Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Health · Source
83%
of itemized money from Wisconsin donors, in the top tenth of House Republicans
83% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Wisconsin. Ranks 12th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 469 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 Wisconsin, 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. The policy areas Grothman talks about and legislates on agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of House Republicans. 20% of Grothman’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 15%).
The measures on which Grothman 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.
Party unity
99.7%
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 3rd of 221 · 25 votes against the majority of House Republicans
From Wisconsin, 2026
83%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 12th of 216 House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.73
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 12th of 221
Policy criticism
20%
House Republicans average 15% · ranks 43rd of 221
Raised, 2026
$1.2M
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 171st of 220
CSIP ideology
+1.18
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 Grothman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Grothman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Grothman says
Grothman criticizes policies more than 80% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 20% of 924 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 43rd of 221.
An AI model reads each of Grothman’s 924 statements in the 119th Congress (615 posts on X, 138 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters, 74 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%
Grothman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion587 statements
64%
68%
162nd of 221
Credit claiming305 statements
33%
37%
141st of 221
Policy criticism186 statements
20%
15%
43rd of 221
Bipartisanship81 statements
9%
9%
88th of 221
Personal attacks21 statements
2%
2%
67th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Grothman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 64% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 20% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 9% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
924
statements classified
615 posts on X, 138 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters, 74 press releases.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 615 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 138 |
| newsletters | 97 |
| press releases | 74 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Grothman; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Grothman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Grothman used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, below the peer average. 22 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”12
- “communist”4
- “extreme”3
- “far left”2
- “woke”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats3
- ESG agendas2
- Senate Democrats2
- climate priorities1
- communist left1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 44 | 0.0% | 22.7% | 59.1% | 9.1% | 38.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 59 | 6.8% | 22.0% | 69.5% | 3.4% | 44.1% | 5.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 61 | 1.6% | 18.0% | 55.7% | 16.4% | 37.7% | 3.3% |
| Apr ’25 | 49 | 4.1% | 10.2% | 51.0% | 4.1% | 20.4% | 4.1% |
| May ’25 | 68 | 1.5% | 19.1% | 54.4% | 5.9% | 29.4% | 1.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 60 | 0.0% | 18.3% | 58.3% | 6.7% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 47 | 6.4% | 17.0% | 55.3% | 6.4% | 36.2% | 2.1% |
| Aug ’25 | 20 | 5.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 5.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 40 | 2.5% | 17.5% | 55.0% | 17.5% | 42.5% | 5.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 12.9% | 51.6% | 6.5% | 38.7% | 6.5% |
| Nov ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 21.7% | 73.9% | 13.0% | 30.4% | 8.7% |
| Dec ’25 | 24 | 8.3% | 25.0% | 79.2% | 12.5% | 41.7% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 46 | 4.3% | 23.9% | 76.1% | 6.5% | 34.8% | 4.3% |
| Feb ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 34.4% | 71.9% | 15.6% | 46.9% | 6.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 42 | 2.4% | 33.3% | 61.9% | 7.1% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 23.4% | 63.8% | 8.5% | 36.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 39 | 2.6% | 25.6% | 74.4% | 10.3% | 28.2% | 5.1% |
| Jun ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 29.5% | 68.2% | 6.8% | 31.8% | 2.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 37 | 0.0% | 24.3% | 64.9% | 0.0% | 21.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 59.3% | 22.2% | 25.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 28 | 3.6% | 25.0% | 78.6% | 14.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 78.6% | 7.1% | 26.8% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Grothman’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
Rep. Grothman Newsletter- Putting Public Service Ahead of Personal Profit What's Ahead Putting Public Service Ahead of Personal Profit.ICYMI: FEMA Assistance for the Fox Valley.Beware of Disaster Assistance Fraudsters.Deadline Soon! Congressional App Challenge.Weekly Roundup.My Contact Information.…
Oct 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Finance and Financial Sector; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education
Extreme label
Mr. Speaker, I suppose what I should lead off with is asking for half a minute or so of silence as we consider what I think is the most damaging Supreme Court decision of my time. Instead of going that way, I will address those few people in my district who have come up to me and have been surprisin…
Jun 30, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; Law; extreme label “extreme” aimed at leftwing · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I have several topics that I don't think have been addressed enough recently, and I would like to talk about them at this time. I was not going to talk about DEI, but given the past speech, I think I ought to say something. Required reading for all Americans ought to be a book entitled: ``America's Cultural Revolution'' by a guy by the name of Christopher Rufo. In the book he cites a guy by the name of H…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Economics and Public Finance · Families · Agriculture and Food · Housing and Community Development · Education · Health · Taxation · target: Herbert Marcuse, LBJSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, as we head out for a recess for Memorial Day, I think it is important to address a few issues that have to be countered because the normal mainstream press will not address them. Today, attending a hearing in the Committee on Education and Workforce, we one more time had it brought up that America was racist. We hear this again and again and again. I think sometimes people are stuck for what to say about…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Education · Immigration · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “communist” aimed at communist left, hard leftSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, the next issue I would like to address is one that Dr. Oz got in the paper for, and that is the transgender situation in this country. I frequently hear conservative commentators, FOX News in particular, who talk about boys in girls' sports. We shouldn't have boys in girls' sports. However, I think that kind of implies that if we solve that problem, we solve the transgender problem. That is not true. Rec…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · Economics and Public FinanceSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will assure the Chair that I will not be speaking for 60 minutes. I will be kind of amazed if I get to 25. We now go on a work period back in the district for a little over a week. I think there are certain topics that haven't been talked about enough in this Chamber, and hopefully they will be talked about a little bit more when we return. The first anecdote, which is symptomatic--it is…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Health · Immigration · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Housing and Community Development · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Commerce · Armed Forces and National Security · Families · extreme label “radical” aimed at women, Kate Millett, Democrats, elected people, Hamas, protestersSource
Newsletters
Rep. Grothman's Newsletter - One Year into President Trump's Second Term [Representative Glenn Grothman]<https://grothman.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=9894-1285171> What's Ahead 1. One Year into President Trump's Second Term. 2. House Budget Committee Tackles Skyrocketing Health Care Costs. 3. Examining Jack Smith’s Abuse of Federal Power. 4. FY26 Appropriations. 5. Weekly Roundup. 6. Contact Me. One Ye…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Immigration · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · target: Jack Smith
All 924 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: 615 posts on X, 138 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters, 74 press releases.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Grothman talks about most: 25% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 12th 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 Grothman talks about. The bills Grothman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Grothman talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Grothman
Peers
Government Operations and Politics145 statements
25%
19%
Health133 statements
23%
15%
Economics and Public Finance123 statements
21%
19%
Taxation103 statements
18%
10%
Armed Forces and National Security95 statements
16%
24%
Show the data
| Row | Grothman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 19% |
| Health | 23% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 19% |
| Taxation | 18% | 10% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 16% | 24% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Grothman’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 19% | 7% | 12% |
| Health | 23% | 15% | 13% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 19% | 5% | 2% |
| Taxation | 18% | 10% | 13% | 9% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 16% | 24% | 4% | 8% |
0.73
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 12th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Grothman legislates on exactly the areas Grothman 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 Grothman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Grothman sits at +1.18 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 74% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.16 to +1.19, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,576 donors and 6,263 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”.
+1.18
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.16 to +1.19. From 2,576 donors and 6,263 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Grothman, 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 Grothman’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 Grothman sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Grothman |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 74% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 87% |
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 Grothman 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 Grothman.
Money
Grothman raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 15% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 83% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$1.2M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 469 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)58 squares$691.7K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$118.6K
- PACs and other committees32 squares$382.0K
- Party committees$500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $691.7K | 58.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $118.6K | 9.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $382.0K | 32.0% |
| Party committees | $500 | 0.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $998.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.2M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 83% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$453.4K
- Florida$29.1K
- Illinois$14.0K
- District of Columbia$13.3K
- Nevada$12.4K
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%
Grothman
Median
2026
15%
9%
2024
19%
9%
2022
17%
9%
2020
20%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Grothman | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 15% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 19% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 17% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 20% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $453.4K |
| Florida | $29.1K |
| Illinois | $14.0K |
| District of Columbia | $13.3K |
| Nevada | $12.4K |
| Michigan | $10.1K |
| Wyoming | $4,200 |
| Virginia | $3,000 |
| Delaware | $2,000 |
| Indiana | $1,500 |
| Arizona | $1,000 |
| Tennessee | $750 |
| New York | $500 |
| Maryland | $500 |
| New Mexico | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
469
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
83%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.0% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.4% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 1.7% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 4.8% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 22% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 68% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 1.3% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Grothman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Grothman’s own score is +1.18.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$261.0K 275 donors
- OWNER$34.1K 18 donors
- ATTORNEY$24.2K 14 donors
- CEO$24.0K 7 donors
- PRESIDENT$23.4K 12 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
- ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$10.0K
- BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- 0$1,000 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Grothman voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Grothman voted against the majority of House Republicans 25 times.
674 roll calls Grothman 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 Grothman voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
25
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 99.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 3rd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Grothman, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Grothman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.9%
96.3%
118th of 221
Party unity
99.7%
97.1%
3rd of 221
Show the data
| Row | Grothman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.9% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 99.7% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Grothman most often
- Mike JohnsonR515 shared votes98%
- Doug LamalfaR333 shared votes97%
- Tom EmmerR651 shared votes96%
- Andy BarrR614 shared votes96%
- Jim JordanR639 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Grothman least often
- Adelita GrijalvaD381 shared votes20%
- Rashida TlaibD645 shared votes21%
- Delia RamirezD629 shared votes22%
- Gregorio CasarD563 shared votes22%
- Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes22%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Grothman sponsored 37 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 294 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 130th of 216).
The bills Grothman sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 37 | 37 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 294 | 294 | 34 | 6 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Grothman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Grothman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
11%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 130th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Grothman, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Scott Fitzgerald29
- Mary Miller27
- Randy Weber Sr.27
- Ben Cline26
- Claudia Tenney24
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 Grothman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10799 | Protecting American Workers Through H–1B Modernization Act | Sponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 13, 2026 |
| H.R. 10439 | Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act | Sponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector | Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.R. 10327 | Cost Estimates Improvement Act | Cosponsor | Sep 10, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance | Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 10, 2026 |
| H.R. 10335 | Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 10, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 10, 2026 |
| H.R. 10051 | PERM Backlog Reduction Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Aug 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 63 times in 90 days. Grothman’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Grothman posted on Oct 23, 2026.
The lab crawls Grothman’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 Grothman posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 43
pages crawled
63changes in 90 days
- 9
pages crawled
5changes 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
- XRepGrothman
- FacebookRepGrothman
- Instagramrepglenngrothman
- Emailcongressmangrothman@mail.house.gov
Images Grothman posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of men, most wearing law enforcement uniforms, pose for a photograph in an indoor meeting room. A man in a gray suit and red tie stands near the center. Some uniforms have badges, patches, and name tags.View post 
Four men wearing safety glasses stand together in a factory, talking beside large pieces of white textured material and industrial machinery. Some text is visible on clothing and a document.View post 
Four adults pose for a photograph inside a large factory beside industrial production equipment that is handling long chains of white molded items. Some labels and signs are visible.View post 
Three men pose in front of display screens inside an industrial facility. One screen shows metal coils and a circular American-made emblem, while another displays a forklift safety reminder. There is text on the screens and above them.View post 
People in a training room demonstrate emergency medical equipment on a mannequin. A man operates equipment at the mannequin’s face while others observe. The table is covered with medical supplies and a defibrillator. Various labels and signs are visible.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Grothman 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
- G000576
- Bioguide
- G000576
- FEC candidate ids
- H4WI06048
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