Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Georgia’s 1st district

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001103FEC H4GA01039, S6GA00374

Portrait of Buddy Carter, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$7.3M
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Republicans

The median for House Republicans is $2.2M. Ranks 19th of 220, where 1st raised the most. 1,529 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Carter’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Republicans. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 5.0% of Carter’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.3 times the House Republican average of 2.1%. 6.0% of Carter’s statements use an extreme label, 2.0 times the House Republican average of 3.0%.

The measures on which Carter 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.

Raised, 2026

$7.3M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 19th of 220

Personal attacks

5.0%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 30th of 221

Extreme labels

6.0%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 29th of 221

Attendance

94.5%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 181st of 221 · 674 roll calls

Policy discussion

64%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 160th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.98

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 Carter, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Carter is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Carter says

Carter attacks opponents personally more than 86% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 5.0% of 1,920 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 30th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Carter’s 1,920 statements in the 119th Congress (1,126 posts on X, 473 Congressional Record speeches, 207 press releases, 114 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%
Carter
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,226 statements
64%
68%
160th of 221
Credit claiming740 statements
39%
37%
108th of 221
Policy criticism245 statements
13%
15%
135th of 221
Bipartisanship136 statements
7%
9%
119th of 221
Personal attacks96 statements
5%
2%
30th of 221
Show the data
Carter's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowCarterPeers
Policy discussion64%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Policy criticism13%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks5%2%
1,920

statements classified

1,126 posts on X, 473 Congressional Record speeches, 207 press releases, 114 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,126 (58.6%)posts on X 1,126Congressional Record speeches: 473 (24.6%)Congressional Record speeches 473press releases: 207 (10.8%)newsletters: 114 (5.9%)
Show the data
Carter's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,126
Congressional Record speeches473
press releases207
newsletters114
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Carter used extreme labels in 6.0% of statements, 2.0 times the peer average. 115 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”53
  2. “woke”21
  3. “MAGA”8
  4. “extreme”7
  5. “communist”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats15
  2. radical left11
  3. Jon Ossoff9
  4. left7
  5. Zohran Mamdani6
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: 882025-02: 702025-03: 982025-04: 882025-05: 762025-06: 1152025-07: 712025-08: 612025-09: 1322025-10: 992025-11: 782025-12: 1042026-01: 1282026-02: 982026-03: 1372026-04: 782026-05: 842026-06: 1012026-07: 822026-08: 522026-09: 552026-10: 25peak 137 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 18.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.3% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-05: 7.9% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.3% of 115Personal attacks, 2025-07: 4.2% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-08: 18.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-09: 9.8% of 132Personal attacks, 2025-10: 7.1% of 99Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.7% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-12: 7.7% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-01: 8.6% of 128Personal attacks, 2026-02: 7.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.2% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-04: 7.7% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Policy criticismpeak 29.5% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 22.7% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.7% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-03: 19.4% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.5% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.3% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-06: 7.8% of 115Policy criticism, 2025-07: 8.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-08: 9.8% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-09: 9.8% of 132Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.3% of 99Policy criticism, 2025-11: 29.5% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-12: 11.5% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.7% of 128Policy criticism, 2026-02: 16.3% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-03: 13.1% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.3% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-05: 7.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.8% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-08: 1.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.1% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Policy discussionpeak 83.6% · Jan ’26 · latest 80.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 63.6% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-02: 55.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-03: 49.0% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.0% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.5% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-06: 62.6% of 115Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.4% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-08: 65.6% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-09: 52.3% of 132Policy discussion, 2025-10: 61.6% of 99Policy discussion, 2025-11: 73.1% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-12: 61.5% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.6% of 128Policy discussion, 2026-02: 59.2% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-03: 53.3% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.6% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-05: 65.5% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-06: 63.4% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-07: 63.4% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-08: 61.5% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.4% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-10: 80.0% of 25Bipartisanshippeak 14.1% · Jul ’25 · latest 4.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 12.5% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.4% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 2.6% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 7.0% of 115Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 14.1% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.2% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.6% of 132Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 7.1% of 99Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.6% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.7% of 128Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.1% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.6% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.7% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 5.9% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.9% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.5% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.5% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.0% of 25Credit claimingpeak 59.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 32.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 47.7% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-02: 38.6% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.7% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-04: 43.2% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-05: 48.7% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-06: 35.6% of 115Credit claiming, 2025-07: 50.7% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-08: 59.0% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-09: 39.4% of 132Credit claiming, 2025-10: 22.2% of 99Credit claiming, 2025-11: 39.7% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-12: 31.7% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-01: 44.5% of 128Credit claiming, 2026-02: 36.7% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-03: 35.8% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-04: 46.2% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-05: 41.7% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-06: 36.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.8% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-08: 19.2% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-09: 40.0% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-10: 32.0% of 25Extreme labelspeak 25.6% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 6.8% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-02: 10.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.4% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-05: 6.6% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-06: 5.2% of 115Extreme labels, 2025-07: 9.9% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-08: 13.1% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-09: 7.6% of 132Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2025-11: 25.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.9% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-01: 3.1% of 128Extreme labels, 2026-02: 12.2% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.6% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Carter, 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 ’25880.0%22.7%63.6%12.5%47.7%6.8%
Feb ’25701.4%15.7%55.7%10.0%38.6%10.0%
Mar ’25986.1%19.4%49.0%9.2%33.7%4.1%
Apr ’25882.3%12.5%67.0%11.4%43.2%3.4%
May ’25767.9%5.3%64.5%2.6%48.7%6.6%
Jun ’251154.3%7.8%62.6%7.0%35.6%5.2%
Jul ’25714.2%8.5%70.4%14.1%50.7%9.9%
Aug ’256118.0%9.8%65.6%8.2%59.0%13.1%
Sep ’251329.8%9.8%52.3%7.6%39.4%7.6%
Oct ’25997.1%29.3%61.6%7.1%22.2%3.0%
Nov ’25787.7%29.5%73.1%5.1%39.7%25.6%
Dec ’251047.7%11.5%61.5%8.6%31.7%3.9%
Jan ’261288.6%4.7%83.6%4.7%44.5%3.1%
Feb ’26987.1%16.3%59.2%4.1%36.7%12.2%
Mar ’261372.2%13.1%53.3%3.6%35.8%6.6%
Apr ’26787.7%10.3%75.6%7.7%46.2%0.0%
May ’26840.0%7.1%65.5%5.9%41.7%1.2%
Jun ’261011.0%13.9%63.4%5.9%36.6%4.0%
Jul ’26820.0%9.8%63.4%8.5%26.8%2.4%
Aug ’26520.0%1.9%61.5%1.9%19.2%0.0%
Sep ’26550.0%9.1%76.4%5.5%40.0%0.0%
Oct ’26250.0%0.0%80.0%4.0%32.0%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 Carter’s words

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

Bipartisanship

GETTING AMERICA BACK TO BUILDING Getting America Back to Building This week, I joined my colleagues in the bipartisan Build America Caucus to launch the Build More Agenda, a new roadmap to get America back to building.Americans are tired of Washington making it harder and more expensive to build, i…

Oct 11, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Energy; Transportation and Public Works; Science, Technology, Communications; Armed Forces and National Security

Personal attacks

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

Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Democrats · Source

Extreme label

Carter secures $346.1 million for GA-01 in House-passed defense bill Washington, July 22, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) today secured $346.1 million for Georgia’s First Congressional District in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which heads to…

Jul 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Labor and Employment; Energy; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Armed Forces · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource

  2. Newsletters

    Biden opened the floodgates, Ossoff watched Four years of reckless border policies led to an influx of illegal immigrants into the United States, threatening the safety and security of American citizens. The pain families have endured as a result is criminal, and Jon Ossoff let it happen. The Democrats and Joe Biden left a legacy of crime, putting Americans last. Not only did the prior administration allow 15,000,000…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Emergency Management · Health · Energy · Environmental Protection · Agriculture and Food · target: Joe Biden

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jon OssoffSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Olaolukitan AbelSource

  5. Newsletters

    Eleven straight months of zero southern border releases For 11 consecutive months, there have been zero releases at the southern border. It’s remarkable how things change when an incoming administration decides to enforce the law, and the American people are safer because of it. Let’s make this clear: every single immigrant who entered the country unlawfully should not be here. Especially the criminal illegal immigra…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Jon Ossoff

All 1,920 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: 1,126 posts on X, 473 Congressional Record speeches, 207 press releases, 114 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Carter talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 70th 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 Carter talks about. The bills Carter sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Carter talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Carter
Peers
Health361 statements
29%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security251 statements
20%
24%
Economics and Public Finance210 statements
17%
19%
Immigration202 statements
16%
13%
Government Operations and Politics187 statements
15%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Carter talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowCarterPeers
Health29%15%
Armed Forces and National Security20%24%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Immigration16%13%
Government Operations and Politics15%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Carter’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 15%)29%Health, legislates on: 24% (House Republicans 11%)24%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 24%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 13%)16%Immigration, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 5%)5%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 19%)15%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 12%)12%
Show the data
Carter's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health29%15%24%11%
Armed Forces and National Security20%24%4%8%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%1%2%
Immigration16%13%5%5%
Government Operations and Politics15%19%12%12%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 70th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Carter sits at +0.98 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 53% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.97 to +1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,913 donors and 6,212 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”.

+0.98

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.97 to +1.00. From 2,913 donors and 6,212 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Carter +1.0House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Carter, 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 Carter’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 Carter sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Carter +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Carter's CSIP score of +0.98 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Carter
House Republicans221+1.047%
All House439+0.373%
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 Carter 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 Carter.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Carter raised $7.3M in the 2026 cycle, 3.4 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 25% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 57% of itemized individual money came from Georgia.

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
$7.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,529 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): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (19.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $490.4K (6.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (15.2%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $3.5M (47.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $761.7K (10.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)20 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)7 squares$490.4K
  • PACs and other committees15 squares$1.1M
  • The candidate’s own money and loans48 squares$3.5M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)10 squares$761.7K
Show the data
Sources of Carter's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M19.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$490.4K6.7%
PACs and other committees$1.1M15.2%
The candidate’s own money and loans$3.5M47.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$761.7K10.4%
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.

2020 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20202022 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20222024 cycle: $2.6M$2.6M20242026 cycle: $7.3M$7.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Carter's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.3M
2022 cycle$2.1M
2024 cycle$2.6M
2026 cycle$7.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 57% came from Georgia.

  1. Georgia$1.2M
  2. Texas$174.9K
  3. Florida$146.6K
  4. Maryland$73.7K
  5. Virginia$66.3K

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%
Carter
Median
2026
25%
9%
2024
13%
9%
2022
12%
9%
2020
11%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowCarterMedian
2026 cycle25%9%
2024 cycle13%9%
2022 cycle12%9%
2020 cycle11%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,013AKMaine: $3,238MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,800NHWashington: $2,355WAIdaho: $2,919IDMontana: $2,611MTNorth Dakota: $1,104NDMinnesota: $1,050MNIllinois: $15.0KILWisconsin: $3,738WIMichigan: $11.0KMINew York: $9,894NYRhode Island: $250RIMassachusetts: $3,117MAOregon: $5,498ORNevada: $21.8KNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $1,000SDIowa: $3,073IAIndiana: $2,804INOhio: $12.5KOHPennsylvania: $17.8KPANew Jersey: $10.2KNJConnecticut: $1,335CTCalifornia: $17.8KCAUtah: $21.6KUTColorado: $11.1KCONebraska: $4,143NEMissouri: $6,323MOKentucky: $21.9KKYWest Virginia: $1,414WVVirginia: $66.3KVAMaryland: $73.7KMDDelaware: $390DEArizona: $6,227AZNew Mexico: $3,568NMKansas: $342KSArkansas: $3,243ARTennessee: $14.5KTNNorth Carolina: $24.2KNCSouth Carolina: $48.6KSCDistrict of Columbia: $47.8KDCOklahoma: $18.6KOKLouisiana: $27.7KLAMississippi: $6,314MSAlabama: $23.3KALGeorgia: $1.2MGAHawaii: $100HITexas: $174.9KTXFlorida: $146.6KFL
Show the data
Carter's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Georgia$1.2M
Texas$174.9K
Florida$146.6K
Maryland$73.7K
Virginia$66.3K
South Carolina$48.6K
District of Columbia$47.8K
Louisiana$27.7K
North Carolina$24.2K
Alabama$23.3K
Kentucky$21.9K
Nevada$21.8K
Utah$21.6K
Oklahoma$18.6K
Pennsylvania$17.8K
California$17.8K
Illinois$15.0K
Tennessee$14.5K
Ohio$12.5K
Colorado$11.1K
Michigan$11.0K
New Jersey$10.2K
New York$9,894
Missouri$6,323
Mississippi$6,314
Arizona$6,227
Oregon$5,498
Nebraska$4,143
Wisconsin$3,738
New Mexico$3,568
Arkansas$3,243
Maine$3,238
Massachusetts$3,117
Iowa$3,073
Idaho$2,919
Indiana$2,804
Montana$2,611
Washington$2,355
New Hampshire$1,800
West Virginia$1,414
Connecticut$1,335
North Dakota$1,104
Minnesota$1,050
Alaska$1,013
South Dakota$1,000
Delaware$390
Kansas$342
Rhode Island$250
Hawaii$100
VermontNo data
WyomingNo data
1,529

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

57%

from Georgia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 4.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 74%74%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 18%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.2%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Carter's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.75: 74% between +0.75 and +1.00, 18% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.754.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0074%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2518%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.2%
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 Carter’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Carter’s own score is +0.98.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$532.1K 666 donors
  2. OWNER$178.9K 39 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$155.9K 33 donors
  4. CEO$154.2K 41 donors
  5. PHARMACIST$141.9K 141 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. ALLIANCE FOR PHARMACY COMPOUNDING PAC (COMP PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. BRINGING REPUBLICAN EXCELLENCE TO TOWN PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GEORGIA UROLOGY$12.5K 13 donors
  2. FIRST UROLOGY$9,000 3 donors
  3. TODD STRATEGY GROUP$7,500 3 donors
  4. U SAVE IT PHARMACY$5,000 3 donors
  5. PRS PHARMACY SERVICES$1,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Carter voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 5.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Carter voted against the majority of House Republicans 7 times.

674 roll calls Carter 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 Carter voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

7

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.8%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 70th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Carter
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.5%
96.3%
181st of 221
Party unity
98.8%
97.1%
70th of 221
Show the data
Carter's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowCarterPeers
Attendance94.5%96.3%
Party unity98.8%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

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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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 Carter most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR496 shared votes99%
  2. Tony GonzalesR402 shared votes99%
  3. David RouzerR631 shared votes99%
  4. Nathaniel MoranR628 shared votes99%
  5. Jefferson ShreveR626 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Carter least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD621 shared votes23%
  2. Delia RamirezD607 shared votes24%
  3. Gregorio CasarD552 shared votes24%
  4. Adelita GrijalvaD363 shared votes24%
  5. Frederica WilsonD456 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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Carter sponsored 64 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 413 others. 9.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 150th of 216).

The bills Carter 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

Sponsored64 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6464Sponsored, In committee: 6464Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 55Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored413 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 413413Cosponsored, In committee: 413413Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5454Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 1010Cosponsored, Became law: 1010IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Carter sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6464500
Cosponsored413413541010
How to read the blocks

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

9.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 150th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Randy Weber Sr.38
  2. Barry Moore35
  3. Claudia Tenney29
  4. Rich McCormick28
  5. Mike Collins Jr.27
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 Carter’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. 10813Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Certainty ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10782Clean School Bus Reauthorization ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1617Recognizes October as "American Pharmacy Month" in honor of the contributions of pharmacists and pharmacy teams in providing safe, accessible, affordable, and effective patient care services and products to all residents and protecting public health in communities across the United States;.SponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10682To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide parity in the taxation of professional sports franchises under the limitation on the deduction for certain employee remuneration, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10625Medicaid Integrity Improvement ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Carter’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Carter posted on Oct 23, 2026.

The lab crawls Carter’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 Carter 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 Carter posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A dark blue USDA promotional graphic with a background photo of stacked fertilizer bags, red framing and field-inspired design elements, and prominent white and red lettering about fertilizer manufacturing investment.
    A dark blue USDA promotional graphic with a background photo of stacked fertilizer bags, red framing and field-inspired design elements, and prominent white and red lettering about fertilizer manufacturing investment.View post
  • An informational USDA FIELDS Program graphic with a background of stacked fertilizer sacks. It lists eight fertilizer manufacturing projects receiving funding and their associated states. Text is prominent throughout.
    An informational USDA FIELDS Program graphic with a background of stacked fertilizer sacks. It lists eight fertilizer manufacturing projects receiving funding and their associated states. Text is prominent throughout.View post
  • A blue-toned graphic shows a damaged railway and trees in the background, overlaid with a large translucent panel, a hand holding a pen, and a presidential seal. It contains prominent text announcing that an act was signed into law.
    A blue-toned graphic shows a damaged railway and trees in the background, overlaid with a large translucent panel, a hand holding a pen, and a presidential seal. It contains prominent text announcing that an act was signed into law.View post
  • Six men in business suits pose for a group photograph in front of a large display showing a port scene. Text and a logo are visible on the display.
    Six men in business suits pose for a group photograph in front of a large display showing a port scene. Text and a logo are visible on the display.View post
  • A photograph of two men in suits shaking hands and talking at an indoor event. Other attendees and a large display are visible in the background, with some text present.
    A photograph of two men in suits shaking hands and talking at an indoor event. Other attendees and a large display are visible in the background, with some text present.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 Carter 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
C001103
Bioguide
C001103
FEC candidate ids
H4GA01039, S6GA00374

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