Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Maryland’s 1st district

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

Bioguide H001052FEC H8MD01094

Portrait of Andy Harris, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.7×
the House Republican rate of policy criticism

26% of 1,293 statements criticize a policy (339 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 13th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Harris’s press releases, posts on X, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. 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. 1.9% of Harris’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 8.9%). Harris sits at +1.41 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 93% of House Republicans.

The measures on which Harris 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.

Policy criticism

26%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 13th of 221

Bipartisanship

1.9%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 205th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.41

More conservative than 93% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Party unity

96.3%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 180th of 221 · 85 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Credit claiming

28%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 178th of 221

Extreme labels

5.1%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 43rd of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Harris says

Harris stresses bipartisanship less than 92% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 1.9% of 1,293 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 205th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Harris’s 1,293 statements in the 119th Congress (1,097 posts on X, 118 press releases, 43 newsletters, 35 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Harris
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion912 statements
71%
68%
98th of 221
Credit claiming360 statements
28%
37%
178th of 221
Policy criticism339 statements
26%
15%
13th of 221
Bipartisanship24 statements
2%
9%
205th of 221
Personal attacks20 statements
2%
2%
91st of 221
Show the data
Harris's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHarrisPeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming28%37%
Policy criticism26%15%
Bipartisanship2%9%
Personal attacks2%2%
1,293

statements classified

1,097 posts on X, 118 press releases, 43 newsletters, 35 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,097 (84.8%)posts on X 1,097press releases: 118 (9.1%)newsletters: 43 (3.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 35 (2.7%)
Show the data
Harris's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,097
press releases118
newsletters43
Congressional Record speeches35
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Harris used extreme labels in 5.1% of statements, above the peer average. 66 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”31
  2. “woke”8
  3. “extreme”3
  4. “far left”3
  5. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats9
  2. Left5
  3. the left3
  4. Maryland Democrats2
  5. radical left2
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: 492025-02: 602025-03: 822025-04: 1002025-05: 772025-06: 712025-07: 742025-08: 802025-09: 762025-10: 1062025-11: 632025-12: 472026-01: 582026-02: 452026-03: 402026-04: 382026-05: 382026-06: 662026-07: 312026-08: 242026-09: 452026-10: 23peak 106 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 6.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.2% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.3% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.9% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-11: 6.3% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-08: 4.2% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.2% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 23Policy criticismpeak 42.5% · Mar ’26 · latest 4.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 28.6% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-02: 25.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-03: 29.3% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-04: 29.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2025-05: 31.2% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-06: 32.4% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-07: 24.3% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-08: 18.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-09: 32.9% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-10: 41.5% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-11: 30.2% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-12: 34.0% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-01: 8.6% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.4% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-03: 42.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-04: 18.4% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-05: 7.9% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-06: 25.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-07: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-08: 16.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.3% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.3% of 23Policy discussionpeak 96.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 95.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.1% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-02: 56.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.6% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2025-05: 62.3% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.0% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.0% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.0% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.8% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-10: 65.1% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.1% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-12: 85.1% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-01: 96.5% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.1% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.0% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.0% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.2% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-07: 77.4% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-08: 87.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-10: 95.7% of 23Bipartisanshippeak 6.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.0% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 0.0% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 1.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 1.4% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.8% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 1.3% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.8% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.3% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.7% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 6.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 23Credit claimingpeak 65.2% · Oct ’26 · latest 65.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 28.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-02: 21.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-03: 21.9% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-04: 15.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2025-05: 9.1% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-06: 22.5% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-07: 23.0% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-08: 43.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-09: 25.0% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-10: 21.7% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-11: 39.7% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-12: 42.5% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-01: 44.8% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-02: 17.8% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-05: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.9% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-07: 35.5% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.2% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.6% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-10: 65.2% of 23Extreme labelspeak 13.2% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.1% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.3% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-04: 5.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2025-05: 5.2% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.8% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-07: 10.8% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-08: 8.8% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-09: 13.2% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-10: 6.6% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-11: 11.1% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.4% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-03: 5.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-07: 9.7% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.2% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 23Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Harris, 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 ’25492.0%28.6%57.1%2.0%28.6%4.1%
Feb ’25601.7%25.0%56.7%0.0%21.7%3.3%
Mar ’25821.2%29.3%64.6%0.0%21.9%2.4%
Apr ’251005.0%29.0%63.0%1.0%15.0%5.0%
May ’25771.3%31.2%62.3%0.0%9.1%5.2%
Jun ’25710.0%32.4%69.0%1.4%22.5%2.8%
Jul ’25741.4%24.3%73.0%0.0%23.0%10.8%
Aug ’25801.3%18.8%75.0%3.8%43.8%8.8%
Sep ’25760.0%32.9%65.8%1.3%25.0%13.2%
Oct ’251060.9%41.5%65.1%3.8%21.7%6.6%
Nov ’25636.3%30.2%65.1%6.3%39.7%11.1%
Dec ’25472.1%34.0%85.1%2.1%42.5%2.1%
Jan ’26580.0%8.6%96.5%1.7%44.8%1.7%
Feb ’26450.0%24.4%71.1%2.2%17.8%4.4%
Mar ’26402.5%42.5%75.0%5.0%25.0%5.0%
Apr ’26380.0%18.4%71.0%0.0%26.3%0.0%
May ’26380.0%7.9%71.0%0.0%26.3%0.0%
Jun ’26660.0%25.8%71.2%6.1%37.9%0.0%
Jul ’26310.0%6.5%77.4%0.0%35.5%9.7%
Aug ’26244.2%16.7%87.5%0.0%29.2%0.0%
Sep ’26452.2%13.3%82.2%0.0%35.6%2.2%
Oct ’26230.0%4.3%95.7%0.0%65.2%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 Harris’s words

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

Policy criticism

Congressman Andy Harris Urges Senate to Fund the Fight Against Illicit Chinese Vapes House-passed FY2027 Agriculture-FDA bill directs $200 million to enforcement, including $20 million for multi-agency task force. WASHINGTON — Today, Congressman Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01), Chairman of the Agriculture…

Oct 5, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Crime and Law Enforcement; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Bipartisanship

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

Jun 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Emergency Management · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 5, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Question 3 · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · target: RepublicansSource

  2. 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 Politics · target: MooreSource

  3. Press releases

    Congressman Harris Responds to Governor Moore’s “MeatOut Day” Announcement WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01) released the following statement in response to Governor Wes Moore proclaiming March 20, 2026, as “MeatOut Day in Maryland,” which encourages Marylanders to reduce meat consumption in favor of plant-based diets. The Moore Administration is encouraging Marylanders to reduce or elim…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · Energy · target: Wes MooreSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · target: Kilmar AbregoSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Stacey PlaskettSource

All 1,293 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: 1,097 posts on X, 118 press releases, 43 newsletters, 35 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Harris talks about most: 20% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 133rd 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 Harris talks about. The bills Harris sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Harris talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Harris
Peers
Economics and Public Finance182 statements
20%
19%
Health178 statements
20%
15%
Immigration165 statements
18%
13%
Government Operations and Politics158 statements
17%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security143 statements
16%
24%
Show the data
Policy areas Harris talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHarrisPeers
Economics and Public Finance20%19%
Health20%15%
Immigration18%13%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Harris’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.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 2%)6%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 15%)20%Health, legislates on: 20% (House Republicans 11%)20%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 13%)18%Immigration, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 5%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 24%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 8%)3%
Show the data
Harris's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance20%19%6%2%
Health20%15%20%11%
Immigration18%13%10%5%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%9%12%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%3%8%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 133rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Harris sits at +1.41 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 93% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.40 to +1.43, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,115 donors and 7,440 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”.

+1.41

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.40 to +1.43. From 4,115 donors and 7,440 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Harris, 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 Harris’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 Harris sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Harris +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Harris's CSIP score of +1.41 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Harris
House Republicans221+1.093%
All House439+0.397%
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 Harris 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 Harris.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Harris raised $2.7M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 29% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 49% of itemized individual money came from Maryland.

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
$2.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,325 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): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (55.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $621.1K (23.0%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)PACs and other committees: $533.5K (19.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $53.1K (2.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $53.1K (2.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)55 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)23 squares$621.1K
  • PACs and other committees20 squares$533.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$53.1K
Show the data
Sources of Harris's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M55.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$621.1K23.0%
PACs and other committees$533.5K19.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$53.1K2.0%
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.

2020 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20202022 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M20222024 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M20242026 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Harris's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.5M
2022 cycle$1.9M
2024 cycle$1.4M
2026 cycle$2.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 49% came from Maryland.

  1. Maryland$732.0K
  2. Florida$120.4K
  3. Texas$92.8K
  4. Arkansas$63.7K
  5. North Carolina$44.1K

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%
Harris
Median
2026
29%
9%
2024
19%
9%
2022
24%
9%
2020
23%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHarrisMedian
2026 cycle29%9%
2024 cycle19%9%
2022 cycle24%9%
2020 cycle23%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,000AKMaine: $1,415MEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $13.0KNHWashington: $752WAIdaho: $11.5KIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $5,344MNIllinois: $13.7KILWisconsin: $624WIMichigan: $7,530MINew York: $40.5KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $13.6KMAOregon: $7,755ORNevada: $8,060NVWyoming: $30.7KWYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: $3,633IAIndiana: $5,628INOhio: $43.2KOHPennsylvania: $24.2KPANew Jersey: $8,224NJConnecticut: $1,272CTCalifornia: $38.0KCAUtah: $3,720UTColorado: $9,201CONebraska: $1,129NEMissouri: $8,481MOKentucky: $11.4KKYWest Virginia: $105WVVirginia: $36.2KVAMaryland: $732.0KMDDelaware: $3,800DEArizona: $19.3KAZNew Mexico: $891NMKansas: $1,997KSArkansas: $63.7KARTennessee: $3,294TNNorth Carolina: $44.1KNCSouth Carolina: $7,376SCDistrict of Columbia: $19.8KDCOklahoma: $1,720OKLouisiana: $6,662LAMississippi: $2,573MSAlabama: $11.0KALGeorgia: $9,862GAHawaii: $596HITexas: $92.8KTXFlorida: $120.4KFL
Show the data
Harris's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Maryland$732.0K
Florida$120.4K
Texas$92.8K
Arkansas$63.7K
North Carolina$44.1K
Ohio$43.2K
New York$40.5K
California$38.0K
Virginia$36.2K
Wyoming$30.7K
Pennsylvania$24.2K
District of Columbia$19.8K
Arizona$19.3K
Illinois$13.7K
Massachusetts$13.6K
New Hampshire$13.0K
Idaho$11.5K
Kentucky$11.4K
Alabama$11.0K
Georgia$9,862
Colorado$9,201
Missouri$8,481
New Jersey$8,224
Nevada$8,060
Oregon$7,755
Michigan$7,530
South Carolina$7,376
Louisiana$6,662
Indiana$5,628
Minnesota$5,344
Delaware$3,800
Utah$3,720
Iowa$3,633
Tennessee$3,294
Mississippi$2,573
Kansas$1,997
Oklahoma$1,720
Maine$1,415
Connecticut$1,272
Nebraska$1,129
Alaska$1,000
Vermont$1,000
New Mexico$891
Washington$752
Wisconsin$624
Hawaii$596
South Dakota$500
West Virginia$105
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
1,325

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

49%

from Maryland

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 8.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 13%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 25%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 43%43%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Harris's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 8.5% between +0.50 and +0.75, 13% between +0.75 and +1.00, 25% between +1.00 and +1.25, 43% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.758.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0013%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2525%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5043%
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 Harris’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Harris’s own score is +1.41.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$333.3K 594 donors
  2. OWNER$98.2K 70 donors
  3. CEO$89.8K 38 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$80.7K 42 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$63.7K 25 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHODONTISTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PISTACHIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ASA PAC)$10.0K
  5. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ABC PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. YELLOWSTONE LANDSCAPE$32.0K 4 donors
  2. HARRISON GROUP$30.5K 3 donors
  3. NAI THE MICHAEL COMPANIES$15.5K 4 donors
  4. KELLY BENEFITS$5,300 3 donors
  5. GOETZE'S CANDY$4,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Harris voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.3% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Harris voted against the majority of House Republicans 85 times.

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

85

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 96.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 180th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Harris
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.3%
96.3%
142nd of 221
Party unity
96.3%
97.1%
180th of 221
Show the data
Harris's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHarrisPeers
Attendance97.3%96.3%
Party unity96.3%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
NayAgainst 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
NayAgainst 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 Harris most often

  1. Mark E. GreenR167 shared votes93%
  2. Andrew ClydeR628 shared votes93%
  3. Michael CloudR647 shared votes93%
  4. Keith SelfR643 shared votes93%
  5. Clay HigginsR638 shared votes92%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Harris least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD378 shared votes17%
  2. Delia RamirezD625 shared votes18%
  3. Rashida TlaibD640 shared votes18%
  4. Brittany PettersenD554 shared votes19%
  5. Frederica WilsonD471 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

Harris sponsored 6 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 278 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 78th of 216).

The bills Harris 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

Sponsored6 billsSponsored, Introduced: 66Sponsored, In committee: 66Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored278 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 278278Cosponsored, In committee: 278278Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Harris sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored66100
Cosponsored2782781611
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 78th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Mary Miller53
  2. Sheri Biggs45
  3. Andy Biggs34
  4. Josh Brecheen32
  5. Randy Weber Sr.32
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 Harris’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1614Expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 5, 2026
H.R. 10690Capital Loss Inflation Fairness ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10609Don’t Spy On Me Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 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

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 96 times in 90 days. Harris’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Harris posted on Oct 19, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    harris.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    32

    pages crawled

    96

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.andyharris.com

    Last crawled Oct 18, 2026

    3

    pages crawled

    3

    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.

Images Harris posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Five men stand together on a white-railed wooden footbridge beside a pond, with trees displaying autumn foliage in the background. There is small text on some of their clothing.
    Five men stand together on a white-railed wooden footbridge beside a pond, with trees displaying autumn foliage in the background. There is small text on some of their clothing.View post
  • Five men pose for a photo beside a white wooden footbridge over a pond in a park on a sunny autumn day. There is text visible on a small sign in the background.
    Five men pose for a photo beside a white wooden footbridge over a pond in a park on a sunny autumn day. There is text visible on a small sign in the background.View post
  • Two men stand on a white wooden bridge over a pond, with one pointing into the distance. Autumn trees and a clear blue sky are in the background. No visible text.
    Two men stand on a white wooden bridge over a pond, with one pointing into the distance. Autumn trees and a clear blue sky are in the background. No visible text.View post
  • Three adults pose with a black-and-white dog in front of a large dark green wall sign. The man on the left holds the dog's leash, and the woman on the right reaches toward the dog. Text and a colorful logo appear on the wall behind them.
    Three adults pose with a black-and-white dog in front of a large dark green wall sign. The man on the left holds the dog's leash, and the woman on the right reaches toward the dog. Text and a colorful logo appear on the wall behind them.View post
  • A group of people stand outdoors at an industrial or agricultural facility, talking beside a long roofed structure and equipment under a clear blue sky. Some labels and signs are visible.
    A group of people stand outdoors at an industrial or agricultural facility, talking beside a long roofed structure and equipment under a clear blue sky. Some 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.

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 Harris 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
H001052
Bioguide
H001052
FEC candidate ids
H8MD01094

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