Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 26th district

Serving since Jan 7, 2003119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide D000600FEC H2FL25018

Portrait of Mario Diaz-Balart, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

0.2% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 219th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $2.8M 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 House Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 7.0% of Diaz-Balart’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 15%). Diaz-Balart sits at +0.59 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 92% of House Republicans.

The measures on which Diaz-Balart 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.2%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 219th of 220

Policy criticism

7.0%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 199th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.59

More liberal than 92% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Party unity

95.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 196th of 221 · 20 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.58

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 189th of 221

Policy discussion

60%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 180th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Diaz-Balart says

Diaz-Balart criticizes policies less than 89% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 7.0% of 2,286 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 199th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Diaz-Balart’s 2,286 statements in the 119th Congress (1,963 posts on X, 258 press releases, 58 Congressional Record speeches, 7 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%
Diaz-Balart
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,369 statements
60%
68%
180th of 221
Credit claiming749 statements
33%
37%
144th of 221
Policy criticism161 statements
7%
15%
199th of 221
Bipartisanship114 statements
5%
9%
155th of 221
Personal attacks49 statements
2%
2%
72nd of 221
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowDiaz-BalartPeers
Policy discussion60%68%
Credit claiming33%37%
Policy criticism7%15%
Bipartisanship5%9%
Personal attacks2%2%
2,286

statements classified

1,963 posts on X, 258 press releases, 58 Congressional Record speeches, 7 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,963 (85.9%)posts on X 1,963press releases: 258 (11.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 58 (2.5%)newsletters: 7 (0.3%)
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,963
press releases258
Congressional Record speeches58
newsletters7
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Diaz-Balart used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 67 statements, most often aimed at DEI programming; peers 3.0%.

  1. “communist”23
  2. “woke”16
  3. “radical”12
  4. “far left”5
  5. “extreme”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. DEI programming3
  2. programas woke3
  3. woke programming3
  4. Biden Administration2
  5. Biden-era policies2
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: 1202025-02: 742025-03: 542025-04: 1312025-05: 822025-06: 1032025-07: 1162025-08: 572025-09: 1832025-10: 1712025-11: 1122025-12: 1072026-01: 1242026-02: 1372026-03: 1252026-04: 1132026-05: 1012026-06: 932026-07: 1172026-08: 612026-09: 652026-10: 40peak 183 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 6.1% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.2% of 120Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.7% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.3% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-05: 6.1% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-07: 4.3% of 116Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.3% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.8% of 183Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.3% of 171Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.6% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.7% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.7% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.6% of 125Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 93Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.9% of 117Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 40Policy criticismpeak 21.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 10.0% of 120Policy criticism, 2025-02: 16.2% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-03: 1.8% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-04: 3.8% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.1% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-06: 6.8% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-07: 6.0% of 116Policy criticism, 2025-08: 7.0% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-09: 7.1% of 183Policy criticism, 2025-10: 21.1% of 171Policy criticism, 2025-11: 8.9% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-12: 4.7% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-01: 3.2% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-02: 5.8% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-03: 15.2% of 125Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-05: 4.0% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-06: 2.1% of 93Policy criticism, 2026-07: 2.6% of 117Policy criticism, 2026-08: 3.3% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-09: 3.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 40Policy discussionpeak 84.6% · Sep ’26 · latest 55.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 51.7% of 120Policy discussion, 2025-02: 63.5% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-03: 48.1% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-04: 51.1% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-05: 68.3% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-06: 62.1% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-07: 71.5% of 116Policy discussion, 2025-08: 63.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-09: 45.9% of 183Policy discussion, 2025-10: 51.5% of 171Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.0% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-12: 69.2% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-01: 69.3% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.6% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-03: 55.2% of 125Policy discussion, 2026-04: 78.8% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-05: 58.4% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-06: 44.1% of 93Policy discussion, 2026-07: 64.1% of 117Policy discussion, 2026-08: 62.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-09: 84.6% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-10: 55.0% of 40Bipartisanshippeak 9.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.3% of 120Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 9.5% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.3% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.9% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.1% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.9% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.6% of 116Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 2.7% of 183Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 6.4% of 171Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.1% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 4.7% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.0% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.8% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.6% of 125Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.5% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 3.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 1.1% of 93Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.4% of 117Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.9% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.1% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 40Credit claimingpeak 53.4% · Jul ’25 · latest 17.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 40.8% of 120Credit claiming, 2025-02: 37.8% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.3% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-04: 25.2% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-05: 28.1% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-06: 23.3% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-07: 53.4% of 116Credit claiming, 2025-08: 35.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-09: 27.3% of 183Credit claiming, 2025-10: 28.1% of 171Credit claiming, 2025-11: 41.1% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.8% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-01: 40.3% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-02: 40.2% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.8% of 125Credit claiming, 2026-04: 51.3% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.7% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-06: 33.3% of 93Credit claiming, 2026-07: 22.2% of 117Credit claiming, 2026-08: 16.4% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-09: 24.6% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-10: 17.5% of 40Extreme labelspeak 9.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.8% of 120Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.5% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.3% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.9% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-07: 8.6% of 116Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.8% of 183Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.8% of 171Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.6% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.0% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-02: 5.1% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.4% of 125Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.5% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.1% of 93Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.7% of 117Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 40Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Diaz-Balart, 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 ’251204.2%10.0%51.7%3.3%40.8%0.8%
Feb ’25741.4%16.2%63.5%9.5%37.8%9.5%
Mar ’25543.7%1.8%48.1%9.3%33.3%1.8%
Apr ’251312.3%3.8%51.1%6.9%25.2%2.3%
May ’25826.1%6.1%68.3%6.1%28.1%4.9%
Jun ’251030.0%6.8%62.1%4.9%23.3%1.0%
Jul ’251164.3%6.0%71.5%8.6%53.4%8.6%
Aug ’25575.3%7.0%63.2%5.3%35.1%0.0%
Sep ’251833.8%7.1%45.9%2.7%27.3%3.8%
Oct ’251712.3%21.1%51.5%6.4%28.1%1.8%
Nov ’251123.6%8.9%58.0%7.1%41.1%3.6%
Dec ’251074.7%4.7%69.2%4.7%30.8%1.9%
Jan ’261240.0%3.2%69.3%4.0%40.3%4.0%
Feb ’261370.7%5.8%60.6%5.8%40.2%5.1%
Mar ’261251.6%15.2%55.2%5.6%28.8%2.4%
Apr ’261130.0%0.0%78.8%3.5%51.3%3.5%
May ’261011.0%4.0%58.4%3.0%25.7%1.0%
Jun ’26930.0%2.1%44.1%1.1%33.3%1.1%
Jul ’261170.9%2.6%64.1%3.4%22.2%1.7%
Aug ’26610.0%3.3%62.3%4.9%16.4%0.0%
Sep ’26650.0%3.1%84.6%3.1%24.6%1.5%
Oct ’26400.0%0.0%55.0%0.0%17.5%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 Diaz-Balart’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend Cesar Alvarez, an outstanding leader in law, civic advocacy, and an inspiring member of my community. His longstanding commitment to justice and leadership in the Cuba-American community has culminated today in his recognition by the Greater Miam…

Sep 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Immigration; Law; International Affairs · Source

Policy criticism

No More Blank Checks: Appropriators, White House Direct UN Accountability WASHINGTON, D.C. – From Congress to the White House, the Republican agenda has been clear: disrupting the broken status quo. From FY26 appropriations signed into law by President Trump to the FY27 bills advanced out of the ful…

Sep 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Environmental Protection; Energy; Health; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Law · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Labor and Employment; Transportation and Public Works; Energy; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “far left, radical” aimed at California agenda · 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 · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · target: DemocratsSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Joanne ChesimardSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Health · target: SheinbaumSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: regimen asesinoSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Delcy RodríguezSource

All 2,286 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: 1,963 posts on X, 258 press releases, 58 Congressional Record speeches, 7 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Diaz-Balart talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 4.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 189th 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 Diaz-Balart talks about. The bills Diaz-Balart sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Diaz-Balart talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%47%
Diaz-Balart
Peers
International Affairs591 statements
43%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security519 statements
38%
24%
Economics and Public Finance267 statements
20%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement185 statements
14%
12%
Government Operations and Politics159 statements
12%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Diaz-Balart talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowDiaz-BalartPeers
International Affairs43%9%
Armed Forces and National Security38%24%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%
Crime and Law Enforcement14%12%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Diaz-Balart’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 47%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 43% (House Republicans 9%)43%International Affairs, legislates on: 15% (House Republicans 6%)15%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 38% (House Republicans 24%)38%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 8%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 12%)14%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 9%)12%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 19%)12%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 25% (House Republicans 12%)25%
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
International Affairs43%9%15%6%
Armed Forces and National Security38%24%10%8%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%4%2%
Crime and Law Enforcement14%12%12%9%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%25%12%
0.58

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 189th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Diaz-Balart sits at +0.59 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 92% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.58 to +0.61, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,340 donors and 7,244 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”.

+0.59

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.58 to +0.61. From 2,340 donors and 7,244 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Diaz-Balart +0.6House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Diaz-Balart, 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 Diaz-Balart’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 Diaz-Balart sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Diaz-Balart +0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's CSIP score of +0.59 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Diaz-Balart
House Republicans221+1.08%
All House439+0.354%
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 Diaz-Balart 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 Diaz-Balart.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Diaz-Balart raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 37% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$2.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 638 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): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (57.5%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (42.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)58 squares$1.6M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3,711
  • PACs and other committees42 squares$1.2M
Show the data
Sources of Diaz-Balart's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.6M57.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3,7110.1%
PACs and other committees$1.2M42.4%
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: $1.6M$1.6M20202022 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20222024 cycle: $2.4M$2.4M20242026 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.6M
2022 cycle$1.8M
2024 cycle$2.4M
2026 cycle$2.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 37% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$443.6K
  2. California$192.5K
  3. Virginia$120.5K
  4. District of Columbia$94.3K
  5. Colorado$65.8K

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%
Diaz-Balart
Median
2026
0%
9%
2024
0%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
0%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowDiaz-BalartMedian
2026 cycle0%9%
2024 cycle0%9%
2022 cycle1%9%
2020 cycle0%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $7,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $2,500MNIllinois: $4,250ILWisconsin: $8,000WIMichigan: $10.0KMINew York: $65.8KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $5,000MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $7,000NVWyoming: $1,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $4,000PANew Jersey: $23.0KNJConnecticut: $10.5KCTCalifornia: $192.5KCAUtah: $7,501UTColorado: $65.8KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $7,000MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: $500WVVirginia: $120.5KVAMaryland: $41.0KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $5,250AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $7,000NCSouth Carolina: $1,250SCDistrict of Columbia: $94.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $500ALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $57.8KTXFlorida: $443.6KFL
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$443.6K
California$192.5K
Virginia$120.5K
District of Columbia$94.3K
New York$65.8K
Colorado$65.8K
Texas$57.8K
Maryland$41.0K
New Jersey$23.0K
Connecticut$10.5K
Michigan$10.0K
Wisconsin$8,000
Utah$7,501
Washington$7,000
Nevada$7,000
Missouri$7,000
North Carolina$7,000
Arizona$5,250
Massachusetts$5,000
Illinois$4,250
Pennsylvania$4,000
Minnesota$2,500
South Carolina$1,250
Rhode Island$1,000
Wyoming$1,000
Georgia$1,000
West Virginia$500
Alabama$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
OregonNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
638

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

37%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.2%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 3.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 12%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 13%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 15%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 33%33%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 14%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Diaz-Balart's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 6.8% between −0.50 and −0.25, 12% between −0.25 and 0.00, 13% between 0.00 and +0.25, 15% between +0.25 and +0.50, 33% between +0.50 and +0.75, 14% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.2%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.503.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0012%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2513%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5015%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7533%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0014%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Diaz-Balart’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Diaz-Balart’s own score is +0.59.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$145.5K 99 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$78.6K 27 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$78.4K 35 donors
  4. CEO$67.6K 25 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$64.8K 38 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. 31 DAYS PAC$10.0K
  2. AAR CORP. PAC$10.0K
  3. AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. BAE SYSTEMS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BAE SYSTEMS USA PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ENTREPRENEUR$34.8K 17 donors
  2. INNOVATIVE FEDERAL STRATEGIES, LLC$15.0K 3 donors
  3. MAINSTREAM ENGINEERING$15.0K 5 donors
  4. AMERICAN DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL$13.0K 3 donors
  5. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$11.8K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Diaz-Balart voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 3.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Diaz-Balart voted against the majority of House Republicans 20 times.

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

20

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 95.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 196th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Diaz-Balart
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.1%
96.3%
165th of 221
Party unity
95.5%
97.1%
196th of 221
Show the data
Diaz-Balart's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowDiaz-BalartPeers
Attendance96.1%96.3%
Party unity95.5%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 Diaz-Balart most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR501 shared votes99%
  2. Ken CalvertR647 shared votes99%
  3. Tom ColeR642 shared votes99%
  4. Hal RogersR641 shared votes99%
  5. Carlos GimenezR609 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Diaz-Balart least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD377 shared votes27%
  2. Rashida TlaibD633 shared votes27%
  3. Delia RamirezD619 shared votes27%
  4. Gregorio CasarD549 shared votes28%
  5. Dan GoldmanD566 shared votes28%
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

Diaz-Balart sponsored 12 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 79 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 78th of 216).

The bills Diaz-Balart 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

Sponsored12 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1212Sponsored, In committee: 1212Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored79 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 7979Cosponsored, In committee: 7979Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1414Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Diaz-Balart sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1212200
Cosponsored79791442
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 78th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Maria Salazar16
  2. Carlos Gimenez14
  3. Debbie Wasserman Schultz14
  4. John Rutherford12
  5. C. Franklin11
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 Diaz-Balart’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. 10554SCREEN Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10257To require the United States Postal Service to designate ZIP Codes for certain communities.SponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026
H.Res. 1481Honoring the life and legacy of the Honorable Kay Granger, a Representative from the State of Texas.CosponsorAug 13, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on House Administration. Aug 13, 2026
H.Res. 1445Condemning the attack on the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in July 1994, and encouraging accountability for the attack.CosponsorJul 21, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Jul 21, 2026
H.Res. 1440Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the city of Miami Springs, Florida.SponsorJul 20, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Jul 20, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 70 times in 90 days. Diaz-Balart’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Diaz-Balart posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Diaz-Balart’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 Diaz-Balart 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 Diaz-Balart posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man and a woman talk at a glass-topped news desk in a brightly colored television studio. Studio lights and camera equipment are visible above and to the side, and a large blue news backdrop is behind them. There is text on the backdrop and equipment.
    A man and a woman talk at a glass-topped news desk in a brightly colored television studio. Studio lights and camera equipment are visible above and to the side, and a large blue news backdrop is behind them. There is text on the backdrop and equipment.View post
  • A colorful promotional flyer for a Hialeah radio show, featuring a large illustrated mural, a man pointing toward the camera, and headshots of two special guests.
    A colorful promotional flyer for a Hialeah radio show, featuring a large illustrated mural, a man pointing toward the camera, and headshots of two special guests.View post
  • A group of adults pose for a formal event photo on a stage. One man in the center holds an award, with a large event backdrop and college branding behind them. The backdrop contains text.
    A group of adults pose for a formal event photo on a stage. One man in the center holds an award, with a large event backdrop and college branding behind them. The backdrop contains text.View post
  • Two men in suits sit on chairs on a small stage, holding microphones during a discussion. A large display behind them shows a portrait, patriotic graphics, and text; a college logo is visible on a panel to the right.
    Two men in suits sit on chairs on a small stage, holding microphones during a discussion. A large display behind them shows a portrait, patriotic graphics, and text; a college logo is visible on a panel to the right.View post
  • Four people pose together at an art exhibition, with framed artwork and wall text behind them. Several make hand gestures toward the camera.
    Four people pose together at an art exhibition, with framed artwork and wall text behind them. Several make hand gestures toward the camera.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 Diaz-Balart 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
D000600
Bioguide
D000600
FEC candidate ids
H2FL25018

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