Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Missouri’s 6th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2001119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide G000546FEC H0MO06073

Portrait of Sam Graves, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
19%
of itemized money from Missouri donors, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

19% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Missouri. Ranks 197th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 272 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Missouri, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Graves missed 7.0% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 96.3%). 14% of Graves’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.5 times the House Republican average of 8.9%.

The measures on which Graves 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.

From Missouri, 2026

19%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 197th of 216 House Republicans

Attendance

93.0%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 196th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Party unity

99.3%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 37th of 221 · 7 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Bipartisanship

14%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 44th of 221

Policy criticism

19%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 52nd of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.92

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Graves says

Graves attacks opponents personally less than 67% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 395 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 150th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Graves’s 395 statements in the 119th Congress (160 posts on X, 125 Congressional Record speeches, 67 newsletters, 43 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%
Graves
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion269 statements
68%
68%
117th of 221
Credit claiming178 statements
45%
37%
63rd of 221
Policy criticism76 statements
19%
15%
52nd of 221
Bipartisanship54 statements
14%
9%
44th of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
1%
2%
150th of 221
Show the data
Graves's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowGravesPeers
Policy discussion68%68%
Credit claiming45%37%
Policy criticism19%15%
Bipartisanship14%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
395

statements classified

160 posts on X, 125 Congressional Record speeches, 67 newsletters, 43 press releases.

posts on X: 160 (40.5%)posts on X 160Congressional Record speeches: 125 (31.6%)Congressional Record speeches 125newsletters: 67 (17.0%)press releases: 43 (10.9%)
Show the data
Graves's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X160
Congressional Record speeches125
newsletters67
press releases43
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Graves used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, below the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Biden Administration; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”3
  2. “far left”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden Administration1
  2. border policies1
  3. Chuck Schumer1
  4. far-left base1
  5. Green Deal1
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: 532025-02: 142025-03: 142025-04: 92025-05: 142025-06: 252025-07: 222025-08: 142025-09: 192025-10: 252025-11: 292025-12: 392026-01: 162026-02: 282026-03: 182026-04: 182026-05: 122026-06: 62026-07: 102026-08: 12026-09: 32026-10: 6peak 53 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 7.1% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.1% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 42.9% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 22.6% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.7% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-03: 42.9% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-05: 21.4% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-06: 8.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.6% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-08: 28.6% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-09: 31.6% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-10: 32.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.7% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-12: 17.9% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-01: 25.0% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-03: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-04: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-05: 16.7% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-07: 0.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 92.9% · Aug ’25 · latest 60.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 52.8% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-02: 71.4% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-03: 85.7% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-05: 71.4% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.1% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-08: 92.9% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-09: 68.4% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-11: 79.3% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-12: 59.0% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.3% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-02: 57.1% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.2% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-04: 50.0% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.0% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-07: 60.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 50.0% · May ’26 · latest 10.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 20.8% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 14.3% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 21.4% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 20.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 22.7% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.3% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 15.8% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.9% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.3% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.7% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.6% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 16.7% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 50.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 85.7% · Mar ’25 · latest 30.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 32.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-02: 71.4% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-03: 85.7% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-05: 64.3% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-07: 40.9% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-08: 78.6% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-09: 47.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-10: 40.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-12: 43.6% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-01: 68.8% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-02: 42.9% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-03: 38.9% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-04: 33.3% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-07: 30.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 8.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-03: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-11: 6.9% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Graves, 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 ’25530.0%22.6%52.8%20.8%32.1%0.0%
Feb ’25147.1%35.7%71.4%14.3%71.4%7.1%
Mar ’25140.0%42.9%85.7%21.4%85.7%7.1%
Apr ’259— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
May ’25140.0%21.4%71.4%0.0%64.3%0.0%
Jun ’25250.0%8.0%68.0%20.0%28.0%0.0%
Jul ’25220.0%13.6%59.1%22.7%40.9%0.0%
Aug ’25140.0%28.6%92.9%14.3%78.6%0.0%
Sep ’25190.0%31.6%68.4%15.8%47.4%5.3%
Oct ’25254.0%32.0%76.0%4.0%40.0%8.0%
Nov ’25290.0%20.7%79.3%6.9%34.5%6.9%
Dec ’25390.0%17.9%59.0%10.3%43.6%0.0%
Jan ’26160.0%25.0%81.3%0.0%68.8%0.0%
Feb ’26280.0%14.3%57.1%10.7%42.9%0.0%
Mar ’26180.0%5.6%72.2%5.6%38.9%0.0%
Apr ’26180.0%5.6%50.0%16.7%33.3%0.0%
May ’26120.0%16.7%75.0%50.0%50.0%0.0%
Jun ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’26100.0%0.0%60.0%10.0%30.0%0.0%
Aug ’261— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’263— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 5 months are hatched here.

In Graves’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Graves' Water Resources Bill Passes House Image September 17, 2026 WASHINGTON, DC – The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved H.R. 9497, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2026, a bipartisan bill that addresses improvements for the nation’s ports and harbors, inland waterway na…

Sep 17, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Emergency Management; Environmental Protection · Source

Personal attacks

Schumer's Senseless Shutdown Continues | Dear Friend, For a 10th time, Senator Schumer and his caucus voted again to keep the government shut down, not pay our troops, and deny our seniors the Medicare telehealth benefits they've earned. Meanwhile, leftwing radicals will host protests this weekend…

Oct 17, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at leftists; target: Chuck Schumer

Extreme label

A Common Sense Rule for Farmers and Builders | | | | | | | November 25, 2025 | | Dear Friend, For too long, we've been kicking around "WOTUS." Short for "waters of the United States," it was originally supposed to lay out what was regulated under the Clean Water Act. However, the Obama Administrati…

Nov 25, 2025 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “radical” aimed at Biden Administration

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

    Schumer's Senseless Shutdown Continues | Dear Friend, For a 10th time, Senator Schumer and his caucus voted again to keep the government shut down, not pay our troops, and deny our seniors the Medicare telehealth benefits they've earned. Meanwhile, leftwing radicals will host protests this weekend to praise them for "standing up" to President Trump. The only problem is, they aren't "standing up" at all; they're tryi…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · extreme label “radical” aimed at leftists · target: Chuck Schumer

  2. Newsletters

    Shut It Down News from Representative Graves Website Meet Sam Legislation News Services 6th District Contact Sam February 13, 2025 E-mail Updates Yes, please periodically send me e-mail updates. * *By subscribing to my e-mail updates, you are authorizing me to send regular e-mail updates from my office to your e- mail account. Dear Friend, The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been a ces…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Government Operations and Politics

All 395 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: 160 posts on X, 125 Congressional Record speeches, 67 newsletters, 43 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Transportation and Public Works is what Graves talks about most: 41% of policy statements, 5.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 124th 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 Graves talks about. The bills Graves sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Graves talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%45%
Graves
Peers
Transportation and Public Works109 statements
41%
7%
Armed Forces and National Security82 statements
30%
24%
Government Operations and Politics74 statements
28%
19%
Economics and Public Finance34 statements
13%
19%
Immigration34 statements
13%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Graves talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowGravesPeers
Transportation and Public Works41%7%
Armed Forces and National Security30%24%
Government Operations and Politics28%19%
Economics and Public Finance13%19%
Immigration13%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Graves’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 45%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onTransportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 41% (House Republicans 7%)41%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 4%)17%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 24%)30%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 8%)8%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 19%)28%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 16% (House Republicans 12%)16%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 19%)13%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 13%)13%Immigration, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 5%)0%
Show the data
Graves's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Transportation and Public Works41%7%17%4%
Armed Forces and National Security30%24%8%8%
Government Operations and Politics28%19%16%12%
Economics and Public Finance13%19%0%2%
Immigration13%13%0%5%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 124th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Graves sits at +0.92 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 63% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.91 to +0.94, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,690 donors and 7,219 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”.

+0.92

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.91 to +0.94. From 1,690 donors and 7,219 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Graves, 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 Graves’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 Graves sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Graves +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Graves's CSIP score of +0.92 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Graves
House Republicans221+1.037%
All House439+0.368%
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 Graves 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 Graves.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Graves raised $1.8M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 3.3% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 19% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.

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

Election cycle
$1.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 272 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): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $390.0K (22.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $13.1K (0.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (61.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $265.6K (15.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)22 squares$390.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$13.1K
  • PACs and other committees62 squares$1.1M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)15 squares$265.6K
Show the data
Sources of Graves's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$390.0K22.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$13.1K0.7%
PACs and other committees$1.1M61.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$265.6K15.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20202022 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20222024 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M20242026 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Graves's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.0M
2022 cycle$2.3M
2024 cycle$2.8M
2026 cycle$1.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 19% came from Missouri.

  1. Missouri$70.2K
  2. Virginia$58.4K
  3. Texas$50.5K
  4. District of Columbia$31.0K
  5. Florida$26.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Graves
Median
2026
3%
9%
2024
6%
9%
2022
11%
9%
2020
4%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowGravesMedian
2026 cycle3%9%
2024 cycle6%9%
2022 cycle11%9%
2020 cycle4%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,000AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: $1,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $3,500MNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: $1,500WIMichigan: $500MINew York: $2,225NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $15.8KNVWyoming: $4,200WYSouth Dakota: $3,500SDIowa: $3,350IAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $2,000OHPennsylvania: $600PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $13.8KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,950CONebraska: $4,500NEMissouri: $70.2KMOKentucky: $1,375KYWest Virginia: $1,000WVVirginia: $58.4KVAMaryland: $9,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $4,750AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $22.8KKSArkansas: $5,000ARTennessee: $2,000TNNorth Carolina: $10.0KNCSouth Carolina: $1,749SCDistrict of Columbia: $31.0KDCOklahoma: $2,000OKLouisiana: $750LAMississippi: $2,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $50.5KTXFlorida: $26.0KFL
Show the data
Graves's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Missouri$70.2K
Virginia$58.4K
Texas$50.5K
District of Columbia$31.0K
Florida$26.0K
Kansas$22.8K
Nevada$15.8K
California$13.8K
North Carolina$10.0K
Maryland$9,500
Arkansas$5,000
Arizona$4,750
Nebraska$4,500
Wyoming$4,200
Minnesota$3,500
South Dakota$3,500
Iowa$3,350
New York$2,225
Alaska$2,000
Ohio$2,000
Tennessee$2,000
Oklahoma$2,000
Mississippi$2,000
Georgia$2,000
Colorado$1,950
South Carolina$1,749
Wisconsin$1,500
Kentucky$1,375
New Hampshire$1,000
Washington$1,000
West Virginia$1,000
Louisiana$750
Pennsylvania$600
Michigan$500
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
IndianaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
272

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

19%

from Missouri

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 Missouri. 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: 1.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 11%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 11%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 57%57%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 7.9%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.5%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Graves's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 7.2% between 0.00 and +0.25, 11% between +0.25 and +0.50, 11% between +0.50 and +0.75, 57% between +0.75 and +1.00, 7.9% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5011%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7511%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0057%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.257.9%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.5%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Graves’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Graves’s own score is +0.92.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONSULTANT$39.7K 15 donors
  2. CEO$35.2K 23 donors
  3. RETIRED$32.0K 22 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$23.1K 16 donors
  5. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$18.8K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. HERZOG PAC$14.0K
  2. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SWAPA PAC)$12.5K
  3. AMERICAN CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  4. NETJETS ASSOCIATION OF SHARED AIRCRAFT PILOTS PAC; NJASAP PAC$10.0K
  5. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. PAC (UPSPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BNSF RAILWAY$19.0K 19 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Graves voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 7.0% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Graves voted against the majority of House Republicans 7 times.

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

7

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 37th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Graves
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.0%
96.3%
196th of 221
Party unity
99.3%
97.1%
37th of 221
Show the data
Graves's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowGravesPeers
Attendance93.0%96.3%
Party unity99.3%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 Graves most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR489 shared votes100%
  2. Robert LattaR627 shared votes99%
  3. Rick AllenR616 shared votes99%
  4. Mark MessmerR616 shared votes99%
  5. Lisa McClainR612 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Graves least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD354 shared votes20%
  2. Rashida TlaibD613 shared votes21%
  3. Delia RamirezD597 shared votes22%
  4. Gregorio CasarD538 shared votes23%
  5. Summer LeeD627 shared votes23%
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

Graves sponsored 16 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 105 others. 19% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 68th of 216).

The bills Graves 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

Sponsored16 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1616Sponsored, In committee: 1616Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored105 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 105105Cosponsored, In committee: 105105Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Graves sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1616300
Cosponsored1051051611
How to read the blocks

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

19%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 68th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Mark Alford9
  2. Emanuel Cleaver II8
  3. Wesley Bell6
  4. Rick Larsen6
  5. Ann Wagner5
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 Graves’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1595Expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Month", and raising awareness and understanding of polycystic kidney disease.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1522Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Missouri-Panama State Partnership Program and celebrating the enduring partnership between the State of Missouri and the Republic of Panama.CosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Sep 10, 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.R. 9780BRRRRT Act of 2026CosponsorJul 20, 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. Jul 20, 2026
H.R. 9497Water Resources Development Act of 2026SponsorJun 29, 2026Passed one chamberWater Resources DevelopmentReceived in the Senate. Sep 17, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 41 times in 90 days. Graves’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Graves posted on Oct 6, 2026.

The lab crawls Graves’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 Graves 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 Graves posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man in a tuxedo speaks at a clear podium with microphones in front of an audience. The stage features plants and large decorative displays with text and graphics.
    A man in a tuxedo speaks at a clear podium with microphones in front of an audience. The stage features plants and large decorative displays with text and graphics.View post
  • Three men in formal suits stand on a decorated stage at an awards or commemorative event. The man on the left applauds while the man in the center holds a small award and the man on the right looks on. A lectern, floral arrangement, and event backdrop are visible. There is text on the backdrop.
    Three men in formal suits stand on a decorated stage at an awards or commemorative event. The man on the left applauds while the man in the center holds a small award and the man on the right looks on. A lectern, floral arrangement, and event backdrop are visible. There is text on the backdrop.View post
  • A man in a tuxedo speaks at a podium during an awards or celebration event. A large screen behind him shows a portrait of another man and decorative graphics, along with text. Plants and a shiny trophy-like object are visible on stage.
    A man in a tuxedo speaks at a podium during an awards or celebration event. A large screen behind him shows a portrait of another man and decorative graphics, along with text. Plants and a shiny trophy-like object are visible on stage.View post
  • Two smiling men pose together at a formal event, with one giving a thumbs-up. They are dressed in suits, and the venue has decorative gold elements and other attendees in the background. Some text is visible on a display.
    Two smiling men pose together at a formal event, with one giving a thumbs-up. They are dressed in suits, and the venue has decorative gold elements and other attendees in the background. Some text is visible on a display.View post
  • A nighttime view of the New York City skyline across dark water, with two vertical beams of blue light rising into the sky. A commemorative message and a congressman’s name appear over the image.
    A nighttime view of the New York City skyline across dark water, with two vertical beams of blue light rising into the sky. A commemorative message and a congressman’s name appear over the image.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 Graves 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
G000546
Bioguide
G000546
FEC candidate ids
H0MO06073

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