Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Tennessee’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide D000616FEC H0TN04195

Portrait of Scott DesJarlais, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.43
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

Agreement 0.43 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 216th of 221, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in DesJarlais’s statements matches the mix in the bills DesJarlais sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Republicans.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 0.7% of DesJarlais’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%). DesJarlais raised $667.2K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (median $2.2M).

The measures on which DesJarlais 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.

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.43

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 216th of 221

Small donations, 2026

0.7%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 204th of 220

Raised, 2026

$667.2K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 204th of 220

From Tennessee, 2026

30%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 181st of 216 House Republicans

Policy criticism

9.4%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 177th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.14

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What DesJarlais says

DesJarlais attacks opponents personally less than 74% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 254 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 165th of 221.

An AI model reads each of DesJarlais’s 254 statements in the 119th Congress (236 posts on X, 13 press releases, 5 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%
DesJarlais
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion172 statements
68%
68%
122nd of 221
Credit claiming97 statements
38%
37%
111th of 221
Policy criticism24 statements
9%
15%
177th of 221
Bipartisanship11 statements
4%
9%
170th of 221
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
165th of 221
Show the data
DesJarlais's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowDesJarlaisPeers
Policy discussion68%68%
Credit claiming38%37%
Policy criticism9%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
254

statements classified

236 posts on X, 13 press releases, 5 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 236 (92.9%)posts on X 236press releases: 13 (5.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 5 (2.0%)
Show the data
DesJarlais's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X236
press releases13
Congressional Record speeches5
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

DesJarlais used extreme labels in 3.1% of statements, close to the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at DEI policies; peers 3.0%.

  1. “woke”3
  2. “radical”2
  3. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. DEI policies1
  2. Democrat Leadership1
  3. Leftists1
  4. public schools1
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: 232025-02: 82025-03: 82025-04: 102025-05: 82025-06: 132025-07: 72025-08: 62025-09: 152025-10: 162025-11: 102025-12: 132026-01: 92026-02: 132026-03: 222026-04: 202026-05: 172026-06: 122026-07: 82026-08: 42026-09: 62026-10: 6peak 23 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 6.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.3% of 16Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 37.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 8.7% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-04: 0.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-06: 7.7% of 13Policy criticism, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 20.0% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.5% of 16Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-12: 0.0% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-02: 7.7% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-03: 22.7% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-05: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-06: 0.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 95.0% · Apr ’26 · latest 41.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 39.1% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-04: 80.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-06: 46.2% of 13Policy discussion, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 66.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-10: 56.3% of 16Policy discussion, 2025-11: 50.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-12: 69.2% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-02: 84.6% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-03: 68.2% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-04: 95.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-05: 76.5% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-06: 41.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 23.1% · Dec ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 13.3% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 23.1% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.7% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 69.2% · Dec ’25 · latest 25.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.1% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-04: 60.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-06: 30.8% of 13Credit claiming, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 53.3% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.0% of 16Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-12: 69.2% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.8% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-03: 13.6% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-04: 45.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-05: 29.4% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-06: 25.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 15.4% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-06: 15.4% of 13Extreme labels, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-10: 6.3% of 16Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.7% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-05: 5.9% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for DesJarlais, 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 ’25230.0%8.7%39.1%0.0%39.1%4.3%
Feb ’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)
Mar ’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)
Apr ’25100.0%0.0%80.0%0.0%60.0%0.0%
May ’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)
Jun ’25130.0%7.7%46.2%0.0%30.8%15.4%
Jul ’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)
Aug ’256— (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 ’25150.0%20.0%66.7%13.3%53.3%0.0%
Oct ’25166.3%37.5%56.3%0.0%25.0%6.3%
Nov ’25100.0%20.0%50.0%0.0%20.0%0.0%
Dec ’25130.0%0.0%69.2%23.1%69.2%0.0%
Jan ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’26130.0%7.7%84.6%7.7%53.8%7.7%
Mar ’26220.0%22.7%68.2%0.0%13.6%0.0%
Apr ’26200.0%0.0%95.0%0.0%45.0%0.0%
May ’26170.0%5.9%76.5%5.9%29.4%5.9%
Jun ’26120.0%0.0%41.7%0.0%25.0%0.0%
Jul ’268— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Aug ’264— (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 ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 10 months are hatched here.

In DesJarlais’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. As the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I was proud to work in a bipartisan fashion along with my friend Ranking Member Seth Moulton on some of the most consequential issues to our national…

Jul 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 2, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Democratic leadership · Source

Extreme label

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

May 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; extreme label “radical” aimed at public schools · 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: Democratic leadershipSource

All 254 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: 236 posts on X, 13 press releases, 5 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what DesJarlais talks about most: 45% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.43 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 216th 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 DesJarlais talks about. The bills DesJarlais sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What DesJarlais talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%50%
DesJarlais
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security78 statements
45%
24%
Agriculture and Food29 statements
17%
9%
Economics and Public Finance20 statements
12%
19%
Government Operations and Politics20 statements
12%
19%
Immigration20 statements
12%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas DesJarlais talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowDesJarlaisPeers
Armed Forces and National Security45%24%
Agriculture and Food17%9%
Economics and Public Finance12%19%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%
Immigration12%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of DesJarlais’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 50%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 45% (House Republicans 24%)45%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 8%)10%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 3%)0%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 19%)12%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 19%)12%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 12%)6%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 13%)12%Immigration, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 5%)10%
Show the data
DesJarlais's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security45%24%10%8%
Agriculture and Food17%9%0%3%
Economics and Public Finance12%19%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%6%12%
Immigration12%13%10%5%
0.43

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 216th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

DesJarlais sits at +1.14 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 70% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.12 to +1.15, which understates the uncertainty; from 666 donors and 7,158 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”.

+1.14

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.12 to +1.15. From 666 donors and 7,158 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0DesJarlais +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is DesJarlais, 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 DesJarlais’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 DesJarlais sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0DesJarlais +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
DesJarlais's CSIP score of +1.14 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of DesJarlais
House Republicans221+1.070%
All House439+0.385%
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 DesJarlais 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 DesJarlais.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

DesJarlais raised $667.2K in the 2026 cycle, 31% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 30% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.

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
$667.2K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 118 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): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $285.5K (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)PACs and other committees: $378.8K (56.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)43 squares$285.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,890
  • PACs and other committees57 squares$378.8K
Show the data
Sources of DesJarlais's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$285.5K42.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,8900.3%
PACs and other committees$378.8K56.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $332.3K$332.3K20202022 cycle: $174.9K$174.9K20222024 cycle: $305.9K$305.9K20242026 cycle: $667.2K$667.2K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
DesJarlais's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$332.3K
2022 cycle$174.9K
2024 cycle$305.9K
2026 cycle$667.2K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 30% came from Tennessee.

  1. Alabama$71.0K
  2. Tennessee$67.5K
  3. Virginia$27.5K
  4. New York$14.5K
  5. California$11.0K

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%
DesJarlais
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
2%
9%
2022
3%
9%
2020
1%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowDesJarlaisMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle2%9%
2022 cycle3%9%
2020 cycle1%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $6,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $14.5KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $11.0KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $2,500CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $27.5KVAMaryland: $4,000MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $67.5KTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $6,500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $325MSAlabama: $71.0KALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $9,000TXFlorida: $3,500FL
Show the data
DesJarlais's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Alabama$71.0K
Tennessee$67.5K
Virginia$27.5K
New York$14.5K
California$11.0K
Texas$9,000
District of Columbia$6,500
Washington$6,000
Maryland$4,000
Florida$3,500
Colorado$2,500
Arizona$1,000
Mississippi$325
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
118

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

30%

from Tennessee

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 6.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 41%41%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 38%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 3.6%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of DesJarlais's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.50: 6.5% between +0.50 and +0.75, 41% between +0.75 and +1.00, 38% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.756.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0041%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2538%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.503.6%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of DesJarlais’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; DesJarlais’s own score is +1.14.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$23.3K 11 donors
  2. RETIRED$22.3K 11 donors
  3. PARTNER$20.5K 7 donors
  4. OWNER$16.0K 10 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$14.5K 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC. PAC (AMENTUM PAC)$10.0K
  2. BLUE ORIGIN LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BLUE ORIGIN PAC)$10.0K
  3. BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC$10.0K
  5. EMPLOYEES OF RTX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE$5,500 6 donors
  2. COPT DEFENSE$2,500 3 donors
  3. NHC HEALTHCARE$2,250 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

DesJarlais voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 4.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, DesJarlais voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.9%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 67th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
DesJarlais
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.7%
96.3%
168th of 221
Party unity
98.9%
97.1%
67th of 221
Show the data
DesJarlais's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowDesJarlaisPeers
Attendance95.7%96.3%
Party unity98.9%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 DesJarlais most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR502 shared votes100%
  2. Rudy YakymR645 shared votes98%
  3. Trent KellyR640 shared votes98%
  4. Barry LoudermilkR609 shared votes98%
  5. Tracey MannR643 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as DesJarlais least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD629 shared votes22%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD377 shared votes23%
  3. Delia RamirezD618 shared votes23%
  4. Frederica WilsonD468 shared votes24%
  5. Gregorio CasarD550 shared votes24%
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

DesJarlais sponsored 1 bill in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 128 others.

The bills DesJarlais 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

Sponsored1 billsSponsored, Introduced: 11Sponsored, In committee: 11Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored128 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 128128Cosponsored, In committee: 128128Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1111Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills DesJarlais sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored11000
Cosponsored1281281110
How to read the blocks

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

No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Barry Moore11
  2. John Rose9
  3. Chuck Fleischmann8
  4. Andrew Ogles IV8
  5. Tim Burchett7
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 DesJarlais’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.Res. 1507Honoring the life and legacy of Dolly Parton, a daughter of Tennessee whose extraordinary contributions to music, philanthropy, literacy, education, health, conservation, and culture enriched the lives of countless Americans.CosponsorSep 2, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 2, 2026
H.R. 10017Permanent CBDC Ban ActCosponsorAug 3, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Aug 3, 2026
H.R. 9719Federal Lands Lawful Carry ActCosponsorJul 16, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jul 16, 2026
H.R. 9693Patients First Act of 2026CosponsorJul 15, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. Jul 15, 2026
H.R. 9298Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts ActCosponsorJun 11, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jun 11, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 78 times in 90 days. DesJarlais’s official site had 49 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images DesJarlais posted on Oct 20, 2026.

The lab crawls DesJarlais’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 DesJarlais 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 DesJarlais posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man wearing a cap, dark green pullover, and jeans stands indoors among other people, holding two antique-looking handguns. There is a logo on his pullover, but no prominent text.
    A man wearing a cap, dark green pullover, and jeans stands indoors among other people, holding two antique-looking handguns. There is a logo on his pullover, but no prominent text.View post
  • Two men pose for a photo in front of a branded event backdrop. The backdrop displays large text and repeating logos.
    Two men pose for a photo in front of a branded event backdrop. The backdrop displays large text and repeating logos.View post
  • An adult man at an outdoor shooting range aims a rifle toward targets. He wears a cap, protective glasses, earmuffs, a jacket, and jeans. A table beside him holds handguns, magazines, ammunition, and a cardboard box. There is some visible text on the box and other items.
    An adult man at an outdoor shooting range aims a rifle toward targets. He wears a cap, protective glasses, earmuffs, a jacket, and jeans. A table beside him holds handguns, magazines, ammunition, and a cardboard box. There is some visible text on the box and other items.View post
  • A birthday-themed U.S. Navy commemorative poster. Two silhouetted people stand beside a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier at sunset, with the ocean and a dramatic orange sky in the background. Large celebratory lettering and logos appear on the poster.
    A birthday-themed U.S. Navy commemorative poster. Two silhouetted people stand beside a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier at sunset, with the ocean and a dramatic orange sky in the background. Large celebratory lettering and logos appear on the poster.View post
  • A page from a formal letter showing a closing, multiple handwritten signatures with printed names and titles beneath them, and a copied-recipient line near the bottom. The page contains text.
    A page from a formal letter showing a closing, multiple handwritten signatures with printed names and titles beneath them, and a copied-recipient line near the bottom. The page contains text.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 DesJarlais 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
D000616
Bioguide
D000616
FEC candidate ids
H0TN04195

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