Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Indiana’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001093FEC H6IN09143

Portrait of Erin Houchin, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
31%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top quarter of House Republicans

31% of 49 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Republicans is 17%. Ranks 32nd of 216, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Houchin sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Republicans. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 39% of Houchin’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Indiana, in the bottom half of House Republicans. 10.0% of Houchin’s statements use bipartisan language, in the top half of House Republicans (average 8.9%).

The measures on which Houchin sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Party unity

99.3%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 31st of 221 · 14 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Out of committee

31%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 32nd of 216

From Indiana, 2026

39%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 154th of 216 House Republicans

Bipartisanship

10.0%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 71st of 221

Credit claiming

42%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 80th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.08

More conservative than 62% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Houchin says

Houchin attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.0% of 1,031 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 123rd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Houchin’s 1,031 statements in the 119th Congress (798 posts on X, 106 Congressional Record speeches, 88 press releases, 39 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%
Houchin
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion704 statements
68%
68%
116th of 221
Credit claiming434 statements
42%
37%
80th of 221
Policy criticism151 statements
15%
15%
105th of 221
Bipartisanship103 statements
10%
9%
71st of 221
Personal attacks10 statements
1%
2%
123rd of 221
Show the data
Houchin's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHouchinPeers
Policy discussion68%68%
Credit claiming42%37%
Policy criticism15%15%
Bipartisanship10%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,031

statements classified

798 posts on X, 106 Congressional Record speeches, 88 press releases, 39 newsletters.

posts on X: 798 (77.4%)posts on X 798Congressional Record speeches: 106 (10.3%)press releases: 88 (8.5%)newsletters: 39 (3.8%)
Show the data
Houchin's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X798
Congressional Record speeches106
press releases88
newsletters39
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Houchin used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, below the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”8
  2. “far left”5
  3. “woke”2
  4. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats4
  2. gender programs2
  3. Biden1
  4. CBO1
  5. climate mandates1
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: 592025-03: 272025-04: 392025-05: 402025-06: 772025-07: 702025-08: 252025-09: 432025-10: 282025-11: 362025-12: 512026-01: 622026-02: 472026-03: 662026-04: 452026-05: 402026-06: 482026-07: 502026-08: 532026-09: 542026-10: 26peak 77 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 4.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.4% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.7% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.3% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-01: 1.6% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.5% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-06: 4.2% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 26Policy criticismpeak 39.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 7.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 17.8% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-02: 11.9% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.8% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.8% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-06: 16.9% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-07: 14.3% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-09: 25.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-10: 39.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-11: 25.0% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-12: 3.9% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-01: 22.6% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-03: 28.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-04: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.8% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-07: 8.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-08: 1.9% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.6% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-10: 7.7% of 26Policy discussionpeak 88.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 84.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 53.3% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-02: 47.5% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-03: 48.1% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.2% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-05: 60.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-06: 55.8% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-07: 74.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-08: 68.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-09: 53.5% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-10: 57.1% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-11: 63.9% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-12: 76.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-01: 66.1% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-02: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-03: 74.2% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-06: 68.8% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-07: 72.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.7% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-09: 79.6% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-10: 84.6% of 26Bipartisanshippeak 24.1% · Sep ’26 · latest 3.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.7% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.8% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.6% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 2.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.5% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.4% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 14.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 19.4% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.8% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.1% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.3% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 16.7% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 11.1% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 12.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.8% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 14.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 24.1% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.9% of 26Credit claimingpeak 64.3% · Jul ’25 · latest 34.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 28.9% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-02: 23.7% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-03: 37.0% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-04: 43.6% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-05: 32.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-06: 31.2% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-07: 64.3% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-08: 52.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-09: 44.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-11: 36.1% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-12: 56.9% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-01: 48.4% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.2% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-03: 33.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-04: 53.3% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-05: 52.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-06: 50.0% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-07: 48.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.6% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-09: 48.1% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-10: 34.6% of 26Extreme labelspeak 14.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.9% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.7% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-10: 14.3% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.8% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 26Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Houchin, 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 ’25454.4%17.8%53.3%6.7%28.9%0.0%
Feb ’25591.7%11.9%47.5%6.8%23.7%1.7%
Mar ’25270.0%14.8%48.1%3.7%37.0%3.7%
Apr ’25390.0%12.8%69.2%2.6%43.6%0.0%
May ’25400.0%5.0%60.0%2.5%32.5%0.0%
Jun ’25771.3%16.9%55.8%6.5%31.2%3.9%
Jul ’25701.4%14.3%74.3%1.4%64.3%1.4%
Aug ’25250.0%12.0%68.0%12.0%52.0%0.0%
Sep ’25432.3%25.6%53.5%14.0%44.2%4.7%
Oct ’25280.0%39.3%57.1%3.6%25.0%14.3%
Nov ’25360.0%25.0%63.9%19.4%36.1%2.8%
Dec ’25510.0%3.9%76.5%9.8%56.9%0.0%
Jan ’26621.6%22.6%66.1%8.1%48.4%4.8%
Feb ’26470.0%14.9%76.6%4.3%53.2%0.0%
Mar ’26661.5%28.8%74.2%16.7%33.3%1.5%
Apr ’26450.0%6.7%82.2%11.1%53.3%0.0%
May ’26400.0%10.0%77.5%12.5%52.5%0.0%
Jun ’26484.2%18.8%68.8%20.8%50.0%2.1%
Jul ’26500.0%8.0%72.0%14.0%48.0%0.0%
Aug ’26530.0%1.9%88.7%11.3%22.6%0.0%
Sep ’26540.0%5.6%79.6%24.1%48.1%0.0%
Oct ’26260.0%7.7%84.6%3.9%34.6%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Houchin’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Reps. Houchin and Brownley Introduce National Learning Disabilities Awareness Month Resolution WASHINGTON—Congresswoman Erin Houchin (IN-09) and Congresswoman Julia Brownley (CA-26) introduced a resolution recognizing October 2026 as National Learning Disabilities Awareness Month. Observed annually…

Oct 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to the accusations that have been made in this Chamber today against the President of the United States, a government contractor criminally leaked the President's private tax returns. He was convicted and sentenced to 5…

Jun 3, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Immigration; Education; Economics and Public Finance; Families; Finance and Financial Sector; Agriculture and Food; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

Extreme label

The Contender Dear friend, I wanted to provide you with a few updates from Washington, D.C. and back home. From National Police Week and recently passed legislation to celebrating the National Champion Indiana University Football team at the White House, below are some highlights you may have misse…

Jun 3, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Health; Families; Law; Water Resources Development; Taxation; Agriculture and Food; Commerce; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Emergency Management; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education; Energy; extreme label “far left, radical” aimed at far left

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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to the accusations that have been made in this Chamber today against the President of the United States, a government contractor criminally leaked the President's private tax returns. He was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison. The President had every right to fight back. The President took no money from the settlement, not a si…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · Education · Economics and Public Finance · Families · Finance and Financial Sector · Agriculture and Food · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 1333, providing for the House's consideration of four bills. First, the rule provides for HR 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, to be considered under a structured rule, with 26 amendments ma…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Education · Families · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Armed Forces and National Security · Water Resources Development · Transportation and Public Works · Crime and Law Enforcement · Finance and Financial SectorSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, apparently the only people the Democrats want to mandate that they not wear masks is ICE and CBP. These are very challenging times, but the gentleman from Massachusetts said it himself: We have already funded ICE and CBP in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which makes their vote against fully funding DHS as an entire Department entirely performative…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Health · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Emergency ManagementSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that House Republicans did pass a funding mechanism out of the House of Representatives to the Senate, and because of the 60-vote rule in the Senate we did need the help of Democrats in the Senate to fund the government. They held out, again, for the purpose of funding taxpayer- funded healthcare…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Health · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · TaxationSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: James ComeySource

All 1,031 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: 798 posts on X, 106 Congressional Record speeches, 88 press releases, 39 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Houchin talks about most: 19% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 130th 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 Houchin talks about. The bills Houchin sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Houchin talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Houchin
Peers
Economics and Public Finance134 statements
19%
19%
Health132 statements
19%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security117 statements
17%
24%
Government Operations and Politics112 statements
16%
19%
Immigration104 statements
15%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Houchin talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHouchinPeers
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
Health19%15%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
Immigration15%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Houchin’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%HealthHealth, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 15%)19%Health, legislates on: 15% (House Republicans 11%)15%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 24%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 8%)3%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 20% (House Republicans 12%)20%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 13%)15%Immigration, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 5%)4%
Show the data
Houchin's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance19%19%1%2%
Health19%15%15%11%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%3%8%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%20%12%
Immigration15%13%4%5%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 130th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Houchin sits at +1.08 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 62% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.06 to +1.11, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,008 donors and 2,080 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”.

+1.08

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.06 to +1.11. From 1,008 donors and 2,080 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Houchin +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Houchin, 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 Houchin’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 Houchin sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Houchin +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Houchin's CSIP score of +1.08 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Houchin
House Republicans221+1.062%
All House439+0.381%
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 Houchin 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 Houchin.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Houchin raised $2.2M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 6.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 39% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$2.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 216 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): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $377.7K (17.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $26.1K (1.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (57.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $525.7K (23.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)17 squares$377.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$26.1K
  • PACs and other committees58 squares$1.3M
  • Party committees$100
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$931
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)24 squares$525.7K
Show the data
Sources of Houchin's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$377.7K17.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$26.1K1.2%
PACs and other committees$1.3M57.8%
Party committees$1000.0%
The candidate’s own money and loans$9310.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$525.7K23.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M20222024 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20242026 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Houchin's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1.4M
2024 cycle$1.7M
2026 cycle$2.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 39% came from Indiana.

  1. Indiana$154.5K
  2. Virginia$51.2K
  3. New York$31.5K
  4. Illinois$27.5K
  5. Maryland$21.3K

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%
Houchin
Median
2026
6%
9%
2024
7%
9%
2022
3%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHouchinMedian
2026 cycle6%9%
2024 cycle7%9%
2022 cycle3%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $7,050WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $5,000MNIllinois: $27.5KILWisconsin: $5,000WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $31.5KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $154.5KINOhio: $1,260OHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $7,000CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $3,350KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $51.2KVAMaryland: $21.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,000KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $16.0KNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $21.0KDCOklahoma: $750OKLouisiana: $2,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $7,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $16.0KTXFlorida: $19.5KFL
Show the data
Houchin's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Indiana$154.5K
Virginia$51.2K
New York$31.5K
Illinois$27.5K
Maryland$21.3K
District of Columbia$21.0K
Florida$19.5K
North Carolina$16.0K
Texas$16.0K
Georgia$7,500
Washington$7,050
California$7,000
Minnesota$5,000
Wisconsin$5,000
Kentucky$3,350
Louisiana$2,000
Montana$1,500
Ohio$1,260
Kansas$1,000
Oklahoma$750
Massachusetts$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
216

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

39%

from Indiana

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 7.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 6.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 46%46%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 30%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Houchin's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.25: 7.0% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.6% between 0.00 and +0.25, 6.8% between +0.50 and +0.75, 46% between +0.75 and +1.00, 30% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.007.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.756.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0046%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2530%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Houchin’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Houchin’s own score is +1.08.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EXECUTIVE$87.3K 28 donors
  2. CONSULTANT$37.3K 18 donors
  3. RETIRED$36.6K 31 donors
  4. CEO$24.4K 11 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$18.9K 9 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$15.3K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.8K
  3. ALLISON TRANSMISSION INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN BAKERS ASSOCIATION AMERICAN BAKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MARQUIS MANAGEMENT INC.$18.0K 3 donors
  2. NEXTERA ENERGY$5,000 5 donors
  3. NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES$5,000 4 donors
  4. NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.$4,000 3 donors
  5. INDIANA UNIVERSITY$3,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Houchin voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 1.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Houchin voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 31st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Houchin
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.0%
96.3%
110th of 221
Party unity
99.3%
97.1%
31st of 221
Show the data
Houchin's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHouchinPeers
Attendance98.0%96.3%
Party unity99.3%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

  1. Mike JohnsonR512 shared votes100%
  2. Barry LoudermilkR624 shared votes98%
  3. Rick AllenR650 shared votes98%
  4. Mark MessmerR650 shared votes98%
  5. Tracey MannR659 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Houchin least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD646 shared votes22%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD380 shared votes22%
  3. Delia RamirezD628 shared votes23%
  4. Gregorio CasarD567 shared votes23%
  5. Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes23%
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

Houchin sponsored 49 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 218 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 32nd of 216).

The bills Houchin 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

Sponsored49 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4949Sponsored, In committee: 4949Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1414Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored218 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 218218Cosponsored, In committee: 218218Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4545Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Houchin sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored49491400
Cosponsored2182184544
How to read the blocks

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

31%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 32nd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick18
  2. Michael Lawler14
  3. Claudia Tenney14
  4. Randy Weber Sr.14
  5. Zachary (Zach) Nunn12
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 Houchin’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.Res. 1623Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10745Yaeli Martinez Child Protection ActCosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeFamiliesReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and 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 5, 2026
H.Res. 1592Expressing support for the designation of October 2026 as "National Learning Disabilities Awareness Month".CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10526To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 501 West Memorial Drive in Muncie, Indiana, as the "Officer Blake A. Reynolds Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 21, 2026
H.R. 1033716 & Up Social Media ActSponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeCommerceReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 10, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 56 times in 90 days. Houchin’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Houchin posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    houchin.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    27

    pages crawled

    56

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.erinhouchin.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    19

    pages crawled

    35

    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 Houchin posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A FEMA announcement graphic warns that an assistance application deadline is approaching and highlights the application date. It includes a calendar, warning symbol, clock, and FEMA seal. Text appears throughout.
    A FEMA announcement graphic warns that an assistance application deadline is approaching and highlights the application date. It includes a calendar, warning symbol, clock, and FEMA seal. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A panel discussion is underway in a bright event space, with two people seated onstage and one speaking into a microphone. An audience sits at tables facing them. Flags and a sponsor banner are visible, and there is text on the banner.
    A panel discussion is underway in a bright event space, with two people seated onstage and one speaking into a microphone. An audience sits at tables facing them. Flags and a sponsor banner are visible, and there is text on the banner.View post
  • A group of people mingle and talk at an indoor reception or event. A smiling blonde woman in a blue outfit speaks with a man in a dark suit, while other attendees stand or sit around tables. Flags, speakers, large windows, and event displays are visible in the background. There is some text on a display.
    A group of people mingle and talk at an indoor reception or event. A smiling blonde woman in a blue outfit speaks with a man in a dark suit, while other attendees stand or sit around tables. Flags, speakers, large windows, and event displays are visible in the background. There is some text on a display.View post
  • A photograph of two smiling women posing together at an indoor gathering, with several people in the background. Some people are wearing name badges, and there is artwork on the wall. Text appears on badges and signs.
    A photograph of two smiling women posing together at an indoor gathering, with several people in the background. Some people are wearing name badges, and there is artwork on the wall. Text appears on badges and signs.View post
  • Six adults pose for a group photo in a bright office lobby, standing in front of a reception desk and a large green logo. There is no prominent readable text.
    Six adults pose for a group photo in a bright office lobby, standing in front of a reception desk and a large green logo. There is no prominent readable text.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 Houchin 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
H001093
Bioguide
H001093
FEC candidate ids
H6IN09143

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