Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide E000235FEC H2MS04258

Portrait of Mike Ezell, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.2×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

20% of 530 statements use bipartisan language (104 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 15th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Ezell’s posts on X, newsletters, Congressional Record speeches and press releases and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. The policy areas Ezell talks about and legislates on agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans. 21% of Ezell’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 15%).

The measures on which Ezell 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.

Bipartisanship

20%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 15th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.58

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 192nd of 221

Policy criticism

21%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 38th of 221

From Mississippi, 2026

73%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 34th of 216 House Republicans

Credit claiming

47%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 45th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.02

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Ezell says

Ezell attacks opponents personally less than 76% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 530 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 171st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Ezell’s 530 statements in the 119th Congress (229 posts on X, 112 press releases, 101 newsletters, 88 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%
Ezell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion385 statements
73%
68%
80th of 221
Credit claiming249 statements
47%
37%
45th of 221
Policy criticism110 statements
21%
15%
38th of 221
Bipartisanship104 statements
20%
9%
15th of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
171st of 221
Show the data
Ezell's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowEzellPeers
Policy discussion73%68%
Credit claiming47%37%
Policy criticism21%15%
Bipartisanship20%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
530

statements classified

229 posts on X, 112 press releases, 101 newsletters, 88 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 229 (43.2%)posts on X 229press releases: 112 (21.1%)press releases 112newsletters: 101 (19.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 88 (16.6%)
Show the data
Ezell's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X229
press releases112
newsletters101
Congressional Record speeches88
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Ezell used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, below the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”4
  2. “extreme”3
  3. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats2
  2. Biden administration1
  3. DoD initiatives1
  4. radical left1
  5. Soros-backed radicals1
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: 362025-02: 232025-03: 372025-04: 302025-05: 402025-06: 792025-07: 322025-08: 122025-09: 242025-10: 422025-11: 152025-12: 162026-01: 192026-02: 252026-03: 262026-04: 202026-05: 112026-06: 92026-07: 112026-08: 62026-09: 102026-10: 7peak 79 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 10.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-01: 10.5% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 64.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 20.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 41.7% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-02: 26.1% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-03: 37.8% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-04: 13.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-05: 15.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.1% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-07: 9.4% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-08: 0.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2025-09: 25.0% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-10: 64.3% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-11: 26.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.5% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-03: 11.5% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-05: 0.0% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.1% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 93.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 90.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 72.2% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-02: 78.3% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-03: 67.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-04: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-06: 59.5% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.4% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-08: 83.3% of 12Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.0% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-10: 88.1% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-11: 66.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-12: 93.8% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.2% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-02: 64.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-03: 61.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-04: 70.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-05: 90.9% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-07: 90.9% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 34.4% · Jul ’25 · latest 30.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 27.8% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 30.4% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 27.0% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 23.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 30.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 15.2% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 34.4% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 16.7% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 19.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 20.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.5% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 24.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 15.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 9.1% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 30.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 70.0% · Apr ’25 · latest 60.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 66.7% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-02: 43.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-03: 59.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-04: 70.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-05: 52.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-06: 29.1% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-07: 50.0% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-08: 41.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2025-09: 45.8% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-10: 28.6% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-11: 60.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-12: 62.5% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-01: 42.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-02: 36.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-03: 42.3% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-04: 45.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-05: 45.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-07: 36.4% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 60.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 7.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.4% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-10: 7.1% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Ezell, 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 ’25360.0%41.7%72.2%27.8%66.7%0.0%
Feb ’25230.0%26.1%78.3%30.4%43.5%0.0%
Mar ’25370.0%37.8%67.6%27.0%59.5%5.4%
Apr ’25300.0%13.3%73.3%23.3%70.0%3.3%
May ’25400.0%15.0%67.5%30.0%52.5%0.0%
Jun ’25790.0%10.1%59.5%15.2%29.1%0.0%
Jul ’25320.0%9.4%59.4%34.4%50.0%0.0%
Aug ’25120.0%0.0%83.3%8.3%41.7%0.0%
Sep ’25240.0%25.0%75.0%16.7%45.8%4.2%
Oct ’25420.0%64.3%88.1%19.1%28.6%7.1%
Nov ’25150.0%26.7%66.7%20.0%60.0%0.0%
Dec ’25160.0%12.5%93.8%12.5%62.5%0.0%
Jan ’261910.5%5.3%84.2%0.0%42.1%0.0%
Feb ’26250.0%12.0%64.0%24.0%36.0%0.0%
Mar ’26260.0%11.5%61.5%3.9%42.3%0.0%
Apr ’26200.0%10.0%70.0%15.0%45.0%0.0%
May ’26110.0%0.0%90.9%9.1%45.5%0.0%
Jun ’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)
Jul ’26110.0%9.1%90.9%0.0%36.4%0.0%
Aug ’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)
Sep ’26100.0%20.0%90.0%30.0%60.0%0.0%
Oct ’267— (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%. 3 months are hatched here.

In Ezell’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Ezell, Bonamici Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Reauthorize Regional Ocean Partnerships WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Congressman Mike Ezell (MS-04) and Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01) introduced the bipartisan Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act, legislation to strengthen co…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance; Commerce · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jan 8, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Renee Good · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 9, 2025 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at Democrats · 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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Renee GoodSource

  2. Press releases

    Ezell Statement: Violence and Obstruction Are Not Protected Speech Today, Congressman Mike Ezell (MS-04) released the following statement about the ongoing situation in Minneapolis: The incident in Minneapolis was entirely preventable. Unfortunately, the reckless and unlawful actions of Renee Good left U.S. ICE agents with no choice but to defend themselves and the officers supporting them. Forcefully blocking an ac…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Renee GoodSource

All 530 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: 229 posts on X, 112 press releases, 101 newsletters, 88 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Ezell talks about most: 37% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 192nd 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 Ezell talks about. The bills Ezell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Ezell talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%41%
Ezell
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security143 statements
37%
24%
Transportation and Public Works131 statements
34%
7%
Commerce98 statements
26%
9%
Economics and Public Finance77 statements
20%
19%
Government Operations and Politics70 statements
18%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Ezell talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowEzellPeers
Armed Forces and National Security37%24%
Transportation and Public Works34%7%
Commerce26%9%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Ezell’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 41%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 37% (House Republicans 24%)37%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 34% (House Republicans 7%)34%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 4%)9%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 9%)26%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 12%)7%
Show the data
Ezell'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 Security37%24%4%8%
Transportation and Public Works34%7%9%4%
Commerce26%9%1%2%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%0%2%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%7%12%
0.58

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 192nd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Ezell sits at +1.02 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 56% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.00 to +1.05, which understates the uncertainty; from 985 donors and 1,852 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”.

+1.02

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.00 to +1.05. From 985 donors and 1,852 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Ezell, 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 Ezell’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 Ezell sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Ezell +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Ezell's CSIP score of +1.02 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Ezell
House Republicans221+1.056%
All House439+0.378%
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 Ezell 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 Ezell.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Ezell raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 2.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 73% of itemized individual money came from Mississippi.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 354 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): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $525.9K (45.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $12.7K (1.1%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $562.3K (48.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.1K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.1K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.1K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $49.1K (4.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)46 squares$525.9K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$12.7K
  • PACs and other committees49 squares$562.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$49.1K
Show the data
Sources of Ezell's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$525.9K45.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$12.7K1.1%
PACs and other committees$562.3K48.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$49.1K4.3%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20242026 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Ezell's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.2M
2026 cycle$1.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 73% came from Mississippi.

  1. Mississippi$383.7K
  2. Texas$22.9K
  3. Virginia$22.9K
  4. District of Columbia$19.4K
  5. New York$17.8K

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%
Ezell
Median
2026
2%
9%
2024
4%
9%
2022
4%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowEzellMedian
2026 cycle2%9%
2024 cycle4%9%
2022 cycle4%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $1,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $500MINew York: $17.8KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $500OHPennsylvania: $1,791PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: $500CTCalifornia: $15.0KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $1,500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $22.9KVAMaryland: $3,750MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,000TNNorth Carolina: $1,020NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $19.4KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $16.5KLAMississippi: $383.7KMSAlabama: $3,469ALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $22.9KTXFlorida: $9,250FL
Show the data
Ezell's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Mississippi$383.7K
Texas$22.9K
Virginia$22.9K
District of Columbia$19.4K
New York$17.8K
Louisiana$16.5K
California$15.0K
Florida$9,250
Maryland$3,750
Alabama$3,469
Pennsylvania$1,791
Kentucky$1,500
North Carolina$1,020
Washington$1,000
Illinois$1,000
Tennessee$1,000
Michigan$500
Ohio$500
Connecticut$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
New JerseyNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
354

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

73%

from Mississippi

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 33%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 55%55%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Ezell's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.25: 33% between +0.75 and +1.00, 55% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0033%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2555%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Ezell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Ezell’s own score is +1.02.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EXECUTIVE$57.8K 18 donors
  2. HOMEMAKER$50.7K 8 donors
  3. OWNER$32.7K 13 donors
  4. RETIRED$32.0K 32 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$21.8K 21 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. CHEVRON EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - CHEVRON CORPORATION$10.0K
  2. FAIRBANKS MORSE, LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. MATSON, INC. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION'S TIAPAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SEEMANN COMPOSITIES$14.0K 4 donors
  2. OCEAN AERO$7,082 3 donors
  3. CR FEDERAL$4,500 5 donors
  4. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$3,638 4 donors
  5. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM$1,750 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Ezell voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ezell voted against the majority of House Republicans 22 times.

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

22

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 111th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Ezell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.9%
96.3%
118th of 221
Party unity
98.2%
97.1%
111th of 221
Show the data
Ezell's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowEzellPeers
Attendance97.9%96.3%
Party unity98.2%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 Ezell most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR509 shared votes99%
  2. Brian JackR660 shared votes98%
  3. Michael GuestR649 shared votes98%
  4. Troy BaldersonR651 shared votes98%
  5. Addison McDowellR652 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Ezell least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD377 shared votes21%
  2. Rashida TlaibD644 shared votes22%
  3. Delia RamirezD627 shared votes23%
  4. Gregorio CasarD563 shared votes23%
  5. Dan GoldmanD578 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

Ezell sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 218 others. 19% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 65th of 216).

The bills Ezell 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3131Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored218 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 218218Cosponsored, In committee: 218218Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3535Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Ezell sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3131600
Cosponsored2182183544
How to read the blocks

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

19%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 65th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Troy Carter23
  2. Randy Weber Sr.21
  3. Barry Moore19
  4. Clay Higgins16
  5. Michael Guest15
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 Ezell’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. 10776To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to change certain requirements regarding certain allowed take of marine mammals, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10756Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization ActSponsorOct 6, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10537Federal Emergency Mobilization Accountability (FEMA) Workforce Planning ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10551Public Service Educational Assistance ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10443American Procurement Improvement Act of 2026CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 15 times in 90 days. Ezell’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Ezell posted on Sep 17, 2026.

The lab crawls Ezell’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 Ezell posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    ezell.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    22

    pages crawled

    15

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.mikeezell.ms

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    38

    pages crawled

    38

    changes in 90 days

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 Ezell posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of nine men, including several in military uniforms and several in business suits, pose for a photograph behind a curved wooden conference desk in a formal room. A framed painting of sailing ships hangs on the wall behind them. Some clothing and uniform insignia contain text.
    A group of nine men, including several in military uniforms and several in business suits, pose for a photograph behind a curved wooden conference desk in a formal room. A framed painting of sailing ships hangs on the wall behind them. Some clothing and uniform insignia contain text.View post
  • Several uniformed men stand in a doorway as one shakes hands with an older man in a dark suit. A conference room with a long table, chairs, water bottles, name cards, and a wall-mounted screen is visible. Text appears on the screen and name cards.
    Several uniformed men stand in a doorway as one shakes hands with an older man in a dark suit. A conference room with a long table, chairs, water bottles, name cards, and a wall-mounted screen is visible. Text appears on the screen and name cards.View post
  • A formal indoor gathering where uniformed military personnel and officials greet and shake hands beside a conference table. Name placards, drinks, chairs, and framed artwork are visible. There is text on the placards and uniforms.
    A formal indoor gathering where uniformed military personnel and officials greet and shake hands beside a conference table. Name placards, drinks, chairs, and framed artwork are visible. There is text on the placards and uniforms.View post
  • A group of officials and uniformed personnel sit around a long conference table in a formal meeting room. A television displays an image related to drug interdiction. There is text on the television and on nameplates.
    A group of officials and uniformed personnel sit around a long conference table in a formal meeting room. A television displays an image related to drug interdiction. There is text on the television and on nameplates.View post
  • A commemorative graphic featuring several American flags waving against a cloudy sky, with prominent celebratory text and a congressman’s name and district information in the lower-right corner.
    A commemorative graphic featuring several American flags waving against a cloudy sky, with prominent celebratory text and a congressman’s name and district information in the lower-right corner.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 Ezell 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
E000235
Bioguide
E000235
FEC candidate ids
H2MS04258

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