Party unity 70%, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Perez voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Perez voted opposite that majority.
0
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. Perez sits at −0.37 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 98% of House Democrats. Perez raised $9.5M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of House Democrats (median $2.0M).
The measures on which Perez sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
70%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 215th of 217 · 143 votes against the majority of House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.37
More conservative than 98% of House Democrats · ± 0.02
Raised, 2026
$9.5M
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 11th of 214
Personal attacks
0.9%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 198th of 216
Credit claiming
32%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 30th of 216
From Washington, 2026
27%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 190th of 214 House Democrats
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Perez, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Perez is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Perez attacks opponents personally less than 91% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.9% of 702 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 198th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Perez’s 702 statements in the 119th Congress (597 posts on X, 45 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 18 newsletters) 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
Perez
House Democrats, average of 216
0%20%40%60%80%
Perez
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion467 statements
67%
73%
183rd of 216
Credit claiming222 statements
32%
23%
30th of 216
Policy criticism155 statements
22%
28%
159th of 216
Bipartisanship99 statements
14%
10%
34th of 216
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
7%
198th of 216
+ Show the data
Perez's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
Row
Perez
Peers
Policy discussion
67%
73%
Credit claiming
32%
23%
Policy criticism
22%
28%
Bipartisanship
14%
10%
Personal attacks
1%
7%
702
statements classified
597 posts on X, 45 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 18 newsletters.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
newsletters
+ Show the data
Perez's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
597
press releases
45
Congressional Record speeches
42
newsletters
18
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Perez; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Perez does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Perez used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 15% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at building codes; peers 1.9%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
building codes1
permitting1
+ − 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
Monthly rates for Perez, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
39
0.0%
25.6%
59.0%
33.3%
43.6%
0.0%
Feb ’25
33
0.0%
30.3%
72.7%
24.2%
54.5%
0.0%
Mar ’25
35
2.9%
20.0%
62.9%
14.3%
31.4%
0.0%
Apr ’25
49
0.0%
20.4%
67.3%
14.3%
38.8%
0.0%
May ’25
50
0.0%
14.0%
62.0%
0.0%
18.0%
0.0%
Jun ’25
33
0.0%
21.2%
75.8%
9.1%
36.4%
3.0%
Jul ’25
75
2.7%
38.7%
66.7%
14.7%
20.0%
0.0%
Aug ’25
33
0.0%
12.1%
45.5%
6.1%
27.3%
0.0%
Sep ’25
29
0.0%
17.2%
62.1%
10.3%
20.7%
0.0%
Oct ’25
22
0.0%
13.6%
54.5%
13.6%
27.3%
0.0%
Nov ’25
27
3.7%
14.8%
29.6%
3.7%
11.1%
0.0%
Dec ’25
28
0.0%
3.6%
64.3%
28.6%
28.6%
0.0%
Jan ’26
17
0.0%
17.6%
88.2%
5.9%
23.5%
0.0%
Feb ’26
14
0.0%
7.1%
35.7%
7.1%
35.7%
0.0%
Mar ’26
16
0.0%
31.3%
43.8%
6.3%
18.8%
6.3%
Apr ’26
35
2.9%
25.7%
74.3%
11.4%
17.1%
0.0%
May ’26
23
0.0%
17.4%
65.2%
4.3%
26.1%
0.0%
Jun ’26
31
3.2%
25.8%
83.9%
12.9%
45.2%
0.0%
Jul ’26
34
0.0%
23.5%
70.6%
11.8%
38.2%
0.0%
Aug ’26
21
0.0%
19.1%
90.5%
9.5%
52.4%
0.0%
Sep ’26
29
0.0%
20.7%
86.2%
27.6%
34.5%
0.0%
Oct ’26
29
0.0%
34.5%
89.7%
31.0%
58.6%
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 Perez’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez Visits Pacific County Hospital to Discuss the Challenges Facing Rural Hospitals
SOUTH BEND, WA — Last week, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez visited and toured Willapa Harbor Hospital, a critical access hospital in Pacific County. The Congresswoman spoke with hospital staff about…
Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Education; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 8, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Congress · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; extreme label “extreme” aimed at building codes, permitting · 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.
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and PoliticsSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, on October 27, 2025, Representative Chuy Garcia filed nominating petitions to be on the Democratic primary ballot in March 2026; Whereas, on November 5, 2025, on the last day of filing, Representative Garcia's chief of…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Chuy GarciaSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Government Operations and Politics · target: lawmakersSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and PoliticsSource ↗
All 702 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: 597 posts on X, 45 press releases, 42 Congressional Record speeches, 18 newsletters.
Government Operations and Politics is what Perez talks about most: 21% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 160th of 216).
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 Perez talks about. The bills Perez sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Perez talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Perez
House Democrats average
0%9%18%26%35%
Perez
Peers
Government Operations and Politics98 statements
21%
20%
Economics and Public Finance84 statements
18%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security72 statements
15%
16%
Education61 statements
13%
10%
Health53 statements
11%
26%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Perez talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
Row
Perez
Peers
Government Operations and Politics
21%
20%
Economics and Public Finance
18%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security
15%
16%
Education
13%
10%
Health
11%
26%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Perez’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Statements
Bills
House Democrats
+ Show the data
Perez's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Democrats, talks about
Legislates on
House Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics
21%
20%
14%
11%
Economics and Public Finance
18%
20%
2%
1%
Armed Forces and National Security
15%
16%
9%
7%
Education
13%
10%
4%
5%
Health
11%
26%
12%
16%
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 160th of 216.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Perez legislates on exactly the areas Perez 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 Perez sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Perez sits at −0.37 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 98% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.38 to −0.35, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,203 donors and 1,879 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”.
−0.37
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.38 to −0.35. From 9,203 donors and 1,879 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Perez, 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 Perez’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 Perez sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
Perez's CSIP score of −0.37 placed against House Democrats, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Perez
House Democrats
217
−1.0
98%
All House
439
+0.3
49%
+ − 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 Perez 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 Perez.
Perez raised $9.5M in the 2026 cycle, 4.8 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 23% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 27% of itemized individual money came from Washington.
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.
$9.5M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1,642 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$3.4M
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$988.2K
PACs and other committees12 squares$1.1M
Party committees$6,378
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)42 squares$4.0M
+ Show the data
Sources of Perez's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$3.4M
35.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$988.2K
10.4%
PACs and other committees
$1.1M
11.7%
Party committees
$6,378
0.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$4.0M
42.2%
+ − What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Perez's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
Item
Value
2022 cycle
$3.9M
2024 cycle
$11.9M
2026 cycle
$9.5M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 27% came from Washington.
Washington$604.9K
California$336.7K
New York$316.6K
Massachusetts$202.8K
Maryland$74.9K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
Perez
Median
0%20%40%60%
Perez
Median
2026
23%
13%
2024
19%
13%
2022
30%
13%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
Row
Perez
Median
2026 cycle
23%
13%
2024 cycle
19%
13%
2022 cycle
30%
13%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$500$604.9Kno data
+ Show the data
Perez's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Washington
$604.9K
California
$336.7K
New York
$316.6K
Massachusetts
$202.8K
Maryland
$74.9K
Oregon
$63.4K
Texas
$62.9K
New Jersey
$60.2K
District of Columbia
$56.4K
Florida
$55.4K
Connecticut
$46.5K
Colorado
$32.8K
Illinois
$31.5K
Virginia
$24.7K
Arizona
$18.6K
Minnesota
$18.4K
Oklahoma
$15.7K
Montana
$15.1K
Maine
$12.9K
Alabama
$12.5K
Kentucky
$12.3K
South Carolina
$11.2K
Utah
$10.6K
Nevada
$10.5K
New Hampshire
$10.0K
Pennsylvania
$9,825
Idaho
$9,000
Georgia
$9,000
Wyoming
$8,250
Mississippi
$7,500
North Carolina
$7,250
Missouri
$6,490
Ohio
$6,000
New Mexico
$5,587
Vermont
$4,050
Tennessee
$3,800
Arkansas
$3,500
South Dakota
$2,000
Nebraska
$2,000
Kansas
$2,000
Michigan
$1,750
Hawaii
$1,525
Rhode Island
$1,000
West Virginia
$1,000
Louisiana
$1,000
Indiana
$714
North Dakota
$500
Iowa
$500
Delaware
$500
Alaska
No data
Wisconsin
No data
1,642
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
27%
from Washington
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 Washington. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Perez's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 10% between −1.25 and −1.00, 48% between −1.00 and −0.75, 17% between −0.75 and −0.50, 11% between −0.50 and −0.25, 5.9% between 0.00 and +0.25.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.75 to −1.50
0.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.25
0.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.00
10%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
48%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
17%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
11%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
4.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
5.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
2.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
0.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
0.3%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Perez’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Perez’s own score is −0.37.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
NOT EMPLOYED$706.1K 623 donors
RETIRED$339.0K 241 donors
ATTORNEY$98.7K 90 donors
REAL ESTATE BROKER$83.0K 119 donors
CEO$48.7K 29 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
EMILYS LIST$10.0K
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
MONUMENT ADVOCACY$8,000 4 donors
KEY PROPERTIES LLC$5,100 3 donors
HARVARD UNIVERSITY$4,250 4 donors
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$3,725 3 donors
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$2,608 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Perez voted with the majority of House Democrats on 70% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Perez voted against the majority of House Democrats 143 times.
674 roll calls Perez could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Perez voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
143
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 70%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 215th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Perez, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Perez
House Democrats, average of 217
70%85%100%
Perez
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
96.9%
82nd of 217
Party unity
70%
96.4%
215th of 217
+ Show the data
Perez's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
Row
Perez
Peers
Attendance
98.6%
96.9%
Party unity
70%
96.4%
+ − 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
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
Nay
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
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
Against 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 Perez most often
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.
Perez sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 214 others. 3.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 110th of 207).
The bills Perez 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Perez sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
31
31
1
0
0
Cosponsored
214
214
22
3
2
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Perez sponsored, ochre blocks bills Perez cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
3.2%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 110th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Perez, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Brian Fitzpatrick34
Michael Lawler20
Jared Golden19
Eugene Vindman17
Don Bacon15
+ − 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 Perez’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, 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. Oct 22, 2026
To require manufacturers of household appliances to affix to such appliances a label or tag disclosing estimated performance life, and for other purposes.
Sponsor
Oct 22, 2026
In committee
Unassigned
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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 22, 2026
To strengthen American wood, and for other purposes.
Cosponsor
Oct 22, 2026
In committee
Unassigned
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Agriculture, Financial Services, Armed Services, and Natural Resources, 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 22, 2026
Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, House Administration, Appropriations, and 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. Oct 9, 2026
A site that changed 16 times in 90 days. Perez’s official site had 9 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Perez posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Perez’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 Perez posts with a vision model.
“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.
A graphic flyer on a dark green background advertising mobile office hours in Lewis County. It includes the event date, time, venue, and address, with colorful overlapping folder graphics along the bottom. Text appears throughout.View post ↗
02
A close-up of a gas station diesel pump, with its display and fuel nozzle area visible. The pump has a green diesel label and a yellow button; a hose runs diagonally across the foreground. There is text on the pump and part of a station logo below.View post ↗
03
Five people pose together outside a bar and grill beneath a large hanging sign. An autumn tree with orange leaves and a stop sign are visible in the background. Text appears on the signs.View post ↗
04
A news graphic shows a smiling woman holding a small American flag as she speaks with a person wearing camouflage military uniform. A headline and website logo appear above them, with a photographer credit along the bottom.View post ↗
05
Several adults are gathered in a communal kitchen or break room, talking near an open doorway. One person holds a folder, and another stands with their back to the camera. Signs and papers are posted on the walls.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.
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 Perez is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
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.
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
