Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 8th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001099FEC H4FL08168

Portrait of Mike Haridopolos, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
79%
of itemized money from Florida donors, in the top tenth of House Republicans

79% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Florida. Ranks 21st of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 408 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Florida, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 8.0% of Haridopolos’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 15%). 77% of Haridopolos’s statements discuss policy, in the top quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Haridopolos 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.

From Florida, 2026

79%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 21st of 216 House Republicans

Policy criticism

8.0%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 194th of 221

Policy discussion

77%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 36th of 221

Bipartisanship

4.3%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 172nd of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.80

More liberal than 78% of House Republicans · ± 0.03

Extreme labels

0.9%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 170th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Haridopolos says

Haridopolos attacks opponents personally less than 60% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 1,259 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 134th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Haridopolos’s 1,259 statements in the 119th Congress (986 posts on X, 162 Congressional Record speeches, 64 newsletters, 47 press releases) 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%
Haridopolos
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion975 statements
77%
68%
36th of 221
Credit claiming431 statements
34%
37%
135th of 221
Policy criticism101 statements
8%
15%
194th of 221
Bipartisanship54 statements
4%
9%
172nd of 221
Personal attacks9 statements
1%
2%
134th of 221
Show the data
Haridopolos's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHaridopolosPeers
Policy discussion77%68%
Credit claiming34%37%
Policy criticism8%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,259

statements classified

986 posts on X, 162 Congressional Record speeches, 64 newsletters, 47 press releases.

posts on X: 986 (78.3%)posts on X 986Congressional Record speeches: 162 (12.9%)newsletters: 64 (5.1%)press releases: 47 (3.7%)
Show the data
Haridopolos's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X986
Congressional Record speeches162
newsletters64
press releases47
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Haridopolos used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, 31% of the peer average. 12 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”6
  2. “communist”4
  3. “far left”2
  4. “extreme”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats2
  2. California rules1
  3. D.C. policies1
  4. Democratic base1
  5. ideological spending1
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: 342025-02: 582025-03: 622025-04: 582025-05: 782025-06: 602025-07: 912025-08: 532025-09: 692025-10: 582025-11: 382025-12: 382026-01: 452026-02: 1012026-03: 802026-04: 862026-05: 692026-06: 812026-07: 292026-08: 152026-09: 212026-10: 35peak 101 · Feb ’26Personal attackspeak 2.5% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.7% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.3% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.2% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.7% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.5% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 35Policy criticismpeak 20.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 0.0% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-02: 20.7% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-03: 6.5% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.1% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.7% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-07: 8.8% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-08: 3.8% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-09: 2.9% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-10: 12.1% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-12: 10.5% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-01: 8.9% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-02: 10.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-03: 6.3% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-04: 2.3% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-05: 5.8% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-06: 4.9% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-07: 3.5% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 35Policy discussionpeak 93.3% · Jan ’26 · latest 68.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.5% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-02: 74.1% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-03: 80.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-04: 60.3% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-05: 85.9% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-06: 86.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.9% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-08: 90.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.4% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-10: 89.7% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-11: 89.5% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-12: 65.8% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-01: 93.3% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-02: 74.3% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-03: 77.5% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-04: 72.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-05: 73.9% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-06: 69.1% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.3% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-08: 86.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-09: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-10: 68.6% of 35Bipartisanshippeak 10.5% · Dec ’25 · latest 5.7%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.9% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 1.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.5% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.3% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.3% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.5% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.9% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.8% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.3% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 9.9% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 5.7% of 35Credit claimingpeak 50.0% · Jun ’25 · latest 28.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 32.4% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-02: 36.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-03: 25.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-04: 36.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-05: 42.3% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-06: 50.0% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-07: 49.5% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-08: 24.5% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-09: 47.8% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-10: 44.8% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.2% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-12: 31.6% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-01: 48.9% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-02: 40.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-04: 11.6% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-05: 17.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-06: 28.4% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-07: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-08: 20.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-09: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-10: 28.6% of 35Extreme labelspeak 3.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 2.9%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.5% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.3% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.1% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.2% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.9% of 35Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Haridopolos, 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 ’25340.0%0.0%73.5%0.0%32.4%0.0%
Feb ’25581.7%20.7%74.1%6.9%36.2%3.5%
Mar ’25620.0%6.5%80.7%1.6%25.8%0.0%
Apr ’25580.0%12.1%60.3%3.5%36.2%1.7%
May ’25781.3%16.7%85.9%5.1%42.3%1.3%
Jun ’25601.7%10.0%86.7%3.3%50.0%1.7%
Jul ’25912.2%8.8%76.9%3.3%49.5%1.1%
Aug ’25530.0%3.8%90.6%0.0%24.5%0.0%
Sep ’25691.5%2.9%75.4%4.3%47.8%2.9%
Oct ’25581.7%12.1%89.7%3.5%44.8%0.0%
Nov ’25380.0%13.2%89.5%7.9%34.2%0.0%
Dec ’25380.0%10.5%65.8%10.5%31.6%0.0%
Jan ’26450.0%8.9%93.3%2.2%48.9%2.2%
Feb ’261010.0%10.9%74.3%7.9%40.6%0.0%
Mar ’26802.5%6.3%77.5%3.8%25.0%1.3%
Apr ’26860.0%2.3%72.1%2.3%11.6%0.0%
May ’26690.0%5.8%73.9%1.5%17.4%0.0%
Jun ’26810.0%4.9%69.1%9.9%28.4%1.2%
Jul ’26290.0%3.5%79.3%0.0%34.5%0.0%
Aug ’26150.0%0.0%86.7%0.0%20.0%0.0%
Sep ’26210.0%0.0%66.7%4.8%28.6%0.0%
Oct ’26350.0%0.0%68.6%5.7%28.6%2.9%
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 Haridopolos’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Reps. Haridopolos and McClellan Introduce Legislation to Establish National American History and Founders Month Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Congressman Mike Haridopolos (R-FL-08) and Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04) introduced the bipartisan and bicameral National American History and F…

Oct 14, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, I like that recent quote I heard on the floor just a few minutes ago: Let us not forget the dishonesty here. That is a very rich comment. I see the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is here. They worked out a deal in order to fund DHS, not part of it but all of it, and the…

Mar 25, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics; Immigration; Education; Crime and Law Enforcement; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I like that recent quote I heard on the floor just a few minutes ago: Let us not forget the dishonesty here. That is a very rich comment. I see the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is here. They worked out a deal in order to fund DHS, not part of it but all of it, and the one part they keep leaving out is the idea about ICE. ICE is somewhat important. Ten million people entered this country…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Education · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Democrat SenatorSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law EnforcementSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Barack ObamaSource

All 1,259 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: 986 posts on X, 162 Congressional Record speeches, 64 newsletters, 47 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Science, Technology, Communications is what Haridopolos talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 4.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 77th 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 Haridopolos talks about. The bills Haridopolos sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Haridopolos talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Haridopolos
Peers
Science, Technology, Communications292 statements
30%
7%
Armed Forces and National Security227 statements
23%
24%
Economics and Public Finance219 statements
22%
19%
Government Operations and Politics189 statements
19%
19%
Immigration124 statements
13%
13%
Show the data
Policy areas Haridopolos talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHaridopolosPeers
Science, Technology, Communications30%7%
Armed Forces and National Security23%24%
Economics and Public Finance22%19%
Government Operations and Politics19%19%
Immigration13%13%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Haridopolos’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 onScience, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 7%)30%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 3%)8%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 24%)23%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 19%)22%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 13%)13%Immigration, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 5%)7%
Show the data
Haridopolos's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Science, Technology, Communications30%7%8%3%
Armed Forces and National Security23%24%7%8%
Economics and Public Finance22%19%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics19%19%9%12%
Immigration13%13%7%5%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 77th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Haridopolos sits at +0.80 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 78% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.77 to +0.83, which understates the uncertainty; from 892 donors and 664 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”.

+0.80

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.77 to +0.83. From 892 donors and 664 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Haridopolos, 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 Haridopolos’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 Haridopolos sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Haridopolos +0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Haridopolos's CSIP score of +0.80 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Haridopolos
House Republicans221+1.022%
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 Haridopolos 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 Haridopolos.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Haridopolos raised $2.0M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 4.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 79% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$2.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 408 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): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $900.7K (44.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $42.4K (2.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $42.4K (2.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)PACs and other committees: $842.8K (41.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $263.4K (12.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)44 squares$900.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$42.4K
  • PACs and other committees41 squares$842.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)13 squares$263.4K
Show the data
Sources of Haridopolos's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$900.7K44.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$42.4K2.1%
PACs and other committees$842.8K41.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$263.4K12.9%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20242026 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Haridopolos's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$1.8M
2026 cycle$2.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$646.8K
  2. New York$35.3K
  3. Virginia$29.0K
  4. District of Columbia$24.5K
  5. Texas$15.0K

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%
Haridopolos
Median
2026
5%
9%
2024
2%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHaridopolosMedian
2026 cycle5%9%
2024 cycle2%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: $95NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $5,000ILWisconsin: $5,000WIMichigan: $5,801MINew York: $35.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: $1,500ORNevada: $147NVWyoming: $1,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $2,000OHPennsylvania: $543PANew Jersey: $4,448NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $6,167CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,801CONebraska: $12.5KNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $29.0KVAMaryland: $6,950MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,128AZNew Mexico: $500NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,041TNNorth Carolina: $600NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $24.5KDCOklahoma: $8,288OKLouisiana: $1,690LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $1,000ALGeorgia: $6,583GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $15.0KTXFlorida: $646.8KFL
Show the data
Haridopolos's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$646.8K
New York$35.3K
Virginia$29.0K
District of Columbia$24.5K
Texas$15.0K
Nebraska$12.5K
Oklahoma$8,288
Maryland$6,950
Georgia$6,583
California$6,167
Michigan$5,801
Illinois$5,000
Wisconsin$5,000
New Jersey$4,448
Ohio$2,000
Colorado$1,801
Louisiana$1,690
Oregon$1,500
Arizona$1,128
Tennessee$1,041
Wyoming$1,000
Alabama$1,000
North Carolina$600
Pennsylvania$543
Massachusetts$500
New Mexico$500
Nevada$147
North Dakota$95
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
408

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

79%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.7%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 78%78%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 2.7%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Haridopolos's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 5.6% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.3% between +0.50 and +0.75, 78% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0078%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.252.7%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Haridopolos’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Haridopolos’s own score is +0.80.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$159.0K 84 donors
  2. PHYSICIAN$75.6K 38 donors
  3. EXECUTIVE$57.1K 34 donors
  4. CEO$53.7K 16 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$52.2K 10 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. BLUE ORIGIN LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BLUE ORIGIN PAC)$10.0K
  3. EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC$10.0K
  4. ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BALLARD PARTNERS$11.0K 9 donors
  2. MEDICAL ASSOCIATES OF BREVARD$8,000 4 donors
  3. MARTAC$7,311 4 donors
  4. ELEVATE CREDIT$7,000 3 donors
  5. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP$4,033 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Haridopolos voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.2% 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, Haridopolos voted against the majority of House Republicans 23 times.

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

23

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.2%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 152nd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Haridopolos
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
96.3%
82nd of 221
Party unity
97.2%
97.1%
152nd of 221
Show the data
Haridopolos's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHaridopolosPeers
Attendance98.5%96.3%
Party unity97.2%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 Haridopolos most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR514 shared votes99%
  2. Randy FeenstraR653 shared votes98%
  3. Adrian SmithR653 shared votes98%
  4. Mike RogersR643 shared votes98%
  5. Bruce WestermanR661 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Haridopolos least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD381 shared votes23%
  2. Rashida TlaibD649 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD631 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD570 shared votes25%
  5. Dan GoldmanD581 shared votes25%
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

Haridopolos sponsored 6 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 266 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 78th of 216).

The bills Haridopolos sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored6 billsSponsored, Introduced: 66Sponsored, In committee: 66Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored266 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 266266Cosponsored, In committee: 266266Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3737Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Haridopolos sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored66100
Cosponsored2662663755
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

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

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Daniel Webster24
  2. Gus Bilirakis23
  3. W. Steube23
  4. Randy Weber Sr.23
  5. Michael Lawler21
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 Haridopolos’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. 10781National American History and Founders Month ActSponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10789Protecting Florida's Offshore Military Readiness ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10737To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to promote transparency in science, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10571Surge to Save Newborns ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10430STARS Act of 2026CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 42 times in 90 days. Haridopolos’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Haridopolos posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Haridopolos posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political promotional graphic with a smiling man in a suit on the right and a blue-and-red design on the left. It highlights his casework accomplishments and includes contact information and campaign branding.
    A political promotional graphic with a smiling man in a suit on the right and a blue-and-red design on the left. It highlights his casework accomplishments and includes contact information and campaign branding.View post
  • A political promotional graphic featuring a portrait of a smiling male representative beside a large federal-grants funding claim and three illustrated categories: water and utilities, infrastructure, and public safety. Contact information and a campaign-style logo appear at the bottom.
    A political promotional graphic featuring a portrait of a smiling male representative beside a large federal-grants funding claim and three illustrated categories: water and utilities, infrastructure, and public safety. Contact information and a campaign-style logo appear at the bottom.View post
  • Two men wearing headsets sit at a broadcast setup and talk while cameras and equipment record them. They are seated outdoors near a body of water and a parking area. There is some text on equipment and papers.
    Two men wearing headsets sit at a broadcast setup and talk while cameras and equipment record them. They are seated outdoors near a body of water and a parking area. There is some text on equipment and papers.View post
  • A group of people, including military personnel in camouflage and blue uniforms, talk outside a modern building. A large American flag is displayed on a tower in the background. There is text on some uniforms and badges.
    A group of people, including military personnel in camouflage and blue uniforms, talk outside a modern building. A large American flag is displayed on a tower in the background. There is text on some uniforms and badges.View post
  • Two men in formal attire stand together outdoors in front of a building and pose for a photograph. One man holds a phone. There is some text visible in the background.
    Two men in formal attire stand together outdoors in front of a building and pose for a photograph. One man holds a phone. There is some text visible in the background.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 Haridopolos 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
H001099
Bioguide
H001099
FEC candidate ids
H4FL08168

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