Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Arizona’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide G000565FEC H0AZ01259

Portrait of Paul Gosar, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
6.1×
the House Republican rate of personal attacks

13% of 561 statements contain a personal attack (73 statements); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 2nd of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Gosar’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 12% of Gosar’s statements use an extreme label, 4.0 times the House Republican average of 3.0%. Gosar sits at +1.40 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 92% of House Republicans.

The measures on which Gosar 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.

Personal attacks

13%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 2nd of 221

Extreme labels

12%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 2nd of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.40

More conservative than 92% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Policy criticism

24%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 24th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.71

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 23rd of 221

Attendance

93.6%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 192nd of 221 · 674 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Gosar says

Gosar attacks opponents personally more than 99% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 13% of 561 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 2nd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Gosar’s 561 statements in the 119th Congress (348 posts on X, 147 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 32 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%
Gosar
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion347 statements
62%
68%
173rd of 221
Credit claiming218 statements
39%
37%
104th of 221
Policy criticism132 statements
24%
15%
24th of 221
Personal attacks73 statements
13%
2%
2nd of 221
Bipartisanship44 statements
8%
9%
108th of 221
Show the data
Gosar's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowGosarPeers
Policy discussion62%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Policy criticism24%15%
Personal attacks13%2%
Bipartisanship8%9%
561

statements classified

348 posts on X, 147 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 32 press releases.

posts on X: 348 (62.0%)posts on X 348newsletters: 147 (26.2%)newsletters 147Congressional Record speeches: 34 (6.1%)press releases: 32 (5.7%)
Show the data
Gosar's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X348
newsletters147
Congressional Record speeches34
press releases32
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Gosar used extreme labels in 12% of statements, 4.0 times the peer average. 68 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”35
  2. “woke”25
  3. “extreme”9
  4. “far left”7
  5. “communist”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats11
  2. Left5
  3. federal judges4
  4. leftists3
  5. radical left3
What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 262025-02: 352025-03: 212025-04: 262025-05: 292025-06: 232025-07: 322025-08: 92025-09: 352025-10: 242025-11: 172025-12: 312026-01: 222026-02: 332026-03: 322026-04: 432026-05: 282026-06: 282026-07: 162026-08: 192026-09: 202026-10: 12peak 43 · Apr ’26Personal attackspeak 26.9% · Jan ’25 · latest 8.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 26.9% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-02: 25.7% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-03: 23.8% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-04: 7.7% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-05: 13.8% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-06: 17.4% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-07: 9.4% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 11.4% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-10: 16.7% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-11: 5.9% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-12: 12.9% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-01: 13.6% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.1% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-03: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-05: 14.3% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-06: 10.7% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-07: 12.5% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: 20.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-10: 8.3% of 12Policy criticismpeak 47.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 16.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 38.5% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-02: 31.4% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-03: 47.6% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-04: 11.5% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-05: 17.2% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-06: 8.7% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-07: 28.1% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 17.1% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-10: 25.0% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-11: 23.5% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-12: 22.6% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-01: 22.7% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-02: 18.2% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.4% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.9% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-05: 25.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-06: 17.9% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-07: 18.8% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-08: 26.3% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: 15.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-10: 16.7% of 12Policy discussionpeak 81.3% · Jul ’26 · latest 75.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 53.8% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-02: 45.7% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-03: 57.1% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-04: 50.0% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-05: 51.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-06: 56.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-07: 75.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 60.0% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-10: 45.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-11: 52.9% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.0% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-01: 54.5% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-02: 57.6% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-03: 56.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-04: 74.4% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-05: 78.6% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.3% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-07: 81.3% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-08: 63.2% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: 70.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-10: 75.0% of 12Bipartisanshippeak 21.4% · Jun ’26 · latest 8.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 19.2% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 19.1% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 17.4% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 0.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.8% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.7% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 18.2% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.1% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 8.3% of 12Credit claimingpeak 51.6% · Dec ’25 · latest 50.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 34.6% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-02: 42.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-03: 42.9% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.8% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-05: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-06: 43.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-07: 46.9% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 48.6% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-10: 16.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-11: 41.2% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-12: 51.6% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-01: 31.8% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-02: 27.3% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.9% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-04: 32.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-06: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-07: 43.8% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.3% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: 40.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-10: 50.0% of 12Extreme labelspeak 28.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 25.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 11.5% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-02: 20.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-03: 28.6% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-04: 19.2% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-05: 10.3% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-06: 21.7% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.1% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 25.7% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-10: 20.8% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-11: 5.9% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-12: 6.5% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.5% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-02: 12.1% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.1% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-05: 17.9% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-06: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-08: 10.5% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-10: 25.0% of 12Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Gosar, 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 ’252626.9%38.5%53.8%19.2%34.6%11.5%
Feb ’253525.7%31.4%45.7%5.7%42.9%20.0%
Mar ’252123.8%47.6%57.1%19.1%42.9%28.6%
Apr ’25267.7%11.5%50.0%3.9%30.8%19.2%
May ’252913.8%17.2%51.7%0.0%34.5%10.3%
Jun ’252317.4%8.7%56.5%17.4%43.5%21.7%
Jul ’25329.4%28.1%75.0%0.0%46.9%3.1%
Aug ’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)
Sep ’253511.4%17.1%60.0%0.0%48.6%25.7%
Oct ’252416.7%25.0%45.8%4.2%16.7%20.8%
Nov ’25175.9%23.5%52.9%11.8%41.2%5.9%
Dec ’253112.9%22.6%71.0%9.7%51.6%6.5%
Jan ’262213.6%22.7%54.5%18.2%31.8%4.5%
Feb ’26336.1%18.2%57.6%6.1%27.3%12.1%
Mar ’26323.1%34.4%56.3%3.1%21.9%3.1%
Apr ’26430.0%20.9%74.4%4.7%32.6%2.3%
May ’262814.3%25.0%78.6%7.1%50.0%17.9%
Jun ’262810.7%17.9%64.3%21.4%50.0%7.1%
Jul ’261612.5%18.8%81.3%0.0%43.8%0.0%
Aug ’261910.5%26.3%63.2%10.5%26.3%10.5%
Sep ’262020.0%15.0%70.0%10.0%40.0%5.0%
Oct ’26128.3%16.7%75.0%8.3%50.0%25.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Gosar’s words

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

Policy criticism

This Week With Gosar Weekly Newsletter [Representative Paul Gosar]<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25898-1742328> Contact Me<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25899-1742328> | Media Center<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25900-1742328>…

Oct 11, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Energy; Water Resources Development; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Crime and Law Enforcement; Immigration; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Science, Technology, Communications

Personal attacks

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

Oct 10, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Someone · Source

Extreme label

This Week With Gosar Happy Early Halloween! [Representative Paul Gosar]<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25957-1742328> Contact Me<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25958-1742328> | Media Center<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25959-174…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at Left

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: SomeoneSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: lawyerSource

  3. Newsletters

    This Week With Gosar Weekly Newsletter [Representative Paul Gosar]<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25776-1742328> Contact Me<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25777-1742328> | Media Center<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25778-1742328> | Our District<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25779-1742328> [Newsletter Masthead] Weekly News…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Water Resources Development · Immigration · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Transportation and Public Works · target: Joe Biden

  4. Newsletters

    This Week With Gosar Remembering 9/11: Weekly Newsletter [Representative Paul Gosar]<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25751-1742328> Contact Me<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25752-1742328> | Media Center<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25753-1742328> | Our District<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25754-1742328> [Newsletter Mast…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Health · Housing and Community Development · Labor and Employment · target: Hasan Piker, Ilhan Omar

  5. Newsletters

    This Week With Gosar Weekly Newsletter [Representative Paul Gosar]<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25727-1742328> Contact Me<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25728-1742328> | Media Center<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25729-1742328> | Our District<https://gosar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=25730-1742328> [Newsletter Masthead] Weekly News…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Environmental Protection · Immigration · Law · Labor and Employment · Taxation · extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · target: Joe Biden

All 561 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: 348 posts on X, 147 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 32 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Gosar talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 3.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 23rd 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 Gosar talks about. The bills Gosar sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Gosar talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%46%
Gosar
Peers
Immigration145 statements
42%
13%
Government Operations and Politics125 statements
36%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security119 statements
34%
24%
Health114 statements
33%
15%
Economics and Public Finance100 statements
29%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Gosar talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowGosarPeers
Immigration42%13%
Government Operations and Politics36%19%
Armed Forces and National Security34%24%
Health33%15%
Economics and Public Finance29%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Gosar’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 46%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 42% (House Republicans 13%)42%Immigration, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 5%)12%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 36% (House Republicans 19%)36%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 12%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 34% (House Republicans 24%)34%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%HealthHealth, talks about: 33% (House Republicans 15%)33%Health, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 11%)8%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 19%)29%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%
Show the data
Gosar's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Immigration42%13%12%5%
Government Operations and Politics36%19%13%12%
Armed Forces and National Security34%24%7%8%
Health33%15%8%11%
Economics and Public Finance29%19%2%2%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 23rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Gosar sits at +1.40 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 92% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.38 to +1.41, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,652 donors and 7,096 roll calls.

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

+1.40

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.38 to +1.41. From 1,652 donors and 7,096 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Gosar +1.4House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Gosar, 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 Gosar’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 Gosar sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Gosar +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Gosar's CSIP score of +1.40 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Gosar
House Republicans221+1.092%
All House439+0.396%
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 Gosar 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 Gosar.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Gosar raised $813.5K in the 2026 cycle, 38% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 27% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 70% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.

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
$813.5K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 203 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): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $501.5K (61.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $188.9K (23.2%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)PACs and other committees: $117.3K (14.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $5,975 (0.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)62 squares$501.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)23 squares$188.9K
  • PACs and other committees14 squares$117.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$5,975
Show the data
Sources of Gosar's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$501.5K61.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$188.9K23.2%
PACs and other committees$117.3K14.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$5,9750.7%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $651.5K$651.5K20202022 cycle: $949.1K$949.1K20222024 cycle: $477.9K$477.9K20242026 cycle: $813.5K$813.5K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Gosar's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$651.5K
2022 cycle$949.1K
2024 cycle$477.9K
2026 cycle$813.5K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 70% came from Arizona.

  1. Arizona$246.5K
  2. Texas$37.4K
  3. California$24.3K
  4. Virginia$17.1K
  5. District of Columbia$5,500

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%
Gosar
Median
2026
27%
9%
2024
18%
9%
2022
43%
9%
2020
36%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowGosarMedian
2026 cycle27%9%
2024 cycle18%9%
2022 cycle43%9%
2020 cycle36%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $88NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $4,410ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $1,000NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: $400ORNevada: $5,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $24.3KCAUtah: $450UTColorado: $250CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $17.1KVAMaryland: $4,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $246.5KAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $764NCSouth Carolina: $300SCDistrict of Columbia: $5,500DCOklahoma: $500OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $325MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $37.4KTXFlorida: $3,950FL
Show the data
Gosar's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Arizona$246.5K
Texas$37.4K
California$24.3K
Virginia$17.1K
District of Columbia$5,500
Nevada$5,000
Maryland$4,500
Illinois$4,410
Florida$3,950
New York$1,000
North Carolina$764
Oklahoma$500
Utah$450
Oregon$400
Mississippi$325
South Carolina$300
Colorado$250
New Hampshire$88
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
203

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

70%

from Arizona

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.8%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.1%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 32%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 32%32%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 31%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Gosar's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.75: 32% between +0.75 and +1.00, 32% between +1.00 and +1.25, 31% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.1%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0032%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2532%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5031%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Gosar’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Gosar’s own score is +1.40.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$111.6K 103 donors
  2. BUSINESS OWNER$34.0K 10 donors
  3. CEO$20.6K 4 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$13.2K 6 donors
  5. CHAIRMAN$13.0K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
  2. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$10.0K
  3. BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. LETS GET TO WORK PAC$7,000
  5. FREEDOM CAUCUS FUND$5,070

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SELF - EMPLOYED$14.1K 6 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Gosar voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 6.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gosar voted against the majority of House Republicans 64 times.

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

64

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 101st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Gosar
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.6%
96.3%
192nd of 221
Party unity
98.4%
97.1%
101st of 221
Show the data
Gosar's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowGosarPeers
Attendance93.6%96.3%
Party unity98.4%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 Gosar most often

  1. Andy BiggsR591 shared votes96%
  2. Eli CraneR616 shared votes96%
  3. Wesley HuntR477 shared votes95%
  4. Andrew Ogles IVR583 shared votes95%
  5. Lauren BoebertR604 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Gosar least often

  1. Frederica WilsonD472 shared votes17%
  2. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD455 shared votes18%
  3. Jan SchakowskyD592 shared votes18%
  4. Delia RamirezD602 shared votes18%
  5. Rashida TlaibD618 shared votes19%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Gosar sponsored 27 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 281 others. 7.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 165th of 216).

The bills Gosar 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

Sponsored27 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2727Sponsored, In committee: 2727Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored281 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 281281Cosponsored, In committee: 281281Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Gosar sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2727111
Cosponsored2812812511
How to read the blocks

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

7.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 165th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Andy Biggs60
  2. Eli Crane58
  3. Mary Miller51
  4. Lauren Boebert50
  5. Barry Moore47
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 Gosar’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10822To restrict the usage of automated license plate reader system by governmental entities, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10669LANDs ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026SponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 15, 2026
H.R. 10309HOMEFRONT Act of 2026CosponsorSep 8, 2026In committeeLawReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 8, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 39 times in 90 days. Gosar’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Gosar posted on Sep 11, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    gosar.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    24

    pages crawled

    39

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    drpaulgosar.com

    Last crawled Oct 18, 2026

    1

    pages crawled

    0

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Gosar posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A photograph shows two tall buildings engulfed in a large explosion, with flames and thick black smoke billowing into the sky. There is no visible text.
    A photograph shows two tall buildings engulfed in a large explosion, with flames and thick black smoke billowing into the sky. There is no visible text.View post
  • Two men in suits greet each other with a handshake in a wood-paneled meeting room. A table, chairs, microphone, papers, and a projection screen are visible. Some text appears on papers and badges.
    Two men in suits greet each other with a handshake in a wood-paneled meeting room. A table, chairs, microphone, papers, and a projection screen are visible. Some text appears on papers and badges.View post
  • The image shows a caricature of a young ice hockey player with a big smile and golden teeth. He is holding a hockey stick and is wearing a USA-themed hockey jersey. The background features an ice hockey rink with a cheering crowd.
    The image shows a caricature of a young ice hockey player with a big smile and golden teeth. He is holding a hockey stick and is wearing a USA-themed hockey jersey. The background features an ice hockey rink with a cheering crowd.View post
  • The image is a typed letter with multiple signatures at the bottom. There is text present in the image.
    The image is a typed letter with multiple signatures at the bottom. There is text present in the image.View post
  • The image shows a signature and text at the top left corner on a plain white background.
    The image shows a signature and text at the top left corner on a plain white background.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 Gosar 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
G000565
Bioguide
G000565
FEC candidate ids
H0AZ01259

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