0.6% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 49th of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $862.0K 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.
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 23% of Curtis’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.8 times the Senate Republican average of 13%. 0.4% of Curtis’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 2.9%).
The measures on which Curtis 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
Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 49th of 51
Bipartisanship
Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 5th of 52
Extreme labels
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 45th of 52
Raised, 2026
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 44th of 51
Personal attacks
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 40th of 52
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 74% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Curtis, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Curtis is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Curtis attacks opponents personally less than 75% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.3% of 1,109 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 40th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Curtis’s 1,109 statements in the 119th Congress (899 posts on X, 90 newsletters, 90 press releases, 30 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Curtis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 68% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 34% | 36% |
| Bipartisanship | 23% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 16% | 17% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
899 posts on X, 90 newsletters, 90 press releases, 30 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 899 |
| newsletters | 90 |
| press releases | 90 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 30 |
The thick bar is Curtis; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Curtis does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Curtis used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 13% of the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 2.9%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 44 | 0.0% | 29.5% | 75.0% | 11.4% | 29.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 59 | 0.0% | 25.4% | 78.0% | 11.9% | 42.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 55 | 1.8% | 21.8% | 61.8% | 23.6% | 30.9% | 1.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 49 | 0.0% | 8.2% | 65.3% | 22.4% | 24.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 69 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 49.3% | 20.3% | 21.7% | 1.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 69.2% | 15.4% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 47 | 0.0% | 10.6% | 68.1% | 19.1% | 38.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 19.4% | 71.0% | 19.4% | 38.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 34.2% | 18.4% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 50 | 0.0% | 26.0% | 60.0% | 22.0% | 28.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 60.8% | 23.5% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 14.8% | 51.8% | 11.1% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 3.7% | 55.6% | 11.1% | 18.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 40 | 2.5% | 12.5% | 52.5% | 12.5% | 37.5% | 2.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 55 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 81.8% | 27.3% | 30.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 82.6% | 17.4% | 26.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 83.9% | 41.1% | 48.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 92 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 65.2% | 34.8% | 40.2% | 1.1% |
| Jul ’26 | 78 | 0.0% | 12.8% | 68.0% | 25.6% | 42.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 88.6% | 29.5% | 56.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 57 | 1.8% | 19.3% | 77.2% | 35.1% | 29.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 55 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 80.0% | 23.6% | 34.5% | 0.0% |
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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
When Freedom Comes Knocking at Our Door The world is a better, freer place when America leads from a position of both strength and moral resolve. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here<https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zZW5qb2huY3VydGlzLnN1YnN0YWNrLmNvbS9zdWJzY3JpYmU_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1…
Oct 20, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance
Personal attacks
Highs and (a litany of) Lows Open in browser window<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter_setup.aspx?link=SenCurtis%2501101566%2501100257%2b-%2b09-18-2026%2beNewsletter%250115504.18202514.5976056.8352190%2501political.newsletters%2540dartmouth.edu%2501Political%2501Political%2bNews…
Sep 19, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Finance and Financial Sector; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Water Resources Development; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Immigration; target: Trump Jr.
Extreme label
Curtis, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Increase Second Amendment Protections Against Frivolous Lawsuits WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Curtis (R-UT) joined Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), along with 14 of their Senate Republican colleagues, in introducing the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Ac…
Jun 12, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Commerce; Law; extreme label “radical” aimed at Radical Left · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Newsletters
Highs and (a litany of) Lows Open in browser window<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter_setup.aspx?link=SenCurtis%2501101566%2501100257%2b-%2b09-18-2026%2beNewsletter%250115504.18202514.5976056.8352190%2501political.newsletters%2540dartmouth.edu%2501Political%2501Political%2bNewsletters%2501%2501Political%2501> [Image]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenCurtis&crop=155…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Finance and Financial Sector · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Water Resources Development · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · Immigration · target: Trump Jr.
Newsletters
Highs and Lows: When Your High and Low Is the Same Person Open in browser window<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter_setup.aspx?link=SenCurtis%2501101099%2501100224%2b-%2b02-06-2026%2beNewsletter%250115569.15799204.5686148.8352190%2501political.newsletters%2540dartmouth.edu%2501Political%2501Political%2bNewsletters%2501%2501Political%2501> [Image]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · International Affairs · Environmental Protection · Government Operations and Politics · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Taxation · target: Donald Trump
Congressional Record
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Representative Ludmya ``Mia'' Love, who has been battling glioblastoma. Mia and I were first elected as mayors together in 2010, and from the very beginning, I saw firsthand the energy, passion, and optimism she brings to public service. I always say that there is an understanding amongst mayors, and we make some of the best legislators. Together in Utah, we worked o…
personal attacks · bipartisanship · credit claimingSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 899 posts on X, 90 newsletters, 90 press releases, 30 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Curtis talks about most: 21% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 16th 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 Curtis talks about. The bills Curtis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Curtis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 25% |
| International Affairs | 21% | 11% |
| Environmental Protection | 18% | 4% |
| Energy | 18% | 10% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 18% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Curtis’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.
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.
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 25% | 1% | 8% |
| International Affairs | 21% | 11% | 19% | 8% |
| Environmental Protection | 18% | 4% | 8% | 4% |
| Energy | 18% | 10% | 6% | 2% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 18% | 4% | 10% | 4% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 16th of 52.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Curtis legislates on exactly the areas Curtis 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 Curtis sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Curtis sits at +0.78 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 74% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.76 to +0.79, which understates the uncertainty; from 952 donors and 3,603 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.76 to +0.79. From 952 donors and 3,603 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Curtis, 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 Curtis’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Curtis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 25% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 61% |
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 Curtis 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 Curtis.
Curtis raised $862.0K in the 2026 cycle, 27% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 0.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 15% of itemized individual money came from Utah.
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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 195 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $404.9K | 47.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $2,558 | 0.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $454.5K | 52.7% |
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.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $806.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $2.2M |
| 2024 cycle | $5.6M |
| 2026 cycle | $862.0K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 15% came from Utah.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
| Row | Curtis | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 1% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 1% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 1% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 3% | 17% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Virginia | $66.5K |
| Utah | $49.4K |
| Texas | $43.3K |
| California | $36.1K |
| District of Columbia | $30.0K |
| New York | $21.5K |
| Florida | $15.3K |
| Massachusetts | $14.0K |
| Colorado | $11.5K |
| Louisiana | $10.0K |
| Maryland | $8,500 |
| Arizona | $8,000 |
| Illinois | $6,000 |
| Wyoming | $3,500 |
| New Hampshire | $2,500 |
| Ohio | $2,500 |
| Connecticut | $2,500 |
| South Dakota | $1,000 |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| Tennessee | $1,000 |
| Washington | $500 |
| Indiana | $500 |
| Oklahoma | $500 |
| Georgia | $333 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Utah
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Utah. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 1.2% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 4.9% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 4.1% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 3.5% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 7.3% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 6.8% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 13% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 25% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 32% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 2.1% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Curtis’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Curtis’s own score is +0.78.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Curtis voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Curtis voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 10 times.
915 roll calls Curtis 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 Curtis voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 23rd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Curtis, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Curtis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.9% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.7% | 98.4% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party 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 | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Curtis most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Curtis least often
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.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Curtis sponsored 55 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 241 others. 22% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 22nd of 51).
The bills Curtis 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 55 | 55 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 241 | 239 | 44 | 4 | 4 |
Ink blocks are bills Curtis sponsored, ochre blocks bills Curtis cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 22nd of 51.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Curtis, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
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 Curtis’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 950 | A resolution designating the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week". | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | Introduced | Energy | Under authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026 |
| S. 5624 | Honoring Fallen Wildland Firefighters Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5640 | Data Center Transparency Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5645 | Data Center Community Empowerment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Energy | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5646 | Direct Seller and Real Estate Agent Harmonization Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
A site that changed 89 times in 90 days. Curtis’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Curtis posted on Oct 20, 2026.
The lab crawls Curtis’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 Curtis posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
The latest 24, with model-written 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.
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 is the measure on which Curtis 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
