Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Iowa’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001091FEC H0IA01174

Portrait of Ashley Hinson, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$14.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of House Republicans

The median for House Republicans is $2.2M. Ranks 2nd of 220, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Hinson’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Republicans. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 15% of Hinson’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.7 times the House Republican average of 8.9%. 48% of Hinson’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 37%).

The measures on which Hinson 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.

Raised, 2026

$14.1M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 2nd of 220

Bipartisanship

15%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 35th of 221

Credit claiming

48%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 40th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.82

More liberal than 77% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Out of committee

8.3%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 159th of 216

Extreme labels

4.1%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 60th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hinson says

Hinson attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.0% of 1,307 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 120th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Hinson’s 1,307 statements in the 119th Congress (1,062 posts on X, 134 press releases, 93 newsletters, 18 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%
Hinson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion929 statements
71%
68%
95th of 221
Credit claiming622 statements
48%
37%
40th of 221
Bipartisanship194 statements
15%
9%
35th of 221
Policy criticism175 statements
13%
15%
125th of 221
Personal attacks13 statements
1%
2%
120th of 221
Show the data
Hinson's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHinsonPeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming48%37%
Bipartisanship15%9%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,307

statements classified

1,062 posts on X, 134 press releases, 93 newsletters, 18 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,062 (81.3%)posts on X 1,062press releases: 134 (10.3%)newsletters: 93 (7.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 18 (1.4%)
Show the data
Hinson's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,062
press releases134
newsletters93
Congressional Record speeches18
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Hinson used extreme labels in 4.1% of statements, above the peer average. 54 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”26
  2. “woke”9
  3. “communist”8
  4. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Left6
  2. Prop 126
  3. Democratic base2
  4. Agriculture initiative1
  5. Biden1
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: 952025-02: 972025-03: 942025-04: 782025-05: 762025-06: 782025-07: 832025-08: 572025-09: 462025-10: 432025-11: 482025-12: 422026-01: 482026-02: 592026-03: 562026-04: 452026-05: 582026-06: 582026-07: 402026-08: 412026-09: 262026-10: 39peak 97 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 3.2% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.2% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.2% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.6% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.1% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 39Policy criticismpeak 25.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.2% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.5% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-03: 16.0% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-04: 6.4% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-05: 17.1% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-06: 19.2% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.8% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-09: 8.7% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-10: 25.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.6% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-02: 8.5% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-03: 10.7% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-04: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.3% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-06: 8.6% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-08: 17.1% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.2% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.3% of 39Policy discussionpeak 92.3% · Sep ’26 · latest 87.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 71.6% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-02: 76.3% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-03: 69.2% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-04: 62.8% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.0% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-06: 78.2% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-07: 66.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-08: 57.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-09: 45.6% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-10: 69.8% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-11: 68.8% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.8% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-02: 69.5% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-03: 60.7% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-04: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-05: 72.4% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-06: 72.4% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-07: 80.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-08: 68.3% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-09: 92.3% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-10: 87.2% of 39Bipartisanshippeak 32.5% · Jul ’26 · latest 10.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.4% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 12.4% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 13.8% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.6% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 14.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 4.8% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 6.5% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 11.6% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 31.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 16.7% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 22.9% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 28.8% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 25.0% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 24.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 27.6% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.8% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 32.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 12.2% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 30.8% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.3% of 39Credit claimingpeak 76.9% · Sep ’26 · latest 53.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 59.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-02: 56.7% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-03: 39.4% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-04: 42.3% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-05: 40.8% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-06: 46.2% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-07: 45.8% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-08: 50.9% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-09: 39.1% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-10: 39.5% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-11: 47.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-12: 57.1% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-01: 47.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-02: 55.9% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-03: 30.4% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-04: 28.9% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-05: 50.0% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-06: 55.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-07: 52.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-08: 39.0% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-09: 76.9% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-10: 53.8% of 39Extreme labelspeak 10.9% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 6.3% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-03: 9.6% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.6% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-06: 6.4% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-07: 8.4% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-08: 7.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.9% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-10: 9.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-04: 4.4% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 39Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hinson, 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 ’25953.2%23.2%71.6%8.4%59.0%6.3%
Feb ’25971.0%15.5%76.3%12.4%56.7%5.1%
Mar ’25943.2%16.0%69.2%13.8%39.4%9.6%
Apr ’25780.0%6.4%62.8%5.1%42.3%2.6%
May ’25760.0%17.1%75.0%6.6%40.8%2.6%
Jun ’25782.6%19.2%78.2%14.1%46.2%6.4%
Jul ’25831.2%10.8%66.3%4.8%45.8%8.4%
Aug ’25570.0%12.3%57.9%0.0%50.9%7.0%
Sep ’25462.2%8.7%45.6%6.5%39.1%10.9%
Oct ’25432.3%25.6%69.8%11.6%39.5%9.3%
Nov ’25480.0%14.6%68.8%31.3%47.9%2.1%
Dec ’25420.0%0.0%73.8%16.7%57.1%0.0%
Jan ’26482.1%10.4%83.3%22.9%47.9%0.0%
Feb ’26590.0%8.5%69.5%28.8%55.9%0.0%
Mar ’26560.0%10.7%60.7%25.0%30.4%0.0%
Apr ’26450.0%6.7%77.8%24.4%28.9%4.4%
May ’26580.0%10.3%72.4%27.6%50.0%0.0%
Jun ’26580.0%8.6%72.4%13.8%55.2%1.7%
Jul ’26400.0%15.0%80.0%32.5%52.5%2.5%
Aug ’26410.0%17.1%68.3%12.2%39.0%0.0%
Sep ’26260.0%19.2%92.3%30.8%76.9%0.0%
Oct ’26390.0%10.3%87.2%10.3%53.8%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Hinson’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Update from Ashley: New Cancer Screening Bill, Ribbon Cuttings, & More! [https://in5jdgbbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=a1cd1c94-aa27-4eb0-8734-1b8891db87a3&a=1135149906344&c=9376b65a-f034-11f0-89dd-0242b661c010&ch=937712d0-f034-11f0-89dd-0242b661c010] [https://files.constantcontact.com/8a9f43c4801/0310bcc…

Oct 24, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Water Resources Development; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education

Personal attacks

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

Jan 7, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Mayor of Minneapolis · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “radical” aimed at Prop 12 · 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 · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Mayor of MinneapolisSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: RobertsSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Jimmy KimmelSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Hakeem JeffriesSource

  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 · target: DemocratsSource

All 1,307 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: 1,062 posts on X, 134 press releases, 93 newsletters, 18 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Agriculture and Food is what Hinson talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 79th 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 Hinson talks about. The bills Hinson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hinson talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Hinson
Peers
Agriculture and Food215 statements
23%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security175 statements
19%
24%
Health174 statements
19%
15%
Economics and Public Finance127 statements
14%
19%
Government Operations and Politics106 statements
11%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Hinson talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHinsonPeers
Agriculture and Food23%9%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%
Health19%15%
Economics and Public Finance14%19%
Government Operations and Politics11%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Hinson’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 onAgriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 9%)23%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 3%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 24%)19%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%HealthHealth, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 15%)19%Health, legislates on: 20% (House Republicans 11%)20%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 19%)14%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 19%)11%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 12%)10%
Show the data
Hinson's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Agriculture and Food23%9%9%3%
Armed Forces and National Security19%24%7%8%
Health19%15%20%11%
Economics and Public Finance14%19%0%2%
Government Operations and Politics11%19%10%12%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 79th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hinson sits at +0.82 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 77% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.80 to +0.83, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,530 donors and 2,871 roll calls.

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

+0.82

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.80 to +0.83. From 6,530 donors and 2,871 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hinson +0.8House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Hinson, 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 Hinson’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 Hinson sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Hinson +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Hinson's CSIP score of +0.82 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hinson
House Republicans221+1.023%
All House439+0.361%
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 Hinson 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 Hinson.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hinson raised $14.1M in the 2026 cycle, 6.5 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 21% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.

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
$14.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 0 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): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $6.0M (42.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (11.0%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)PACs and other committees: $2.7M (18.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.9M (27.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)42 squares$6.0M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$1.6M
  • PACs and other committees19 squares$2.7M
  • Party committees$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)28 squares$3.9M
Show the data
Sources of Hinson's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$6.0M42.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.6M11.0%
PACs and other committees$2.7M18.8%
Party committees$62.0K0.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$3.9M27.5%
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: $5.1M$5.1M20202022 cycle: $7.2M$7.2M20222024 cycle: $5.6M$5.6M20242026 cycle: $14.1M$14.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Hinson's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.1M
2022 cycle$7.2M
2024 cycle$5.6M
2026 cycle$14.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state.

No itemized donors with an address.

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%
Hinson
Median
2026
21%
9%
2024
27%
9%
2022
34%
9%
2020
36%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHinsonMedian
2026 cycle21%9%
2024 cycle27%9%
2022 cycle34%9%
2020 cycle36%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Hinson's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
0

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

No itemized individual money.

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (INSURPAC)$15.0K
  2. THE BOEING COMPANY PAC$13.5K
  3. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$12.5K
  4. A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hinson voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hinson voted against the majority of House Republicans 9 times.

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

9

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 110th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Hinson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
96.3%
82nd of 221
Party unity
98.2%
97.1%
110th of 221
Show the data
Hinson's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHinsonPeers
Attendance98.5%96.3%
Party unity98.2%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hinson most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR511 shared votes100%
  2. Matt Van EppsR354 shared votes99%
  3. Mike KellyR652 shared votes99%
  4. Jack BergmanR648 shared votes99%
  5. Ann WagnerR647 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hinson least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD379 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD649 shared votes25%
  3. Delia RamirezD630 shared votes25%
  4. Frederica WilsonD477 shared votes26%
  5. Gregorio CasarD570 shared votes26%
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

Hinson sponsored 36 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 244 others. 8.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 159th of 216).

The bills Hinson 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

Sponsored36 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3636Sponsored, In committee: 3636Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored244 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 244244Cosponsored, In committee: 244244Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3232Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hinson sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3636200
Cosponsored2442443222
How to read the blocks

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

8.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 159th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Randy Feenstra26
  2. Mariannette Miller-Meeks25
  3. Zachary (Zach) Nunn24
  4. Brad Finstad19
  5. Don Bacon12
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 Hinson’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. 10850SCREENS ActSponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 19, 2026
H.R. 10559LARC Access Expansion ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1548Supporting the designation of September 19, 2026, as "National Stillbirth Prevention and Awareness Day", recognizing tens of thousands of families in the United States that have endured a stillbirth, and seizing the opportunity to keep other families from experiencing the same tragedy.SponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 16, 2026
H.Res. 1552Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 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 16, 2026
H.Res. 1553Expressing support for the designation of the week of September 21, 2026, as the "Ray Gaesser Memorial Farm Safety Week" to recognize the life and legacy of Ray Gaesser, who passed away in a tragic farming accident, and promote farm safety in the honor of Ray Gaesser.CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 75 times in 90 days. Hinson’s official site had 40 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hinson posted on Oct 25, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    hinson.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    40

    pages crawled

    75

    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 Hinson posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of adults pose outside a building for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, with several people holding a purple ribbon. A picnic table is in the foreground. No prominent text is visible.
    A group of adults pose outside a building for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, with several people holding a purple ribbon. A picnic table is in the foreground. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • Three women pose together in an office reception area, with a circular company logo mounted on the wooden wall behind them. Text is visible on the logo.
    Three women pose together in an office reception area, with a circular company logo mounted on the wooden wall behind them. Text is visible on the logo.View post
  • A group of six adults pose for a photo in a room between two flags. Some wear uniforms or shirts with law enforcement insignia. There is small text on clothing and a flag.
    A group of six adults pose for a photo in a room between two flags. Some wear uniforms or shirts with law enforcement insignia. There is small text on clothing and a flag.View post
  • A woman in a striped blazer shakes hands with a uniformed man at an indoor gathering, while people—including a camera operator—stand nearby. Text is visible on clothing and elsewhere in the scene.
    A woman in a striped blazer shakes hands with a uniformed man at an indoor gathering, while people—including a camera operator—stand nearby. Text is visible on clothing and elsewhere in the scene.View post
  • A large group of people, including uniformed public safety personnel and civilians, pose for a group photo in a conference room. Two flags stand behind them, and tables and chairs are visible in the foreground. No prominent text is visible.
    A large group of people, including uniformed public safety personnel and civilians, pose for a group photo in a conference room. Two flags stand behind them, and tables and chairs are visible in the foreground. No prominent text is 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 Hinson 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
H001091
Bioguide
H001091
FEC candidate ids
H0IA01174

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