Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Finance and Financial Sector; target: Trump · Source
85%
of House Democrats score to the right of Foster on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.25 (approximate range −1.26 to −1.24, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 3,953 donors and 7,503 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Foster sits among House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 36% of Foster’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 28%). 0.7% of Foster’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 1.9%).
The measures on which Foster sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−1.25
More liberal than 85% of House Democrats · ± 0.01
Policy criticism
36%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 43rd of 216
Attendance
99.4%
House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 49th of 217 · 674 roll calls
Extreme labels
0.7%
House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 164th of 216
From Illinois, 2026
43%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 156th of 214 House Democrats
Personal attacks
7.9%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 67th of 216
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Foster, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Foster is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Foster says
Foster criticizes policies more than 80% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 36% of 962 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 43rd of 216.
An AI model reads each of Foster’s 962 statements in the 119th Congress (765 posts on X, 89 press releases, 68 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Foster
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion727 statements
76%
73%
87th of 216
Policy criticism342 statements
36%
28%
43rd of 216
Credit claiming216 statements
22%
23%
107th of 216
Bipartisanship104 statements
11%
10%
68th of 216
Personal attacks76 statements
8%
7%
67th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Foster | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 76% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 36% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 22% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 11% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 8% | 7% |
962
statements classified
765 posts on X, 89 press releases, 68 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 765 |
| press releases | 89 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 68 |
| newsletters | 40 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Foster; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Foster does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Foster used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, 38% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.9%.
- “MAGA”3
- “extreme”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA2
- Republicans1
- Smithsonian1
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 42 | 16.7% | 26.2% | 69.0% | 7.1% | 19.1% | 4.8% |
| Feb ’25 | 59 | 13.6% | 49.1% | 83.0% | 5.1% | 28.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 69 | 14.5% | 36.2% | 72.5% | 4.3% | 15.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 51 | 7.8% | 35.3% | 70.6% | 5.9% | 25.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 43 | 4.7% | 41.9% | 69.8% | 14.0% | 25.6% | 2.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 36 | 11.1% | 30.6% | 80.6% | 13.9% | 13.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 42 | 14.3% | 45.2% | 78.6% | 9.5% | 33.3% | 2.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 27 | 7.4% | 44.4% | 70.4% | 0.0% | 14.8% | 3.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 52 | 7.7% | 42.3% | 76.9% | 28.8% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 49 | 4.1% | 38.8% | 63.3% | 16.3% | 18.4% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 36 | 5.6% | 41.7% | 72.2% | 11.1% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 26.7% | 70.0% | 13.3% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 51 | 11.8% | 27.5% | 88.2% | 11.8% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 58 | 6.9% | 44.8% | 81.0% | 22.4% | 25.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 42.9% | 71.4% | 12.2% | 20.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 51 | 9.8% | 33.3% | 78.4% | 3.9% | 11.8% | 2.0% |
| May ’26 | 34 | 8.8% | 17.6% | 64.7% | 11.8% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 47 | 2.1% | 23.4% | 72.3% | 8.5% | 31.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 47 | 6.4% | 31.9% | 80.8% | 2.1% | 27.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 35 | 8.6% | 28.6% | 80.0% | 11.4% | 17.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 38 | 0.0% | 34.2% | 84.2% | 10.5% | 13.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 81.3% | 12.5% | 18.8% | 6.3% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Foster’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Republicans · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Trump, RFK Jr.Source
Press releases
Foster Introduces Bill to Curb Political Self-Branding on Federal Buildings and Programs Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) led 19 of his colleagues in introducing the Federal Naming Standards Act. This legislation would prevent federal buildings, facilities, and programs from being named after elected officials or political appointees until at least 10 years after they leave office. Even beyond t…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 962 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: 765 posts on X, 89 press releases, 68 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Foster talks about most: 19% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 150th of 216).
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 Foster talks about. The bills Foster sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Foster talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Foster
Peers
Economics and Public Finance141 statements
19%
20%
Health136 statements
19%
26%
Science, Technology, Communications131 statements
18%
6%
Armed Forces and National Security128 statements
18%
16%
Government Operations and Politics110 statements
15%
20%
Show the data
| Row | Foster | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 20% |
| Health | 19% | 26% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 18% | 6% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 16% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 20% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Foster’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. 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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Health | 19% | 26% | 10% | 16% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 18% | 6% | 6% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 16% | 6% | 7% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 20% | 9% | 11% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 150th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Foster legislates on exactly the areas Foster 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 Foster sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Foster sits at −1.25 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 85% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.26 to −1.24, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,953 donors and 7,503 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”.
−1.25
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.26 to −1.24. From 3,953 donors and 7,503 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Foster, 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 Foster’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 Foster sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Foster |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 15% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 7% |
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 Foster 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 Foster.
Money
Foster raised $2.6M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 10% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 43% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.
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.
$2.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 829 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$1.3M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)6 squares$151.7K
- PACs and other committees38 squares$990.5K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$114.7K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.3M | 51.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $151.7K | 5.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $990.5K | 38.3% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $114.7K | 4.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $2.4M |
| 2022 cycle | $3.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $3.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $2.6M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 43% came from Illinois.
- Illinois$467.0K
- California$187.8K
- Massachusetts$109.5K
- New York$86.6K
- Maryland$32.2K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Foster
Median
2026
10%
13%
2024
12%
13%
2022
15%
13%
2020
17%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Foster | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 10% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 12% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 15% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 17% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Illinois | $467.0K |
| California | $187.8K |
| Massachusetts | $109.5K |
| New York | $86.6K |
| Maryland | $32.2K |
| New Jersey | $18.7K |
| Pennsylvania | $17.4K |
| Florida | $17.2K |
| Wisconsin | $14.8K |
| Texas | $12.8K |
| Connecticut | $10.4K |
| District of Columbia | $10.3K |
| Virginia | $8,175 |
| Utah | $7,210 |
| New Mexico | $7,135 |
| Tennessee | $6,265 |
| Arizona | $6,100 |
| Oregon | $5,820 |
| North Carolina | $5,600 |
| Washington | $4,950 |
| Vermont | $4,750 |
| Michigan | $3,900 |
| Ohio | $3,875 |
| Nevada | $3,800 |
| Alaska | $3,500 |
| Montana | $3,500 |
| Indiana | $3,173 |
| Rhode Island | $2,600 |
| Georgia | $2,550 |
| Missouri | $1,500 |
| Mississippi | $1,500 |
| New Hampshire | $1,275 |
| Alabama | $1,150 |
| Iowa | $800 |
| Colorado | $800 |
| Kansas | $600 |
| Louisiana | $600 |
| South Carolina | $400 |
| Delaware | $250 |
| Hawaii | $250 |
| Arkansas | $100 |
| Maine | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
829
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
43%
from Illinois
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 Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.3% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 19% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 57% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 18% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.7% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.5% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.1% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.4% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 1.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.8% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Foster’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Foster’s own score is −1.25.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$334.6K 314 donors
- RETIRED$142.3K 132 donors
- PROFESSOR$109.0K 97 donors
- ATTORNEY$87.4K 43 donors
- SCIENTIST$45.7K 39 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BOSTON UNIVERSITY$23.0K 4 donors
- CALTECH$18.4K 5 donors
- HARVARD UNIVERSITY$11.6K 6 donors
- BLACKSTONE$10.5K 3 donors
- ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY$9,100 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Foster voted with the majority of House Democrats on 96.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Foster voted against the majority of House Democrats 16 times.
674 roll calls Foster could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Foster voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
16
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 96.8%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 145th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Foster, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Foster
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.9%
49th of 217
Party unity
96.8%
96.4%
145th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Foster | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.4% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 96.8% | 96.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Foster most often
- Kelly MorrisonD665 shared votes99%
- Mike QuigleyD641 shared votes98%
- Salud CarbajalD662 shared votes98%
- Julia BrownleyD647 shared votes98%
- Johnny OlszewskiD664 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Foster least often
- Chip RoyR631 shared votes17%
- Ralph NormanR592 shared votes19%
- Andy BiggsR603 shared votes19%
- Keith SelfR655 shared votes19%
- Eric BurlisonR638 shared votes19%
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
Legislation
Foster sponsored 38 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 272 others. 2.6% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 117th of 207).
The bills Foster 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 38 | 38 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 272 | 272 | 17 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Foster sponsored, ochre blocks bills Foster cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
2.6%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 117th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Foster, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton26
- Sean Casten22
- Mike Quigley19
- Jan Schakowsky16
- Chuy García15
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 Foster’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10642 | STS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and 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. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10600 | Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.R. 10448 | Reverse Big Ugly Tax Breaks for Data Centers Act | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.J.Res. 215 | Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security relating to "Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigr | Cosponsor | Sep 14, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 14, 2026 |
| H.R. 10298 | Public Service Loan Forgiveness Inclusion Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 4, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 4, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 47 times in 90 days. Foster’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Foster posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Foster’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 Foster posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 27
pages crawled
47changes in 90 days
- 22
pages crawled
22changes 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.
Social accounts
- XRepBillFoster
- FacebookCongressmanBillFoster
- YouTubeRepBillFoster
- Emailil11bfima@mail.house.gov
Images Foster posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Two men pose for a photograph at an indoor event in front of sheriff’s office promotional banners. The image contains text.View post 
Three adults pose behind an event information table, with a company banner and promotional materials displayed around them. There is text on the banner, papers, and other items.View post 
A group of six adults pose behind a blue information table at an employment event. The table has brochures, a water bottle, and pink survey signs. There is text on the tablecloth, signs, and wall.View post 
Two older men converse beside an association booth at an indoor event. The booth displays promotional banners, brochures, and a tablecloth with a logo. There is visible text on the signs and materials.View post 
A blue graphic featuring a photograph of a domed government building and an American flag, alongside a large score and promotional text. A Human Rights Campaign logo appears at the bottom left.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.
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 Foster is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
- F000454
- Bioguide
- F000454
- FEC candidate ids
- H2IL11124, H8IL14067
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