Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Louisiana’s 3rd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001077FEC H6LA03148

Portrait of Clay Higgins, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
93%
of House Republicans score to the left of Higgins on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +1.41 (approximate range +1.39 to +1.43, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,174 donors and 4,737 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Higgins sits among House Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 40% of Higgins’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Republicans (median 9.4%). 58% of Higgins’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Higgins 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.

CSIP ideology

+1.41

More conservative than 93% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Small donations, 2026

40%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 29th of 220

Policy discussion

58%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 189th of 221

Personal attacks

4.3%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 37th of 221

Raised, 2026

$904.3K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 186th of 220

Credit claiming

29%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 174th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Higgins says

Higgins attacks opponents personally more than 83% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 4.3% of 556 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 37th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Higgins’s 556 statements in the 119th Congress (389 posts on X, 112 press releases, 28 Congressional Record speeches, 27 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Higgins
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion321 statements
58%
68%
189th of 221
Credit claiming159 statements
29%
37%
174th of 221
Policy criticism96 statements
17%
15%
67th of 221
Bipartisanship25 statements
5%
9%
165th of 221
Personal attacks24 statements
4%
2%
37th of 221
Show the data
Higgins's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHigginsPeers
Policy discussion58%68%
Credit claiming29%37%
Policy criticism17%15%
Bipartisanship5%9%
Personal attacks4%2%
556

statements classified

389 posts on X, 112 press releases, 28 Congressional Record speeches, 27 newsletters.

posts on X: 389 (70.0%)posts on X 389press releases: 112 (20.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 28 (5.0%)newsletters: 27 (4.9%)
Show the data
Higgins's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X389
press releases112
Congressional Record speeches28
newsletters27
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Higgins used extreme labels in 2.2% of statements, below the peer average. 12 statements, most often aimed at Democrat; peers 3.0%.

  1. “MAGA”4
  2. “radical”3
  3. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrat1
  2. gender ideology1
  3. Iranian regime1
  4. leftist mobs1
  5. leftist priorities1
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: 452025-02: 492025-03: 312025-04: 242025-05: 292025-06: 282025-07: 132025-08: 152025-09: 392025-10: 232025-11: 122025-12: 212026-01: 262026-02: 302026-03: 292026-04: 182026-05: 272026-06: 202026-07: 252026-08: 172026-09: 162026-10: 19peak 49 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 13.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 11.1% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-02: 6.1% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.5% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.2% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.5% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-06: 7.1% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2025-08: 13.3% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.1% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.3% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.8% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-02: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-07: 4.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.9% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.3% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Policy criticismpeak 34.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-02: 34.7% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-03: 12.9% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-04: 20.8% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-05: 13.8% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-06: 28.6% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-07: 7.7% of 13Policy criticism, 2025-08: 6.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-09: 30.8% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-10: 30.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-11: 25.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.5% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-01: 3.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-02: 6.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-03: 17.2% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-05: 18.5% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-07: 20.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-08: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-09: 6.3% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Policy discussionpeak 84.6% · Jan ’26 · latest 36.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 53.3% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-02: 73.5% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-03: 61.3% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-05: 51.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-06: 60.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-07: 30.8% of 13Policy discussion, 2025-08: 20.0% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-09: 59.0% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-10: 60.9% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-11: 41.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.4% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.6% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-02: 33.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-03: 55.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-04: 66.7% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-05: 59.3% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-06: 35.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-08: 47.1% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.0% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-10: 36.8% of 19Bipartisanshippeak 12.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.0% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 3.2% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 4.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 3.5% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.7% of 13Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.1% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.3% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 6.9% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.1% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.3% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Credit claimingpeak 56.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 10.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 33.3% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-02: 34.7% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-03: 38.7% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.2% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-05: 20.7% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.6% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-07: 15.4% of 13Credit claiming, 2025-08: 13.3% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-09: 28.2% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-10: 26.1% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-11: 0.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2025-12: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-01: 34.6% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-03: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-04: 44.4% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-05: 18.5% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-06: 10.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-07: 56.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.4% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-09: 18.8% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-10: 10.5% of 19Extreme labelspeak 7.1% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.4% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.2% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.2% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-06: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.6% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.5% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-04: 5.6% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-09: 6.3% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 19Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Higgins, 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 ’254511.1%15.6%53.3%2.2%33.3%4.4%
Feb ’25496.1%34.7%73.5%2.0%34.7%2.0%
Mar ’25316.5%12.9%61.3%3.2%38.7%3.2%
Apr ’25244.2%20.8%70.8%4.2%29.2%4.2%
May ’25293.5%13.8%51.7%3.5%20.7%0.0%
Jun ’25287.1%28.6%60.7%3.6%28.6%7.1%
Jul ’25130.0%7.7%30.8%7.7%15.4%0.0%
Aug ’251513.3%6.7%20.0%0.0%13.3%0.0%
Sep ’25395.1%30.8%59.0%5.1%28.2%2.6%
Oct ’25234.3%30.4%60.9%4.3%26.1%0.0%
Nov ’25120.0%25.0%41.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Dec ’25214.8%9.5%71.4%0.0%28.6%0.0%
Jan ’26260.0%3.9%84.6%7.7%34.6%0.0%
Feb ’26303.3%6.7%33.3%6.7%30.0%3.3%
Mar ’26290.0%17.2%55.2%6.9%34.5%3.5%
Apr ’26180.0%11.1%66.7%0.0%44.4%5.6%
May ’26270.0%18.5%59.3%11.1%18.5%0.0%
Jun ’26200.0%15.0%35.0%10.0%10.0%0.0%
Jul ’26254.0%20.0%76.0%12.0%56.0%0.0%
Aug ’26175.9%5.9%47.1%0.0%29.4%0.0%
Sep ’26166.3%6.3%75.0%6.3%18.8%6.3%
Oct ’26190.0%0.0%36.8%0.0%10.5%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 Higgins’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Higgins, Carter Pass Bipartisan TWICE Act to Fill Transportation Workforce Needs WASHINGTON, D.C.— Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) issued a statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5109, The TWIC Efficiency (TWICE) Act, under suspension of the rules today. Congressman Clay Higgins (…

Sep 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Labor and Employment; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 16, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Taxation; target: Sam Graves · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 21, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “communist” aimed at Media · 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 · target: Sam GravesSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: FauciSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: FauciSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Mayes MiddletonSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Immigration · target: DemocratsSource

All 556 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: 389 posts on X, 112 press releases, 28 Congressional Record speeches, 27 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Higgins talks about most: 27% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 52nd 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 Higgins talks about. The bills Higgins sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Higgins talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Higgins
Peers
Government Operations and Politics88 statements
27%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement65 statements
20%
12%
Economics and Public Finance58 statements
18%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security57 statements
18%
24%
Immigration50 statements
16%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Higgins talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHigginsPeers
Government Operations and Politics27%19%
Crime and Law Enforcement20%12%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%
Armed Forces and National Security18%24%
Immigration16%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Higgins’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 onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 27% (House Republicans 19%)27%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 12%)18%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 12%)20%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 24%)18%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 13%)16%Immigration, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 5%)9%
Show the data
Higgins's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics27%19%18%12%
Crime and Law Enforcement20%12%17%9%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%2%2%
Armed Forces and National Security18%24%7%8%
Immigration16%13%9%5%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 52nd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Higgins sits at +1.41 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 93% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.39 to +1.43, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,174 donors and 4,737 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 +1.39 to +1.43. From 1,174 donors and 4,737 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Higgins, 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 Higgins’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 Higgins sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Higgins +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Higgins's CSIP score of +1.41 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Higgins
House Republicans221+1.093%
All House439+0.396%
How to read the strips

Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Higgins 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 Higgins.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Higgins raised $904.3K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 40% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 70% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.

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
$904.3K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 158 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): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $140.1K (15.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $95.3K (10.5%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)PACs and other committees: $169.5K (18.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $499.3K (55.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)15 squares$140.1K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$95.3K
  • PACs and other committees19 squares$169.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)55 squares$499.3K
Show the data
Sources of Higgins's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$140.1K15.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$95.3K10.5%
PACs and other committees$169.5K18.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$499.3K55.2%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $767.0K$767.0K20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20242026 cycle: $904.3K$904.3K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Higgins's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$767.0K
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.0M
2026 cycle$904.3K

Top donor states, 2026

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

  1. Louisiana$78.4K
  2. Texas$20.4K
  3. California$3,004
  4. District of Columbia$1,000
  5. Michigan$904

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%
Higgins
Median
2026
40%
9%
2024
43%
9%
2022
24%
9%
2020
9%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHigginsMedian
2026 cycle40%9%
2024 cycle43%9%
2022 cycle24%9%
2020 cycle9%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $250MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $73NHWashington: $620WAIdaho: $240IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $587ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $904MINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $520MAOregon: $302ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $225SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $450INOhio: $50OHPennsylvania: $895PANew Jersey: $895NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $3,004CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $135MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: $338WVVirginia: $300VAMaryland: $570MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $471AZNew Mexico: $200NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $1,000DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $78.4KLAMississippi: $325MSAlabama: $850ALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: $202HITexas: $20.4KTXFlorida: $600FL
Show the data
Higgins's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Louisiana$78.4K
Texas$20.4K
California$3,004
District of Columbia$1,000
Michigan$904
Pennsylvania$895
New Jersey$895
Alabama$850
Washington$620
Florida$600
Illinois$587
Maryland$570
Massachusetts$520
Arizona$471
Indiana$450
West Virginia$338
Mississippi$325
Oregon$302
Virginia$300
Maine$250
Idaho$240
South Dakota$225
Hawaii$202
New Mexico$200
Missouri$135
New Hampshire$73
Ohio$50
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
IowaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
158

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

70%

from Louisiana

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 18%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 41%41%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 32%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Higgins's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.25 to +1.50: 18% between +0.75 and +1.00, 41% between +1.00 and +1.25, 32% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0018%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2541%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5032%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Higgins’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Higgins’s own score is +1.41.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$38.8K 95 donors
  2. OWNER$11.9K 6 donors
  3. EXECUTIVE$6,600 3 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$4,141 4 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$1,594 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN SUGAR CANE LEAGUE OF USA, INC PAC$10.0K
  3. CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. PAC$10.0K
  4. LETS GET TO WORK PAC$7,000
  5. FREEDOM CAUCUS FUND$5,070

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Higgins voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.1% 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, Higgins voted against the majority of House Republicans 60 times.

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

60

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 45th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Higgins
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.3%
96.3%
142nd of 221
Party unity
99.1%
97.1%
45th of 221
Show the data
Higgins's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHigginsPeers
Attendance97.3%96.3%
Party unity99.1%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
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Higgins most often

  1. Mark E. GreenR168 shared votes96%
  2. Mary MillerR630 shared votes96%
  3. Andrew ClydeR626 shared votes95%
  4. Sheri BiggsR656 shared votes95%
  5. Cory MillsR613 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Higgins least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD379 shared votes16%
  2. Rashida TlaibD643 shared votes17%
  3. Delia RamirezD625 shared votes17%
  4. Frederica WilsonD471 shared votes18%
  5. Gregorio CasarD560 shared votes18%
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

Higgins sponsored 39 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 253 others. 15% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 88th of 216).

The bills Higgins 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

Sponsored39 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3939Sponsored, In committee: 3939Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored253 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 253253Cosponsored, In committee: 253253Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3636Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Higgins sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3939400
Cosponsored2532533622
How to read the blocks

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

15%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 88th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Andy Biggs45
  2. Mary Miller38
  3. Michael Cloud35
  4. Sheri Biggs35
  5. Andrew Ogles IV35
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 Higgins’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 15, 2026
H.R. 10392To temporarily suspend the imposition of certain fuel taxes.CosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 15, 2026
H.R. 10242Janie Wynn Protecting Elders from Financial Exploitation ActSponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 3, 2026
H.R. 10243Protecting Elders From Government Error ActSponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 3, 2026
H.R. 10253To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1706 South Burnside Avenue in Gonzales, Louisiana, as the "Cpl. Lawrence Brown Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 104 times in 90 days. Higgins’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Higgins posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Higgins posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political informational flyer featuring two construction-site visitors in hard hats above several paragraphs about a new I-10 bridge project in Louisiana. It includes a politician’s name and congressional district in a banner.
    A political informational flyer featuring two construction-site visitors in hard hats above several paragraphs about a new I-10 bridge project in Louisiana. It includes a politician’s name and congressional district in a banner.View post
  • A campaign-style webpage featuring a portrait of a suited man above a written statement about small-government principles. The page includes a government seal and a U.S. flag in the background.
    A campaign-style webpage featuring a portrait of a suited man above a written statement about small-government principles. The page includes a government seal and a U.S. flag in the background.View post
  • A political information graphic featuring a photo of a smiling man in a cap beside a waterway. A banner identifies him as a U.S. congressman, and the text below discusses funding and maintenance for Louisiana’s waterways.
    A political information graphic featuring a photo of a smiling man in a cap beside a waterway. A banner identifies him as a U.S. congressman, and the text below discusses funding and maintenance for Louisiana’s waterways.View post
  • An informational political graphic featuring a photo of a man in a straw hat talking with people at an outdoor barbecue, with text below about supporting Louisiana sugarcane farmers.
    An informational political graphic featuring a photo of a man in a straw hat talking with people at an outdoor barbecue, with text below about supporting Louisiana sugarcane farmers.View post
  • A political informational flyer featuring a photograph of a smiling man wearing a baseball cap above several paragraphs about strengthening Louisiana’s maritime workforce. There is prominent text and a congressional seal.
    A political informational flyer featuring a photograph of a smiling man wearing a baseball cap above several paragraphs about strengthening Louisiana’s maritime workforce. There is prominent text and a congressional seal.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 Higgins 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
H001077
Bioguide
H001077
FEC candidate ids
H6LA03148

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