana: $8,526MTNorth Dakota: $8,196NDMinnesota: $39.0KMNIllinois: $95.5KILWisconsin: $55.0KWIMichigan: $83.5KMINew York: $205.8KNYRhode Island: $8,009RIMassachusetts: $43.8KMAOregon: $36.0KORNevada: $56.8KNVWyoming: $47.6KWYSouth Dakota: $15.1KSDIowa: $18.2KIAIndiana: $71.9KINOhio: $89.8KOHPennsylvania: $110.7KPANew Jersey: $96.6KNJConnecticut: $31.5KCTCalifornia: $545.4KCAUtah: $22.1KUTColorado: $103.5KCONebraska: $52.4KNEMissouri: $44.7KMOKentucky: $39.2KKYWest Virginia: $16.1KWVVirginia: $124.5KVAMaryland: $44.5KMDDelaware: $7,438DEArizona: $123.4KAZNew Mexico: $32.3KNMKansas: $31.0KKSArkansas: $33.4KARTennessee: $68.7KTNNorth Carolina: $68.3KNCSouth Carolina: $36.7KSCDistrict of Columbia: $46.3KDCOklahoma: $44.8KOKLouisiana: $53.8KLAMississippi: $16.5KMSAlabama: $44.4KALGeorgia: $92.5KGAHawaii: $9,286HITexas: $2.0MTXFlorida: $381.9KFL
Show the data
Cruz's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$2.0M
California$545.4K
Florida$381.9K
New York$205.8K
Virginia$124.5K
Arizona$123.4K
Pennsylvania$110.7K
Colorado$103.5K
New Jersey$96.6K
Illinois$95.5K
Georgia$92.5K
Ohio$89.8K
Michigan$83.5K
Indiana$71.9K
Tennessee$68.7K
North Carolina$68.3K
Washington$68.1K
Nevada$56.8K
Wisconsin$55.0K
Louisiana$53.8K
Nebraska$52.4K
Wyoming$47.6K
District of Columbia$46.3K
Oklahoma$44.8K
Missouri$44.7K
Maryland$44.5K
Alabama$44.4K
Massachusetts$43.8K
Kentucky$39.2K
Minnesota$39.0K
South Carolina$36.7K
Idaho$36.5K
Oregon$36.0K
Arkansas$33.4K
New Mexico$32.3K
Connecticut$31.5K
Kansas$31.0K
New Hampshire$25.6K
Utah$22.1K
Iowa$18.2K
Mississippi$16.5K
West Virginia$16.1K
South Dakota$15.1K
Hawaii$9,286
Montana$8,526
North Dakota$8,196
Rhode Island$8,009
Delaware$7,438
Maine$7,050
Alaska$6,794
Vermont$2,650
9,305

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

38%

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: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.7%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.1%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 15%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 79%79%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 3.0%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cruz's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 15% between +0.75 and +1.00, 79% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.1%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0015%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2579%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.503.0%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cruz’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cruz’s own score is +1.23.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$3.4M 6,762 donors
  2. OWNER$78.0K 55 donors
  3. CEO$64.1K 33 donors
  4. ENTREPRENEUR$59.1K 86 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$59.1K 83 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. COUPANG, INC. COMPANY PAC (COUPAC)$10.0K
  2. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC)$10.0K
  3. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC. PAC$10.0K
  5. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ENTREPRENEUR$58.6K 87 donors
  2. AKIN GUMP$4,000 3 donors
  3. AMERICAN AIRLINES$3,329 6 donors
  4. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES$2,515 5 donors
  5. WALMART$2,265 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cruz voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 5.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cruz voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.8%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 17th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cruz
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.8%
97.1%
46th of 53
Party unity
99.8%
98.4%
17th of 53
Show the data
Cruz's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowCruzPeers
Attendance94.8%97.1%
Party unity99.8%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 Cruz most often

  1. Marsha BlackburnR816 shared votes99%
  2. Bernie MorenoR864 shared votes99%
  3. Ron JohnsonR856 shared votes99%
  4. Bill HagertyR837 shared votes99%
  5. James RischR846 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cruz least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD861 shared votes2.3%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD854 shared votes2.6%
  3. Bernie SandersI809 shared votes2.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD844 shared votes3.1%
  5. Chris Van HollenD855 shared votes3.5%
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

Cruz sponsored 133 bills in the 119th Congress; 4 became law. Cosponsored 279 others. 22% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 23rd of 51).

The bills Cruz 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

Sponsored133 billsSponsored, Introduced: 133133Sponsored, In committee: 132132Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1717Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Sponsored, Became law: 44Cosponsored279 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 279279Cosponsored, In committee: 275275Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5656Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 88Cosponsored, Became law: 77IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cruz sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1331321744
Cosponsored2792755687
How to read the blocks

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

22%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 23rd of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Rick Scott99
  2. Marsha Blackburn95
  3. Ted Budd95
  4. John Cornyn85
  5. Mike Lee67
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 Cruz’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S.Res. 948A resolution commending and congratulating Texas A&M University for 150 years of service to the State of Texas and the United States.CosponsorSep 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
S. 5573Religious Education Fairness ActCosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S. 5508Telecommunications Cybersecurity and Resilience ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 167 times in 90 days. Cruz’s official site had 48 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cruz posted on Oct 24, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Cruz posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A vertical Archer press-release graphic, with an aerial view of a city and a large stadium at the top and a dark section containing a headline and bullet points below. It includes text.
    A vertical Archer press-release graphic, with an aerial view of a city and a large stadium at the top and a dark section containing a headline and bullet points below. It includes text.View post
  • A dark background with several paragraphs of light-colored text describing Archer Aviation's planned air taxi networks in Texas and their proposed role in reducing travel times and traffic congestion.
    A dark background with several paragraphs of light-colored text describing Archer Aviation's planned air taxi networks in Texas and their proposed role in reducing travel times and traffic congestion.View post
  • A dark graphic featuring a statement attributed to Ted Cruz about disaster alerts, legislation, and the 2025 Texas floods. A faint outline of Texas appears behind the text, with a decorative star and lines at the bottom.
    A dark graphic featuring a statement attributed to Ted Cruz about disaster alerts, legislation, and the 2025 Texas floods. A faint outline of Texas appears behind the text, with a decorative star and lines at the bottom.View post
  • A vintage-style Columbus Day poster depicting three sailing ships with cross-marked sails on rough seas, over an antique map and compass background. Large decorative text appears above the ships, with a political campaign logo at the bottom.
    A vintage-style Columbus Day poster depicting three sailing ships with cross-marked sails on rough seas, over an antique map and compass background. Large decorative text appears above the ships, with a political campaign logo at the bottom.View post
  • A dark, textured political graphic featuring a large faint outline of Texas in the background, a politician’s name and several paragraphs of white text about investment accounts for children, and a star with horizontal lines near the bottom.
    A dark, textured political graphic featuring a large faint outline of Texas in the background, a politician’s name and several paragraphs of white text about investment accounts for children, and a star with horizontal lines near 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 Cruz 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
C001098
Bioguide
C001098
FEC candidate ids
S2TX00312

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top