Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Georgia’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 4, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide J000288FEC H6GA04129

Portrait of Hank Johnson Jr., rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
59%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

59% of 738 statements discuss policy (433 statements); the average for House Democrats is 73%. Ranks 208th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Johnson’s press releases, posts on X, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 6.4% of Johnson’s statements use an extreme label, 3.3 times the House Democrat average of 1.9%. Johnson raised $514.4K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (median $2.0M).

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

Policy discussion

59%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 208th of 216

Extreme labels

6.4%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 7th of 216

Raised, 2026

$514.4K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 202nd of 214

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.72

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 27th of 216

Personal attacks

10%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 42nd of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.06

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Johnson says

Johnson stresses bipartisanship less than 76% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 5.8% of 738 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 167th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Johnson’s 738 statements in the 119th Congress (578 posts on X, 79 press releases, 54 newsletters, 27 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Johnson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion433 statements
59%
73%
208th of 216
Policy criticism183 statements
25%
28%
146th of 216
Credit claiming127 statements
17%
23%
154th of 216
Personal attacks76 statements
10%
7%
42nd of 216
Bipartisanship43 statements
6%
10%
167th of 216
Show the data
Johnson's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowJohnsonPeers
Policy discussion59%73%
Policy criticism25%28%
Credit claiming17%23%
Personal attacks10%7%
Bipartisanship6%10%
738

statements classified

578 posts on X, 79 press releases, 54 newsletters, 27 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 578 (78.3%)posts on X 578press releases: 79 (10.7%)newsletters: 54 (7.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 27 (3.7%)
Show the data
Johnson's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X578
press releases79
newsletters54
Congressional Record speeches27
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Johnson used extreme labels in 6.4% of statements, 3.3 times the peer average. 47 statements, most often aimed at MAGA Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”26
  2. “extreme”5
  3. “fascist”1
  4. “radical”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA Republicans7
  2. Republicans5
  3. MAGA3
  4. Supreme Court3
  5. Trump2
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: 522025-02: 622025-03: 642025-04: 552025-05: 682025-06: 362025-07: 572025-08: 172025-09: 362025-10: 372025-11: 202025-12: 192026-01: 362026-02: 272026-03: 212026-04: 222026-05: 222026-06: 212026-07: 262026-08: 122026-09: 202026-10: 8peak 68 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 25.0% · Sep ’26 · latest 25.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 9.6% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-02: 14.5% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-03: 12.5% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-04: 14.5% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-05: 10.3% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.6% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.9% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-09: 13.9% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.4% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-01: 22.2% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-02: 11.1% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-03: 9.5% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-04: 9.1% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.5% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-07: 7.7% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-08: 8.3% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-09: 25.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 49.1% · Jul ’25 · latest 5.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 21.1% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-02: 33.9% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-03: 21.9% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-04: 36.4% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-05: 22.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-06: 16.7% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-07: 49.1% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-08: 11.8% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.7% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-10: 21.6% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-11: 25.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.9% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-02: 25.9% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-04: 9.1% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-05: 31.8% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-06: 47.6% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-07: 11.5% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-08: 25.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 86.1% · Jan ’26 · latest 65.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 42.3% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-02: 66.1% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-03: 43.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-04: 60.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-05: 54.4% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-06: 55.6% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-08: 47.1% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-09: 44.4% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-10: 48.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-11: 50.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-12: 36.8% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-01: 86.1% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-02: 55.6% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-04: 68.2% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.3% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-06: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.9% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-08: 66.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-09: 65.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 16.2% · Oct ’25 · latest 5.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.8% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.3% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.1% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.4% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 13.9% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 0.0% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 16.2% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 4.5% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 11.5% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 30.0% · Nov ’25 · latest 15.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 21.1% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-02: 24.2% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-03: 17.2% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-04: 7.3% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-05: 23.5% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.9% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-07: 10.5% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-08: 17.6% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-09: 19.4% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-10: 13.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-11: 30.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-12: 21.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-01: 8.3% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-02: 22.2% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-04: 9.1% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-05: 13.6% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-06: 9.5% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.1% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-08: 16.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-09: 15.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 22.7% · May ’26 · latest 10.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.7% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.1% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-04: 9.1% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-05: 7.3% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-06: 11.1% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.5% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-08: 11.8% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-12: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-04: 13.6% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-05: 22.7% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-06: 9.5% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-07: 11.5% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-09: 10.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Johnson, 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 ’25529.6%21.1%42.3%7.7%21.1%1.9%
Feb ’256214.5%33.9%66.1%4.8%24.2%9.7%
Mar ’256412.5%21.9%43.8%6.3%17.2%3.1%
Apr ’255514.5%36.4%60.0%9.1%7.3%9.1%
May ’256810.3%22.1%54.4%4.4%23.5%7.3%
Jun ’25365.6%16.7%55.6%13.9%13.9%11.1%
Jul ’25577.0%49.1%70.2%1.8%10.5%3.5%
Aug ’25175.9%11.8%47.1%5.9%17.6%11.8%
Sep ’253613.9%16.7%44.4%0.0%19.4%2.8%
Oct ’25375.4%21.6%48.6%16.2%13.5%2.7%
Nov ’25200.0%25.0%50.0%5.0%30.0%0.0%
Dec ’25190.0%21.1%36.8%5.3%21.1%5.3%
Jan ’263622.2%13.9%86.1%5.6%8.3%2.8%
Feb ’262711.1%25.9%55.6%3.7%22.2%3.7%
Mar ’26219.5%23.8%66.7%4.8%28.6%0.0%
Apr ’26229.1%9.1%68.2%4.5%9.1%13.6%
May ’26224.5%31.8%77.3%0.0%13.6%22.7%
Jun ’26210.0%47.6%61.9%0.0%9.5%9.5%
Jul ’26267.7%11.5%76.9%11.5%23.1%11.5%
Aug ’26128.3%25.0%66.7%0.0%16.7%0.0%
Sep ’262025.0%5.0%65.0%5.0%15.0%10.0%
Oct ’268— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. One month is hatched here.

In Johnson’s words

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

Personal attacks

Georgia's Congressional Democrats Push Back on State Board’s 'Unsubstantiated Claims' in DOJ Letter ATLANTA, GA — Today, four of the five members of the Georgia U.S. House of Representatives Democrat delegation and Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administra…

Oct 7, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Mills · Source

Bipartisanship

Ranking Member Johnson’s Opening Statement At Hearing On Protecting America’s Patent System And Innovation Economy Washington, D.C. (September 2, 2026)—Today, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, delivered…

Sep 2, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Government Operations and Politics; Science, Technology, Communications; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnson’s Opening Statement At Hearing On Trump’s Attacks On American Global Leadership WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 15, 2026)—Today, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, delivere…

Sep 15, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Environmental Protection; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Law; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA Republicans; target: Donald Trump, MAGA Republicans · 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. Press releases

    Georgia's Congressional Democrats Push Back on State Board’s 'Unsubstantiated Claims' in DOJ Letter ATLANTA, GA — Today, four of the five members of the Georgia U.S. House of Representatives Democrat delegation and Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration that oversees federal elections, sent a letter to the Georgia State Election Board pushing back on its Sept. 30 let…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: MillsSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Energy · Housing and Community Development · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Science, Technology, Communications · target: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnson’s Opening Statement At Hearing On Trump’s Attacks On American Global Leadership WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 15, 2026)—Today, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, delivered opening remarks at a hearing on the International Criminal Court (ICC), highlighting how President Trump’s attacks on…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Energy · Environmental Protection · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA Republicans · target: Donald Trump, MAGA RepublicansSource

  5. 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 738 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: 578 posts on X, 79 press releases, 54 newsletters, 27 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Johnson talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 27th of 216).

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 Johnson talks about. The bills Johnson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Johnson talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Johnson
Peers
Health130 statements
30%
26%
Government Operations and Politics120 statements
28%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues89 statements
21%
13%
Law88 statements
20%
5%
Economics and Public Finance75 statements
17%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Johnson talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowJohnsonPeers
Health30%26%
Government Operations and Politics28%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues21%13%
Law20%5%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Johnson’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. 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 Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 30% (House Democrats 26%)30%Health, legislates on: 18% (House Democrats 16%)18%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 20%)28%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 13%)21%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 5%)8%LawLaw, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 5%)20%Law, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 1%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 20%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%
Show the data
Johnson's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health30%26%18%16%
Government Operations and Politics28%20%9%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues21%13%8%5%
Law20%5%4%1%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%0%1%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 27th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Johnson sits at −1.06 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 60% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.08 to −1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 435 donors and 7,348 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”.

−1.06

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.08 to −1.04. From 435 donors and 7,348 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Johnson −1.1House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Johnson, 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 Johnson’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 Johnson sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Johnson −1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Johnson's CSIP score of −1.06 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Johnson
House Democrats217−1.040%
All House439+0.320%
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 Johnson 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 Johnson.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Johnson raised $514.4K in the 2026 cycle, 26% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 23% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 69% of itemized individual money came from Georgia.

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
$514.4K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 63 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $79.2K (15.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $23.1K (4.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $23.1K (4.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $23.1K (4.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $23.1K (4.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $23.1K (4.5%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)PACs and other committees: $402.8K (78.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $8,541 (1.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $8,541 (1.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)15 squares$79.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)5 squares$23.1K
  • PACs and other committees78 squares$402.8K
  • Party committees$779
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$8,541
Show the data
Sources of Johnson's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$79.2K15.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$23.1K4.5%
PACs and other committees$402.8K78.3%
Party committees$7790.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$8,5411.7%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $636.2K$636.2K20202022 cycle: $567.5K$567.5K20222024 cycle: $669.9K$669.9K20242026 cycle: $514.4K$514.4K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Johnson's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$636.2K
2022 cycle$567.5K
2024 cycle$669.9K
2026 cycle$514.4K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 69% came from Georgia.

  1. Georgia$36.4K
  2. District of Columbia$6,365
  3. Maryland$3,500
  4. Puerto Rico$3,000
  5. California$1,616

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.

0%60%
Johnson
Median
2026
23%
13%
2024
31%
13%
2022
43%
13%
2020
40%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowJohnsonMedian
2026 cycle23%13%
2024 cycle31%13%
2022 cycle43%13%
2020 cycle40%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $1,616CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $130MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $1,500VAMaryland: $3,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $6,365DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $36.4KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: $500FL
Show the data
Johnson's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Georgia$36.4K
District of Columbia$6,365
Maryland$3,500
California$1,616
Virginia$1,500
Florida$500
Missouri$130
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
63

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

69%

from Georgia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 57%57%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 36%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.9%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Johnson's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.25: 57% between −1.25 and −1.00, 36% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0057%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7536%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.9%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Johnson’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Johnson’s own score is −1.06.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ATTORNEY$11.5K 10 donors
  2. RETIRED$5,030 11 donors
  3. PHYSICIAN$5,000 3 donors
  4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER$3,000 3 donors
  5. PARTNER$2,495 7 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Johnson voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Johnson voted against the majority of House Democrats 18 times.

674 roll calls Johnson could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Johnson voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

18

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 62nd of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Johnson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
96.9%
91st of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
62nd of 217
Show the data
Johnson's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowJohnsonPeers
Attendance98.5%96.9%
Party unity99.3%96.4%
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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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 Johnson most often

  1. Joaquin CastroD643 shared votes98%
  2. Danny DavisD637 shared votes98%
  3. Robert GarciaD625 shared votes98%
  4. Mark DeSaulnierD651 shared votes98%
  5. Diana DeGetteD653 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Johnson least often

  1. Chip RoyR626 shared votes16%
  2. Keith SelfR650 shared votes18%
  3. Ralph NormanR588 shared votes18%
  4. Eric BurlisonR635 shared votes18%
  5. Andy BiggsR599 shared votes18%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Johnson sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 911 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Johnson 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

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored911 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 911911Cosponsored, In committee: 911911Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1717Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Johnson sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323000
Cosponsored9119111733
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton253
  2. Rashida Tlaib143
  3. André Carson110
  4. Shri Thanedar97
  5. Bonnie Watson Coleman91
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 Johnson’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. 10858CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.Res. 1634Expressing support for the recognition of October 26, 2026, as Intersex Awareness Day, and supporting the goals and ideals of Intersex Awareness Day.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10853Yemen TPS ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026
H.Res. 1632Expressing support for the designation of October 17, 2026, as "National Vitiligo Awareness Day".SponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 80 times in 90 days. Johnson’s official site had 21 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Johnson posted on Oct 5, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Johnson posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A woman and a man stand together facing the camera in an office. An American flag and framed photographs and artwork are visible behind them. There is text on the woman's jacket pin.
    A woman and a man stand together facing the camera in an office. An American flag and framed photographs and artwork are visible behind them. There is text on the woman's jacket pin.View post
  • A posed photograph of three adults standing together in an office. Framed documents and photographs hang on the wall behind them, alongside an American flag. There is text on some of the framed items and clothing.
    A posed photograph of three adults standing together in an office. Framed documents and photographs hang on the wall behind them, alongside an American flag. There is text on some of the framed items and clothing.View post
  • A shofar rests on a white prayer shawl beside an open book. Large text at the bottom announces a religious holiday and its dates.
    A shofar rests on a white prayer shawl beside an open book. Large text at the bottom announces a religious holiday and its dates.View post
  • A group of adults pose for a photo in front of a decorated event backdrop, with purple and gold balloons. A man and woman near the center hold a small award. There is text on the backdrop.
    A group of adults pose for a photo in front of a decorated event backdrop, with purple and gold balloons. A man and woman near the center hold a small award. There is text on the backdrop.View post
  • A blue-toned Rosh Hashanah greeting poster featuring a shofar in the foreground, an apple with slices, a stack of round food, and a menorah in the background. Text appears across the top and bottom.
    A blue-toned Rosh Hashanah greeting poster featuring a shofar in the foreground, an apple with slices, a stack of round food, and a menorah in the background. Text appears across the top and bottom.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 Johnson is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
J000288
Bioguide
J000288
FEC candidate ids
H6GA04129

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