Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Texas’s 27th district

Serving since Jul 10, 2018119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001115FEC H8TX27049

Portrait of Michael Cloud, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
84%
of itemized money from Texas donors, in the top 5% of House Republicans

84% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Texas. Ranks 8th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 548 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Texas, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 0% of the 29 bills Cloud sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans. 25% of Cloud’s statements criticize a policy, 1.7 times the House Republican average of 15%.

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

From Texas, 2026

84%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 8th of 216 House Republicans

Out of committee

0%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 211th of 216

Policy criticism

25%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 16th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.44

More conservative than 94% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.73

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 13th of 221

Small donations, 2026

39%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 31st of 220

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cloud says

Cloud stresses bipartisanship less than 84% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.6% of 931 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 187th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Cloud’s 931 statements in the 119th Congress (818 posts on X, 52 newsletters, 35 press releases, 26 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Cloud
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion567 statements
61%
68%
177th of 221
Policy criticism237 statements
25%
15%
16th of 221
Credit claiming223 statements
24%
37%
190th of 221
Bipartisanship34 statements
4%
9%
187th of 221
Personal attacks26 statements
3%
2%
56th of 221
Show the data
Cloud's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowCloudPeers
Policy discussion61%68%
Policy criticism25%15%
Credit claiming24%37%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks3%2%
931

statements classified

818 posts on X, 52 newsletters, 35 press releases, 26 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 818 (87.9%)posts on X 818newsletters: 52 (5.6%)press releases: 35 (3.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 26 (2.8%)
Show the data
Cloud's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X818
newsletters52
press releases35
Congressional Record speeches26
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cloud used extreme labels in 4.4% of statements, above the peer average. 41 statements, most often aimed at ABA agenda; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”16
  2. “communist”2
  3. “extreme”2
  4. “woke”2
  5. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. ABA agenda1
  2. America1
  3. Biden administration1
  4. Biden mandate1
  5. DEI agenda1
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: 932025-02: 1182025-03: 1002025-04: 572025-05: 482025-06: 352025-07: 402025-08: 72025-09: 192025-10: 82025-11: 82025-12: 282026-01: 432026-02: 442026-03: 332026-04: 232026-05: 432026-06: 382026-07: 422026-08: 302026-09: 392026-10: 35peak 118 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 10.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 2.9%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.1% of 93Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.4% of 118Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.2% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.9% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-07: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-01: 9.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.6% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-07: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-08: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.9% of 35Policy criticismpeak 39.5% · Jun ’26 · latest 5.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 32.3% of 93Policy criticism, 2025-02: 37.3% of 118Policy criticism, 2025-03: 33.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2025-04: 31.6% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-05: 29.2% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.1% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 10.5% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-12: 35.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.0% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-02: 18.2% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-03: 30.3% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-04: 30.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-05: 30.2% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-06: 39.5% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.9% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-08: 10.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-10: 5.7% of 35Policy discussionpeak 90.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 68.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 63.4% of 93Policy discussion, 2025-02: 62.7% of 118Policy discussion, 2025-03: 69.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.4% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-05: 47.9% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-06: 40.0% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-07: 47.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 31.6% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-02: 52.3% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-03: 51.5% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.6% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-05: 69.8% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-06: 63.2% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-07: 28.6% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-09: 66.7% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-10: 68.6% of 35Bipartisanshippeak 10.5% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.4% of 93Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 5.9% of 118Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 2.9% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 0.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.4% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.6% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 35Credit claimingpeak 36.8% · Sep ’25 · latest 31.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.6% of 93Credit claiming, 2025-02: 28.0% of 118Credit claiming, 2025-03: 20.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2025-04: 24.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-05: 22.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.6% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-07: 27.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 36.8% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-12: 17.9% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-02: 18.2% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-04: 17.4% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-05: 27.9% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-06: 23.7% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-07: 9.5% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-09: 17.9% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-10: 31.4% of 35Extreme labelspeak 14.3% · Jun ’25 · latest 2.9%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.2% of 93Extreme labels, 2025-02: 8.5% of 118Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2025-04: 7.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.2% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-06: 14.3% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-07: 5.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-06: 7.9% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.4% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.6% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.9% of 35Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cloud, 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 ’25932.1%32.3%63.4%5.4%36.6%3.2%
Feb ’251183.4%37.3%62.7%5.9%28.0%8.5%
Mar ’251005.0%33.0%69.0%4.0%20.0%4.0%
Apr ’25570.0%31.6%61.4%5.3%24.6%7.0%
May ’25484.2%29.2%47.9%0.0%22.9%4.2%
Jun ’25352.9%17.1%40.0%2.9%8.6%14.3%
Jul ’254010.0%10.0%47.5%2.5%27.5%5.0%
Aug ’257— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’25190.0%10.5%31.6%10.5%36.8%5.3%
Oct ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Dec ’25280.0%35.7%71.4%0.0%17.9%0.0%
Jan ’26439.3%7.0%83.7%4.7%16.3%0.0%
Feb ’26440.0%18.2%52.3%0.0%18.2%2.3%
Mar ’26330.0%30.3%51.5%0.0%21.2%3.0%
Apr ’26230.0%30.4%69.6%0.0%17.4%0.0%
May ’26430.0%30.2%69.8%4.7%27.9%2.3%
Jun ’26382.6%39.5%63.2%7.9%23.7%7.9%
Jul ’26422.4%11.9%28.6%2.4%9.5%2.4%
Aug ’26303.3%10.0%90.0%3.3%26.7%0.0%
Sep ’26390.0%10.3%66.7%2.6%17.9%2.6%
Oct ’26352.9%5.7%68.6%0.0%31.4%2.9%
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%. 3 months are hatched here.

In Cloud’s words

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

Policy criticism

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

Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Bipartisanship

Newsletter: Fixing Fraud and Waste in Homelessness Services [Rep. Michael Cloud banner] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/6nhmkS_bMcUPwmRrRnj74Q~~/AAS2yhA~/56Q831mubKRlUYkazyCQAtzXMoTp5q3HihbjCIU-uPsSdAkqaX-SIqrfD7ilo69bDP-bBf_ml3xonqajVULQg__6Lqkkvk__P8GzkgiIBSR0t9nXG3P9-6iINsZFRqEw> Fixing Fraud…

Sep 22, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Transportation and Public Works; Taxation; Commerce; Armed Forces and National Security; Education

Extreme label

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

Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at Left wing · 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

    Newsletter: Cloud Introduces the Permanent CBDC Ban Act [Rep. Michael Cloud banner] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/XXvopIZYJ8_4udrYXq4goA~~/AAS2yhA~/Z-7l99CI4yxSic9Ex8fAF3Mupmz_FqL-HrdJQdm98sxi6VqfU9e8Uu-sA4rix5vDEiGmfkLjR89p431jIXZhIWqI5HNcYd0JD1F6lD5CqpCZoqojkO-RAgYh3AJHWvZ4> Introducing the Permanent CBDC Ban Act [Photo of Congressman Cloud and Ike (from Newsmax) on a TV press hit] <https://go.sparkpostmail.…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Finance and Financial Sector · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · Education · Immigration · Commerce · Armed Forces and National Security · Taxation · target: Anthony Fauci

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

  4. Press releases

    Rep. Cloud to Newsmax: ICE Funding Is ‘Long Overdue’ James Morely III | Newsmax Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, said Saturday that he expects the House to approve the Senate’s reconciliation package that would provide nearly $70 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Justice through the remainder of…

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

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: countryboySource

All 931 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: 818 posts on X, 52 newsletters, 35 press releases, 26 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Cloud talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 13th 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 Cloud talks about. The bills Cloud sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cloud talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%36%
Cloud
Peers
Government Operations and Politics186 statements
33%
19%
Economics and Public Finance116 statements
21%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security109 statements
19%
24%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues100 statements
18%
6%
Immigration96 statements
17%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Cloud talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowCloudPeers
Government Operations and Politics33%19%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues18%6%
Immigration17%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cloud’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 36%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 33% (House Republicans 19%)33%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 25% (House Republicans 12%)25%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 24%)19%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 6%)18%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 13%)17%Immigration, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 5%)10%
Show the data
Cloud's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics33%19%25%12%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%4%2%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%7%8%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues18%6%2%2%
Immigration17%13%10%5%
0.73

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 13th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cloud sits at +1.44 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 94% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.43 to +1.46, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,739 donors and 3,968 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”.

+1.44

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.43 to +1.46. From 1,739 donors and 3,968 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cloud +1.4House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Cloud, 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 Cloud’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 Cloud sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Cloud +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Cloud's CSIP score of +1.44 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cloud
House Republicans221+1.094%
All House439+0.397%
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 Cloud 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 Cloud.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cloud raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 39% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 84% 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
$1.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 548 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): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $557.8K (45.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $352.1K (28.9%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)PACs and other committees: $259.0K (21.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.8K (4.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.8K (4.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.8K (4.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.8K (4.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)46 squares$557.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)29 squares$352.1K
  • PACs and other committees21 squares$259.0K
  • Party committees$1,000
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$49.8K
Show the data
Sources of Cloud's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$557.8K45.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$352.1K28.9%
PACs and other committees$259.0K21.2%
Party committees$1,0000.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$49.8K4.1%
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: $1.0M$1.0M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $798.4K$798.4K20242026 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Cloud's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.0M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$798.4K
2026 cycle$1.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$441.8K
  2. Virginia$18.2K
  3. Florida$13.2K
  4. District of Columbia$10.3K
  5. California$7,175

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%
Cloud
Median
2026
39%
9%
2024
14%
9%
2022
19%
9%
2020
11%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowCloudMedian
2026 cycle39%9%
2024 cycle14%9%
2022 cycle19%9%
2020 cycle11%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,000AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $85VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $1,995WAIdaho: $45IDMontana: $30MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $155MNIllinois: $1,090ILWisconsin: $454WIMichigan: $1,060MINew York: $2,048NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $42MAOregon: $634ORNevada: $715NVWyoming: $7,000WYSouth Dakota: $74SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $990INOhio: $938OHPennsylvania: $152PANew Jersey: $345NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $7,175CAUtah: $598UTColorado: $297CONebraska: $47NEMissouri: $686MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $18.2KVAMaryland: $500MDDelaware: $75DEArizona: $334AZNew Mexico: $2,074NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $124ARTennessee: $675TNNorth Carolina: $409NCSouth Carolina: $1,068SCDistrict of Columbia: $10.3KDCOklahoma: $970OKLouisiana: $989LAMississippi: $529MSAlabama: $48ALGeorgia: $721GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $441.8KTXFlorida: $13.2KFL
Show the data
Cloud's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$441.8K
Virginia$18.2K
Florida$13.2K
District of Columbia$10.3K
California$7,175
Wyoming$7,000
New Mexico$2,074
New York$2,048
Washington$1,995
Illinois$1,090
South Carolina$1,068
Michigan$1,060
Alaska$1,000
Indiana$990
Louisiana$989
Oklahoma$970
Ohio$938
Georgia$721
Nevada$715
Missouri$686
Tennessee$675
Oregon$634
Utah$598
Mississippi$529
Maryland$500
Wisconsin$454
North Carolina$409
New Jersey$345
Arizona$334
Colorado$297
Minnesota$155
Pennsylvania$152
Arkansas$124
Vermont$85
Delaware$75
South Dakota$74
Alabama$48
Nebraska$47
Idaho$45
Massachusetts$42
Montana$30
MaineNo data
New HampshireNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
IowaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
KansasNo data
HawaiiNo data
548

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

84%

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 −0.25 to 0.00: 0.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 5.2%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 30%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 61%61%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cloud's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.25 to +1.50: 5.2% between +0.75 and +1.00, 30% between +1.00 and +1.25, 61% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.005.2%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2530%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5061%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cloud’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cloud’s own score is +1.44.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$140.8K 267 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$37.2K 9 donors
  3. OWNER$28.7K 15 donors
  4. RANCHER$23.4K 7 donors
  5. CEO$14.6K 10 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. PAC$10.0K
  3. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. PAC$10.0K
  4. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$9,000
  5. THE FARM CREDIT COUNCIL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$7,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. VICTORIA COLLEGE$31.0K 16 donors
  2. MERCER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY$13.0K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cloud voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.0% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cloud voted against the majority of House Republicans 83 times.

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

83

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.0%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 157th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cloud
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
96.3%
82nd of 221
Party unity
97.0%
97.1%
157th of 221
Show the data
Cloud's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowCloudPeers
Attendance98.5%96.3%
Party unity97.0%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
NayAgainst 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 Cloud most often

  1. Andrew ClydeR634 shared votes96%
  2. Clay HigginsR647 shared votes95%
  3. Mark E. GreenR170 shared votes95%
  4. Andrew Ogles IVR609 shared votes95%
  5. Mary MillerR639 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cloud least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD382 shared votes16%
  2. Rashida TlaibD649 shared votes17%
  3. Delia RamirezD631 shared votes18%
  4. Gregorio CasarD566 shared votes18%
  5. Ilhan OmarD650 shared votes18%
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

Cloud sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 204 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 211th of 216).

The bills Cloud 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

Sponsored29 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2929Sponsored, In committee: 2929Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored204 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 204204Cosponsored, In committee: 204204Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1515Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cloud sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2929000
Cosponsored2042041522
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 211th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Clay Higgins35
  2. Sheri Biggs34
  3. Josh Brecheen33
  4. Barry Moore33
  5. Keith Self33
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 Cloud’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. 10690Capital Loss Inflation Fairness ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10542Combating Pasture Mealybug ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing 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 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 17 times in 90 days. Cloud’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cloud posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Cloud’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 Cloud 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 Cloud posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political-style promotional graphic shows a painted portrait of Alexander Hamilton beside a parchment-style quotation, with a government building in the background and a cost-estimate document with a pen in the foreground. A dark blue panel contains a headline and supporting text.
    A political-style promotional graphic shows a painted portrait of Alexander Hamilton beside a parchment-style quotation, with a government building in the background and a cost-estimate document with a pen in the foreground. A dark blue panel contains a headline and supporting text.View post
  • A horizontal bar chart compares federal outlays by budget function for fiscal year 2026. Net interest is highlighted in blue, while the other categories are shown in gray. Text appears above, beside, and below the chart.
    A horizontal bar chart compares federal outlays by budget function for fiscal year 2026. Net interest is highlighted in blue, while the other categories are shown in gray. Text appears above, beside, and below the chart.View post
  • A political graphic overlays a dimmed photo of people at an indoor gathering. Two large red-and-white panels highlight figures about benefits returned and cases resolved. A campaign logo appears at the bottom.
    A political graphic overlays a dimmed photo of people at an indoor gathering. Two large red-and-white panels highlight figures about benefits returned and cases resolved. A campaign logo appears at the bottom.View post
  • Several people in formal clothing talk in a hallway or office. A man in a dark suit and striped tie faces a man in a brown jacket, while other people are partly visible. Signs with text are mounted on the wall.
    Several people in formal clothing talk in a hallway or office. A man in a dark suit and striped tie faces a man in a brown jacket, while other people are partly visible. Signs with text are mounted on the wall.View post
  • Four adults pose together for a formal group photo in front of a branded backdrop, with flags on either side. Text and logos appear on the backdrop.
    Four adults pose together for a formal group photo in front of a branded backdrop, with flags on either side. Text and logos appear on the backdrop.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 Cloud 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
C001115
Bioguide
C001115
FEC candidate ids
H8TX27049

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