Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Pennsylvania

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide F000479FEC S6PA00274

Portrait of John Fetterman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
163
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 79%, the lowest of 45 Senate Democrats (average 95.3%). 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Fetterman voted with the majority of Senate Democrats; it is ranked among Senate Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Fetterman voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. 1.4% of Fetterman’s statements contain a personal attack, the lowest of 45 Senate Democrats (average 11%). 19% of Fetterman’s statements criticize a policy, the lowest of 45 Senate Democrats (average 37%).

The measures on which Fetterman sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Party unity

79%

Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 45th of 45 · 163 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Personal attacks

1.4%

Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 45th of 45

Policy criticism

19%

Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 45th of 45

Policy discussion

63%

Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 43rd of 45

Attendance

93.5%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 42nd of 45 · 915 roll calls

CSIP ideology

−0.86

More conservative than 90% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Fetterman says

Fetterman attacks opponents personally less than any other Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 1.4% of 694 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 45th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Fetterman’s 694 statements in the 119th Congress (526 posts on X, 159 press releases, 7 newsletters, 2 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Fetterman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion437 statements
63%
78%
43rd of 45
Credit claiming184 statements
27%
26%
22nd of 45
Bipartisanship148 statements
21%
18%
14th of 45
Policy criticism134 statements
19%
37%
45th of 45
Personal attacks10 statements
1%
11%
45th of 45
Show the data
Fetterman's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowFettermanPeers
Policy discussion63%78%
Credit claiming27%26%
Bipartisanship21%18%
Policy criticism19%37%
Personal attacks1%11%
694

statements classified

526 posts on X, 159 press releases, 7 newsletters, 2 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 526 (75.8%)posts on X 526press releases: 159 (22.9%)press releases 159newsletters: 7 (1.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 2 (0.3%)
Show the data
Fetterman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X526
press releases159
newsletters7
Congressional Record speeches2
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Fetterman used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at abortion restrictions; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”5
  2. “communist”1
  3. “fascist”1
  4. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. abortion restrictions1
  2. birthright citizenship1
  3. dirtbag left1
  4. Form PF1
  5. Hamas1
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: 372025-02: 282025-03: 392025-04: 532025-05: 532025-06: 472025-07: 392025-08: 192025-09: 392025-10: 382025-11: 232025-12: 212026-01: 242026-02: 262026-03: 462026-04: 262026-05: 252026-06: 242026-07: 332026-08: 122026-09: 332026-10: 9peak 53 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 8.3% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.7% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.9% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-01: 8.3% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-02: 7.7% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-06: 8.3% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 35.1% · Jan ’25 · latest 12.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 35.1% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-02: 32.1% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.9% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-04: 30.2% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-05: 15.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-06: 19.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-07: 23.1% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-09: 12.8% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-10: 28.9% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-11: 17.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-12: 4.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-01: 8.3% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-02: 26.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.1% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-04: 19.2% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-05: 12.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-06: 12.5% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-07: 6.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-08: 8.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-09: 12.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 83.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 78.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 67.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.0% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-03: 48.7% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-04: 71.7% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.1% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.1% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-07: 71.8% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-08: 21.1% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-09: 53.8% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-10: 71.0% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-11: 47.8% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-12: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-01: 75.0% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-02: 61.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-03: 58.7% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.1% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-05: 52.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-06: 37.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-07: 54.5% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-08: 83.3% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-09: 78.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 34.6% · Apr ’26 · latest 18.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 21.6% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.7% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 22.6% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 24.5% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 25.5% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 25.6% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 20.5% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 34.2% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.7% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 14.3% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 26.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 19.6% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 34.6% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 24.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 24.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 16.7% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 18.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 39.4% · Jul ’26 · latest 33.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 32.4% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-02: 28.6% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-03: 12.8% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.2% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-05: 26.4% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-06: 25.5% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.1% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-08: 15.8% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-09: 20.5% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-10: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-11: 26.1% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-12: 9.5% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-02: 38.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.1% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-04: 30.8% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-05: 32.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.5% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-07: 39.4% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-08: 8.3% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-09: 33.3% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 9.1% · Jul ’26 · latest 3.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.6% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.1% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-07: 9.1% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-09: 3.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Fetterman, 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 ’25370.0%35.1%67.6%21.6%32.4%0.0%
Feb ’25280.0%32.1%75.0%21.4%28.6%0.0%
Mar ’25397.7%17.9%48.7%7.7%12.8%2.6%
Apr ’25530.0%30.2%71.7%22.6%30.2%1.9%
May ’25531.9%15.1%64.1%24.5%26.4%0.0%
Jun ’25470.0%19.1%68.1%25.5%25.5%0.0%
Jul ’25390.0%23.1%71.8%25.6%23.1%0.0%
Aug ’25190.0%10.5%21.1%10.5%15.8%5.3%
Sep ’25390.0%12.8%53.8%20.5%20.5%5.1%
Oct ’25380.0%28.9%71.0%34.2%26.3%0.0%
Nov ’25230.0%17.4%47.8%8.7%26.1%0.0%
Dec ’25210.0%4.8%61.9%14.3%9.5%0.0%
Jan ’26248.3%8.3%75.0%4.2%16.7%4.2%
Feb ’26267.7%26.9%61.5%26.9%38.5%0.0%
Mar ’26460.0%26.1%58.7%19.6%26.1%0.0%
Apr ’26260.0%19.2%73.1%34.6%30.8%0.0%
May ’26250.0%12.0%52.0%24.0%32.0%0.0%
Jun ’26248.3%12.5%37.5%29.2%37.5%4.2%
Jul ’26330.0%6.1%54.5%24.2%39.4%9.1%
Aug ’26120.0%8.3%83.3%16.7%8.3%0.0%
Sep ’26330.0%12.1%78.8%18.2%33.3%3.0%
Oct ’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)
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%. One month is hatched here.

In Fetterman’s words

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

Policy criticism

Fetterman Statement in Support of Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Strike BRADDOCK, PA — In announcing his support for the Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 members who are on strike at Lloyd Industries in Montgomery Township, U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) released the following statement: “Proud to st…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Labor and Employment · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jun 14, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: unknown · Source

Extreme label

ICYMI: In Letter to SEC and CFTC, Fetterman Urges Private Credit Market Transparency WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) penned a July letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) urging them to begin enforcing an existing…

Sep 14, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Finance and Financial Sector; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Form PF · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: unknownSource

  2. Press releases

    Fetterman Urges FinCEN Rulemaking for Antiquities Industry WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) penned a letter to U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to propagate rulemaking requiring antiquities dealers to comply with anti-money-laundering laws. “I am very concerned that looted antiquities are helping fund the Iranian…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Finance and Financial Sector · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · target: Eugene Alexander, Michael WardSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Francesca AlbaneseSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Muhammad al-HabilSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: Kristi NoemSource

All 694 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: 526 posts on X, 159 press releases, 7 newsletters, 2 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Fetterman talks about most: 27% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 18th of 45).

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 Fetterman talks about. The bills Fetterman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Fetterman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Fetterman
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security119 statements
27%
21%
International Affairs80 statements
18%
12%
Health74 statements
17%
27%
Government Operations and Politics63 statements
14%
22%
Agriculture and Food60 statements
14%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Fetterman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowFettermanPeers
Armed Forces and National Security27%21%
International Affairs18%12%
Health17%27%
Government Operations and Politics14%22%
Agriculture and Food14%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Fetterman’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 27% (Senate Democrats 21%)27%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 18% (Senate Democrats 12%)18%International Affairs, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 8%)6%HealthHealth, talks about: 17% (Senate Democrats 27%)17%Health, legislates on: 12% (Senate Democrats 14%)12%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 22%)14%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (Senate Democrats 9%)9%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 9%)14%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 16% (Senate Democrats 5%)16%
Show the data
Fetterman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security27%21%6%7%
International Affairs18%12%6%8%
Health17%27%12%14%
Government Operations and Politics14%22%9%9%
Agriculture and Food14%9%16%5%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 18th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Fetterman sits at −0.86 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 90% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.88 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 67,161 donors and 1,402 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”.

−0.86

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.88 to −0.84. From 67,161 donors and 1,402 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Fetterman −0.9Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Fetterman, 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 Fetterman’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 Fetterman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Fetterman −0.9All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Fetterman's CSIP score of −0.86 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Fetterman
Senate Democrats45−1.189%
All Senate98+0.442%
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 Fetterman 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 Fetterman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Fetterman raised $3.0M in the 2026 cycle, close to the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 32% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 21% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.

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
$3.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 4,068 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (52.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $733.1K (24.8%)PACs and other committees: $40.5K (1.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $641.1K (21.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)25 squares$733.1K
  • PACs and other committees1 squares$40.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)22 squares$641.1K
Show the data
Sources of Fetterman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M52.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$733.1K24.8%
PACs and other committees$40.5K1.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$641.1K21.7%
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $76.3M$76.3M20222024 cycle: $7.4M$7.4M20242026 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Fetterman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$76.3M
2024 cycle$7.4M
2026 cycle$3.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 21% came from Pennsylvania.

  1. New York$356.2K
  2. Pennsylvania$273.5K
  3. California$166.2K
  4. Florida$130.9K
  5. Ohio$46.4K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.

0%60%
Fetterman
Median
2026
32%
35%
2024
62%
35%
2022
55%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowFettermanMedian
2026 cycle32%35%
2024 cycle62%35%
2022 cycle55%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,050AKMaine: $3,950MEVermont: $1,656VTNew Hampshire: $1,630NHWashington: $18.5KWAIdaho: $2,470IDMontana: $441MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $5,488MNIllinois: $10.6KILWisconsin: $3,500WIMichigan: $15.3KMINew York: $356.2KNYRhode Island: $1,493RIMassachusetts: $33.7KMAOregon: $11.2KORNevada: $2,379NVWyoming: $2,640WYSouth Dakota: $175SDIowa: $937IAIndiana: $2,480INOhio: $46.4KOHPennsylvania: $273.5KPANew Jersey: $38.5KNJConnecticut: $8,593CTCalifornia: $166.2KCAUtah: $1,509UTColorado: $19.4KCONebraska: $457NEMissouri: $1,972MOKentucky: $1,060KYWest Virginia: $1,521WVVirginia: $18.5KVAMaryland: $31.4KMDDelaware: $1,550DEArizona: $8,899AZNew Mexico: $3,182NMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: $647ARTennessee: $4,148TNNorth Carolina: $6,049NCSouth Carolina: $1,707SCDistrict of Columbia: $2,508DCOklahoma: $2,556OKLouisiana: $3,440LAMississippi: $1,100MSAlabama: $1,290ALGeorgia: $3,931GAHawaii: $1,789HITexas: $35.8KTXFlorida: $130.9KFL
Show the data
Fetterman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$356.2K
Pennsylvania$273.5K
California$166.2K
Florida$130.9K
Ohio$46.4K
New Jersey$38.5K
Texas$35.8K
Massachusetts$33.7K
Maryland$31.4K
Colorado$19.4K
Washington$18.5K
Virginia$18.5K
Michigan$15.3K
Oregon$11.2K
Illinois$10.6K
Arizona$8,899
Connecticut$8,593
North Carolina$6,049
Minnesota$5,488
Tennessee$4,148
Maine$3,950
Georgia$3,931
Wisconsin$3,500
Louisiana$3,440
New Mexico$3,182
Wyoming$2,640
Oklahoma$2,556
District of Columbia$2,508
Indiana$2,480
Idaho$2,470
Nevada$2,379
Missouri$1,972
Hawaii$1,789
South Carolina$1,707
Vermont$1,656
New Hampshire$1,630
Delaware$1,550
West Virginia$1,521
Utah$1,509
Kansas$1,500
Rhode Island$1,493
Alabama$1,290
Mississippi$1,100
Kentucky$1,060
Alaska$1,050
Iowa$937
Arkansas$647
Nebraska$457
Montana$441
South Dakota$175
North DakotaNo data
4,068

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

21%

from Pennsylvania

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 18%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 49%49%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 7.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.7%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Fetterman's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.00 to +1.25: 18% between −1.25 and −1.00, 49% between −1.00 and −0.75, 5.5% between −0.75 and −0.50, 7.4% between −0.25 and 0.00, 7.3% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0018%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7549%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.007.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.7%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Fetterman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Fetterman’s own score is −0.86.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$491.8K 2,227 donors
  2. RETIRED$94.6K 544 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$90.5K 120 donors
  4. CEO$51.2K 34 donors
  5. INVESTOR$25.5K 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. D.R.I.V.E. - DEM, REP, IND VOTER ED (THE PAC OF THE INT'L BRHD OF TEAMSTERS)$5,000
  2. KTMC FEDERAL PAC$5,000
  3. NO LABELS PAC$5,000
  4. THE HERSHEY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP$24.0K 4 donors
  2. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTE$2,367 7 donors
  3. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY$1,939 5 donors
  4. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$507 3 donors
  5. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA$395 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Fetterman voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 79% of party-line votes and missed 6.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fetterman voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 163 times.

915 roll calls Fetterman could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Fetterman voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

163

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 79%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 45th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Fetterman, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.

70%100%
Fetterman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.5%
97.0%
42nd of 45
Party unity
79%
95.3%
45th of 45
Show the data
Fetterman's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowFettermanPeers
Attendance93.5%97.0%
Party unity79%95.3%
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 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayAgainst majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
NayWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
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 Fetterman most often

  1. Angus King Jr.I842 shared votes86%
  2. Catherine Cortez MastoD840 shared votes86%
  3. Mark WarnerD821 shared votes86%
  4. Maggie HassanD845 shared votes85%
  5. Jacky RosenD845 shared votes85%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Fetterman least often

  1. Rand PaulR818 shared votes19%
  2. Mike LeeR831 shared votes24%
  3. Rick ScottR854 shared votes24%
  4. Tommy TubervilleR800 shared votes24%
  5. Ron JohnsonR844 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

Fetterman sponsored 28 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 408 others. 18% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 12th of 45).

The bills Fetterman 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

Sponsored28 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2828Sponsored, In committee: 2828Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored408 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 408408Cosponsored, In committee: 407407Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5757Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Fetterman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2828200
Cosponsored4084075755
How to read the blocks

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

18%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 12th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Richard Blumenthal111
  2. Cory Booker87
  3. Peter Welch83
  4. Jeff Merkley82
  5. Ron Wyden81
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 Fetterman’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
S. 5657SOS Campus ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5660SUCCESS Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S.J.Res. 220Original Slavery Remembrance Day ResolutionCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 920A resolution expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning, and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 96 times in 90 days. Fetterman’s official site had 40 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Fetterman posted on Oct 13, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Fetterman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A screenshot of a news article page with a large headline about Breeze Airways flying out of Arnold Palmer Regional Airport and replacing Spirit Airlines. A publication logo and menu and profile icons are visible. The image contains text.
    A screenshot of a news article page with a large headline about Breeze Airways flying out of Arnold Palmer Regional Airport and replacing Spirit Airlines. A publication logo and menu and profile icons are visible. The image contains text.View post
  • A group of workers stands outdoors in front of an industrial building, holding a large banner and smaller signs. The banner and signs contain text. Utility poles and overhead wires, trees, and a road are also visible.
    A group of workers stands outdoors in front of an industrial building, holding a large banner and smaller signs. The banner and signs contain text. Utility poles and overhead wires, trees, and a road are also visible.View post
  • A dark news graphic with a large headline on the left and a photo on the right showing several armed men posing in front of a military vehicle. One man is highlighted in red with a label above him. The graphic includes text.
    A dark news graphic with a large headline on the left and a photo on the right showing several armed men posing in front of a military vehicle. One man is highlighted in red with a label above him. The graphic includes text.View post
  • A news-style graphic about a federal judge ordering the Bureau of Prisons to reinstate a correctional officers’ union contract. It includes a blue-and-yellow BOP update illustration with a map of the United States, plus a bold statement about workplace rights and protections. Text is present throughout.
    A news-style graphic about a federal judge ordering the Bureau of Prisons to reinstate a correctional officers’ union contract. It includes a blue-and-yellow BOP update illustration with a map of the United States, plus a bold statement about workplace rights and protections. Text is present throughout.View post
  • A group of adults and young people pose together in an office around a desk. Several are wearing lanyards and name badges. An American flag, windows with blinds, framed signs, a wall light, and a wooden door are visible. There is text on the signs and badges.
    A group of adults and young people pose together in an office around a desk. Several are wearing lanyards and name badges. An American flag, windows with blinds, framed signs, a wall light, and a wooden door are visible. There is text on the signs and badges.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 Fetterman is most unusual among Senate 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
F000479
Bioguide
F000479
FEC candidate ids
S6PA00274

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