Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, South Carolina’s 7th district

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

Bioguide F000478FEC H2SC07280, S6SC04403

Portrait of Russell Fry, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.9×
the House Republican rate of extreme labels

5.8% of 1,288 statements use an extreme label (75 statements); the average for House Republicans is 3.0%. Ranks 31st of 221, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Democrats.

An AI model reads each of Fry’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. 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. 30% of the 20 bills Fry sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of House Republicans. The policy areas Fry talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of House Republicans.

The measures on which Fry 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.

Extreme labels

5.8%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 31st of 221

Out of committee

30%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 34th of 216

Attendance

99.4%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 33rd of 221 · 674 roll calls

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.69

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 39th of 221

Personal attacks

3.5%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 45th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.94

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 Fry, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Fry is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Fry says

Fry stresses bipartisanship less than 73% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 4.5% of 1,288 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 164th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Fry’s 1,288 statements in the 119th Congress (1,138 posts on X, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters, 40 press releases) 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%
Fry
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion823 statements
64%
68%
158th of 221
Credit claiming451 statements
35%
37%
132nd of 221
Policy criticism218 statements
17%
15%
71st of 221
Bipartisanship58 statements
5%
9%
164th of 221
Personal attacks45 statements
3%
2%
45th of 221
Show the data
Fry's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowFryPeers
Policy discussion64%68%
Credit claiming35%37%
Policy criticism17%15%
Bipartisanship5%9%
Personal attacks3%2%
1,288

statements classified

1,138 posts on X, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters, 40 press releases.

posts on X: 1,138 (88.4%)posts on X 1,138Congressional Record speeches: 67 (5.2%)newsletters: 43 (3.3%)press releases: 40 (3.1%)
Show the data
Fry's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,138
Congressional Record speeches67
newsletters43
press releases40
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Fry used extreme labels in 5.8% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 75 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”18
  2. “woke”9
  3. “extreme”8
  4. “far left”5
  5. “communist”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats12
  2. Left4
  3. far-left3
  4. progressives3
  5. radical left3
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: 782025-02: 692025-03: 742025-04: 362025-05: 692025-06: 572025-07: 782025-08: 602025-09: 762025-10: 742025-11: 562025-12: 652026-01: 672026-02: 702026-03: 652026-04: 512026-05: 472026-06: 492026-07: 342026-08: 182026-09: 522026-10: 43peak 78 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 10.8% · Oct ’25 · latest 2.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 5.1% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-02: 4.3% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.8% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.8% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-10: 10.8% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.1% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-04: 9.8% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-06: 4.1% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-07: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.6% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.3% of 43Policy criticismpeak 36.9% · Mar ’26 · latest 2.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 16.7% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-02: 14.5% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.5% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-04: 8.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-05: 13.0% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-06: 8.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-07: 14.1% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-08: 11.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-09: 22.4% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.7% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-11: 23.2% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-12: 13.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.5% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-02: 30.0% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-03: 36.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-04: 15.7% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-05: 29.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-06: 20.4% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-07: 5.9% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-09: 11.5% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.3% of 43Policy discussionpeak 94.4% · Aug ’26 · latest 93.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 48.7% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-02: 47.8% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-03: 63.5% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-04: 50.0% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.2% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-07: 60.3% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-08: 68.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-09: 56.6% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-10: 48.6% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-11: 51.8% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-02: 70.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-03: 70.8% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.3% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-06: 53.1% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-07: 44.1% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-08: 94.4% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.0% of 43Bipartisanshippeak 13.9% · Dec ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.9% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.2% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.1% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.6% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.6% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.9% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 1.3% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.7% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 13.9% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.0% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.1% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.9% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 12.8% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 2.0% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Credit claimingpeak 52.3% · Dec ’25 · latest 51.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 38.5% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-02: 46.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-03: 29.7% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.6% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-05: 43.5% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-06: 29.8% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-07: 43.6% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-08: 48.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-09: 31.6% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-10: 24.3% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-11: 25.0% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-12: 52.3% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-01: 43.3% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-02: 42.9% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.7% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-04: 29.4% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-05: 17.0% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-06: 18.4% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-07: 17.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-08: 5.6% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-09: 34.6% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-10: 51.2% of 43Extreme labelspeak 16.3% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 11.5% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.2% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.8% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.3% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-06: 8.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.3% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.3% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.1% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-11: 5.4% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.1% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.9% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.1% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-04: 5.9% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-05: 14.9% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-06: 16.3% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-08: 11.1% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-09: 7.7% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Fry, 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 ’25785.1%16.7%48.7%3.9%38.5%11.5%
Feb ’25694.3%14.5%47.8%7.2%46.4%7.2%
Mar ’25741.4%13.5%63.5%8.1%29.7%6.8%
Apr ’25362.8%8.3%50.0%5.6%30.6%2.8%
May ’25691.5%13.0%65.2%11.6%43.5%4.3%
Jun ’25578.8%8.8%66.7%5.3%29.8%8.8%
Jul ’25780.0%14.1%60.3%3.9%43.6%2.6%
Aug ’25603.3%11.7%68.3%0.0%48.3%3.3%
Sep ’25760.0%22.4%56.6%1.3%31.6%5.3%
Oct ’257410.8%29.7%48.6%2.7%24.3%8.1%
Nov ’25567.1%23.2%51.8%0.0%25.0%5.4%
Dec ’25653.1%13.9%75.4%13.9%52.3%3.1%
Jan ’26673.0%4.5%79.1%3.0%43.3%0.0%
Feb ’26700.0%30.0%70.0%0.0%42.9%2.9%
Mar ’26650.0%36.9%70.8%3.1%27.7%3.1%
Apr ’26519.8%15.7%82.3%3.9%29.4%5.9%
May ’26474.3%29.8%66.0%12.8%17.0%14.9%
Jun ’26494.1%20.4%53.1%2.0%18.4%16.3%
Jul ’26342.9%5.9%44.1%2.9%17.6%0.0%
Aug ’26185.6%0.0%94.4%0.0%5.6%11.1%
Sep ’26520.0%11.5%76.9%3.9%34.6%7.7%
Oct ’26432.3%2.3%93.0%0.0%51.2%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Fry’s words

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

Personal attacks

Russell's Recap: October 22, 2026 Welcome back to Russell's Recap! Dear Friends, Welcome back to another edition of Russell's Recap – a recap of our office's work to serve the Grand Strand and Pee Dee here at home and in Washington. Enews Sign Up<https://fry.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=…

Oct 22, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Water Resources Development; target: Jack Smith

Bipartisanship

Rep. Fry Votes to Bring $80 Nearly Million in Federal Funding to Grand Strand, Pee Dee WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Russell Fry (SC-07) voted to advance H.R. 9497, the Water Resources Development Act of 2026 (WRDA). The House-passed version of the bill authorizes and modifies water…

Sep 17, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Extreme label

Russell's Recap: September 29, 2026 Welcome back to Russell's Recap! Dear Friends, Welcome back to another edition of Russell's Recap – a recap of our office's work to serve the Grand Strand and Pee Dee here at home and in Washington. Enews Sign Up<https://fry.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?I…

Sep 29, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Environmental Protection; Health; Water Resources Development; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “far left, communist” aimed at far-left

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. Newsletters

    Russell's Recap: October 22, 2026 Welcome back to Russell's Recap! Dear Friends, Welcome back to another edition of Russell's Recap – a recap of our office's work to serve the Grand Strand and Pee Dee here at home and in Washington. Enews Sign Up<https://fry.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=2154-637527> | Visit My Website<https://fry.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=2155-637527> | View Online<https://f…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · Water Resources Development · target: Jack Smith

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: David SimpsonSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: US SenatorSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · credit claiming · target: Herbert KimbleSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the Mexican cartels have never had better lobbyists than the Democrat politicians across the aisle who insisted that nothing was wrong for years. As our communities were flooded, Democrats told the American people not to believe their own eyes, not to see the rising crime and the melees and the fracturing and the problems in every community across this…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · target: Democrat politiciansSource

All 1,288 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,138 posts on X, 67 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters, 40 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Crime and Law Enforcement is what Fry talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 39th 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 Fry talks about. The bills Fry sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Fry talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Fry
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement210 statements
26%
12%
Immigration185 statements
23%
13%
Government Operations and Politics151 statements
18%
19%
Economics and Public Finance137 statements
17%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security129 statements
16%
24%
Show the data
Policy areas Fry talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowFryPeers
Crime and Law Enforcement26%12%
Immigration23%13%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Fry’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onCrime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 12%)26%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 26% (House Republicans 9%)26%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 13%)23%Immigration, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 5%)9%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 12%)8%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 24%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%
Show the data
Fry's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Crime and Law Enforcement26%12%26%9%
Immigration23%13%9%5%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%8%12%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%1%2%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%7%8%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 39th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Fry sits at +0.94 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 61% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.92 to +0.96, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,325 donors and 2,452 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

+0.94

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.92 to +0.96. From 1,325 donors and 2,452 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Fry +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Fry, 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 Fry’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 Fry sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Fry +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Fry's CSIP score of +0.94 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Fry
House Republicans221+1.039%
All House439+0.369%
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 Fry 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 Fry.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Fry raised $3.5M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 5.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 69% of itemized individual money came from South Carolina.

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
$3.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 508 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.9M (54.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $108.0K (3.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $108.0K (3.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $108.0K (3.1%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)PACs and other committees: $959.2K (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $521.5K (15.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)54 squares$1.9M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$108.0K
  • PACs and other committees28 squares$959.2K
  • Party committees$250
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)15 squares$521.5K
Show the data
Sources of Fry's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.9M54.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$108.0K3.1%
PACs and other committees$959.2K27.5%
Party committees$2500.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$521.5K15.0%
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: $1.4M$1.4M20222024 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20242026 cycle: $3.5M$3.5M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Fry's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1.4M
2024 cycle$1.5M
2026 cycle$3.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 69% came from South Carolina.

  1. South Carolina$792.9K
  2. District of Columbia$80.2K
  3. Virginia$73.3K
  4. Florida$55.7K
  5. North Carolina$31.6K

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%
Fry
Median
2026
5%
9%
2024
5%
9%
2022
6%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowFryMedian
2026 cycle5%9%
2024 cycle5%9%
2022 cycle6%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $184MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $46NHWashington: $237WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $500ILWisconsin: $6,500WIMichigan: $7,026MINew York: $10.6KNYRhode Island: $415RIMassachusetts: $1,000MAOregon: $237ORNevada: $1,250NVWyoming: $7,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,047INOhio: $2,150OHPennsylvania: $1,762PANew Jersey: $1,011NJConnecticut: $158CTCalifornia: $21.3KCAUtah: $2,000UTColorado: $2,138CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $2,616KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $73.3KVAMaryland: $22.8KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: $237NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $250TNNorth Carolina: $31.6KNCSouth Carolina: $792.9KSCDistrict of Columbia: $80.2KDCOklahoma: $737OKLouisiana: $477LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $3,025ALGeorgia: $7,202GAHawaii: $500HITexas: $15.0KTXFlorida: $55.7KFL
Show the data
Fry's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
South Carolina$792.9K
District of Columbia$80.2K
Virginia$73.3K
Florida$55.7K
North Carolina$31.6K
Maryland$22.8K
California$21.3K
Texas$15.0K
New York$10.6K
Georgia$7,202
Michigan$7,026
Wyoming$7,000
Wisconsin$6,500
Alabama$3,025
Kentucky$2,616
Ohio$2,150
Colorado$2,138
Utah$2,000
Pennsylvania$1,762
Nevada$1,250
Indiana$1,047
New Jersey$1,011
Massachusetts$1,000
Oklahoma$737
Illinois$500
Hawaii$500
Louisiana$477
Rhode Island$415
Tennessee$250
Washington$237
Oregon$237
New Mexico$237
Maine$184
Connecticut$158
New Hampshire$46
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
MississippiNo data
508

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

69%

from South Carolina

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.0%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 78%78%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 6.0%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Fry's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 9.7% between +0.50 and +0.75, 78% between +0.75 and +1.00, 6.0% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.0%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0078%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.256.0%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Fry’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Fry’s own score is +0.94.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$105.8K 88 donors
  2. CONSULTANT$78.0K 39 donors
  3. HOMEMAKER$58.5K 10 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$54.7K 15 donors
  5. OWNER$52.0K 28 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS PAC$15.0K
  2. AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC$13.5K
  3. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$12.5K
  4. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$11.0K
  5. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SOUTHERN CROWN PARTNERS$40.1K 12 donors
  2. TODD STRATEGY GROUP$14.5K 6 donors
  3. THORN RUN PARTNERS$11.3K 6 donors
  4. BGR$8,000 3 donors
  5. MCLEOD HEALTH$4,770 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Fry voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fry voted against the majority of House Republicans 45 times.

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

45

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 89th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Fry
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.3%
33rd of 221
Party unity
98.5%
97.1%
89th of 221
Show the data
Fry's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowFryPeers
Attendance99.4%96.3%
Party unity98.5%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Fry most often

  1. Clay FullerR203 shared votes98%
  2. Mark E. GreenR170 shared votes98%
  3. Ben ClineR662 shared votes98%
  4. Wesley HuntR511 shared votes97%
  5. Mike Collins Jr.R655 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Fry least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD385 shared votes20%
  2. Rashida TlaibD653 shared votes20%
  3. Delia RamirezD636 shared votes21%
  4. Frederica WilsonD478 shared votes21%
  5. Gregorio CasarD572 shared votes21%
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

Fry sponsored 20 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 203 others. 30% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 34th of 216).

The bills Fry 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

Sponsored20 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2020Sponsored, In committee: 2020Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored203 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 203203Cosponsored, In committee: 203203Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2626Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Fry sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2020411
Cosponsored2032032611
How to read the blocks

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

30%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 34th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Barry Moore24
  2. Buddy Carter19
  3. Sheri Biggs18
  4. Pat Harrigan16
  5. Randy Weber Sr.16
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 Fry’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. 10668EASE ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 3, 2026
H.Res. 1497Commemorating the 13 United States servicemembers killed at Abbey Gate during and as a result of President Biden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.CosponsorAug 27, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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. Aug 27, 2026
H.Res. 1451Recognizing Charleston as the appropriate host city for the 2027 annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly.CosponsorJul 23, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Jul 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 29 times in 90 days. Fry’s official site had 23 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Fry posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    fry.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    23

    pages crawled

    29

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    russellfrysc.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    6

    pages crawled

    11

    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 Fry posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political infographic on a dark blue background with a thin gold border. It features a large dollar amount, a claim about taxpayer money going to deceased people, and a short warning. A congressman’s campaign logo and a source citation appear along the bottom.
    A political infographic on a dark blue background with a thin gold border. It features a large dollar amount, a claim about taxpayer money going to deceased people, and a short warning. A congressman’s campaign logo and a source citation appear along the bottom.View post
  • A navy, gold, red, and white promotional flyer announcing that applications are open for nominations to U.S. service academies. It lists four academies and their locations, shows a deadline banner, and includes a congressman’s logo and an application website. Text is prominent throughout.
    A navy, gold, red, and white promotional flyer announcing that applications are open for nominations to U.S. service academies. It lists four academies and their locations, shows a deadline banner, and includes a congressman’s logo and an application website. Text is prominent throughout.View post
  • A promotional graphic for a congressional app challenge. The top shows a group of people posing outside the U.S. Capitol, with a large deadline announcement overlaid. The lower section contains event and congressman logos, eligibility information, and a registration prompt.
    A promotional graphic for a congressional app challenge. The top shows a group of people posing outside the U.S. Capitol, with a large deadline announcement overlaid. The lower section contains event and congressman logos, eligibility information, and a registration prompt.View post
  • A dark blue official-looking pledge document with a seal near the top right, several paragraphs and a numbered list, and two signatures at the bottom. It discusses fighting fraud in benefit programs.
    A dark blue official-looking pledge document with a seal near the top right, several paragraphs and a numbered list, and two signatures at the bottom. It discusses fighting fraud in benefit programs.View post
  • A political-style graphic on a dark blue background shows a red queue display above a large numbered ticket. Bold text at the bottom contrasts the American dream with the socialist dream.
    A political-style graphic on a dark blue background shows a red queue display above a large numbered ticket. Bold text at the bottom contrasts the American dream with the socialist dream.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 Fry 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
F000478
Bioguide
F000478
FEC candidate ids
H2SC07280, S6SC04403

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