Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Wisconsin

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide J000293FEC S0WI00197

Portrait of Ron Johnson, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.8×
the Senate Republican rate of policy criticism

32% of 914 statements criticize a policy (288 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 2nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.

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

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 6.2% of Johnson’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.9 times the Senate Republican average of 2.1%. 16% of Johnson’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 36%).

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

Policy criticism

32%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 2nd of 52

Personal attacks

6.2%

Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 4th of 52

Credit claiming

16%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 49th of 52

CSIP ideology

+1.19

More conservative than 81% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Raised, 2026

$1.2M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 41st of 51

Policy discussion

65%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 40th of 52

Peer group: Senate Republicans. 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 attacks opponents personally more than 92% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 6.2% of 914 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 4th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Johnson’s 914 statements in the 119th Congress (687 posts on X, 141 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 29 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Johnson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion596 statements
65%
70%
40th of 52
Policy criticism288 statements
32%
17%
2nd of 52
Credit claiming148 statements
16%
36%
49th of 52
Bipartisanship76 statements
8%
13%
35th of 52
Personal attacks57 statements
6%
2%
4th of 52
Show the data
Johnson's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowJohnsonPeers
Policy discussion65%70%
Policy criticism32%17%
Credit claiming16%36%
Bipartisanship8%13%
Personal attacks6%2%
914

statements classified

687 posts on X, 141 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 29 newsletters.

posts on X: 687 (75.2%)posts on X 687press releases: 141 (15.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 57 (6.2%)newsletters: 29 (3.2%)
Show the data
Johnson's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X687
press releases141
Congressional Record speeches57
newsletters29
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Johnson; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. 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 2.3% of statements, below the peer average. 21 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”10
  2. “MAGA”1
  3. “extreme”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats4
  2. radical left4
  3. Chuck Schumer1
  4. deep state1
  5. Democratic Party1
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: 492025-02: 402025-03: 282025-04: 272025-05: 402025-06: 282025-07: 382025-08: 102025-09: 392025-10: 742025-11: 752025-12: 392026-01: 262026-02: 362026-03: 572026-04: 582026-05: 502026-06: 632026-07: 402026-08: 382026-09: 452026-10: 14peak 75 · Nov ’25Personal attackspeak 40.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.1% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.6% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-05: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.6% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-07: 10.5% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-08: 40.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.7% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.7% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.6% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-04: 8.6% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-05: 10.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-06: 11.1% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-07: 15.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-08: 10.5% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 14Policy criticismpeak 51.3% · Dec ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 42.9% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-02: 37.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-03: 25.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-04: 33.3% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-05: 40.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-06: 46.4% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-07: 34.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-08: 20.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-09: 38.5% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-10: 40.5% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-11: 45.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-12: 51.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-01: 3.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-02: 36.1% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-03: 50.9% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-04: 13.8% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-05: 26.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-06: 25.4% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-07: 2.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-08: 18.4% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-09: 11.1% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 14Policy discussionpeak 92.3% · Dec ’25 · latest 71.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 81.6% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-03: 67.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-04: 66.7% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-05: 70.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-06: 64.3% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-07: 60.5% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-08: 50.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-09: 61.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.9% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-11: 60.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-12: 92.3% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-02: 58.3% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-03: 71.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-04: 63.8% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-05: 50.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-06: 47.6% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-07: 42.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-08: 73.7% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-09: 71.1% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-10: 71.4% of 14Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.4% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 28.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.1% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 14.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.6% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 15.4% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 17.6% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 16.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 0.0% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.9% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 14Credit claimingpeak 42.9% · Jan ’25 · latest 7.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 42.9% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-02: 27.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-03: 35.7% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.7% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-07: 13.2% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-08: 10.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-09: 17.9% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-10: 18.9% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-11: 17.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-12: 10.3% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-01: 23.1% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-02: 8.3% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-03: 7.0% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-04: 10.3% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-05: 12.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-06: 9.5% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-07: 0.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-08: 21.1% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-09: 2.2% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-10: 7.1% of 14Extreme labelspeak 10.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 7.1%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.1% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.6% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.6% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-08: 10.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.6% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-10: 6.8% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-01: 7.7% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.8% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-10: 7.1% of 14Jan ’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 ’25494.1%42.9%81.6%18.4%42.9%4.1%
Feb ’25407.5%37.5%70.0%2.5%27.5%2.5%
Mar ’25283.6%25.0%67.9%28.6%35.7%3.6%
Apr ’25270.0%33.3%66.7%11.1%29.6%0.0%
May ’254010.0%40.0%70.0%5.0%25.0%2.5%
Jun ’25283.6%46.4%64.3%14.3%10.7%0.0%
Jul ’253810.5%34.2%60.5%2.6%13.2%2.6%
Aug ’251040.0%20.0%50.0%0.0%10.0%10.0%
Sep ’25392.6%38.5%61.5%15.4%17.9%2.6%
Oct ’25742.7%40.5%64.9%17.6%18.9%6.8%
Nov ’25754.0%45.3%60.0%16.0%17.3%2.7%
Dec ’25392.6%51.3%92.3%0.0%10.3%0.0%
Jan ’26267.7%3.9%88.5%3.9%23.1%7.7%
Feb ’26365.6%36.1%58.3%0.0%8.3%2.8%
Mar ’26570.0%50.9%71.9%14.0%7.0%1.8%
Apr ’26588.6%13.8%63.8%5.2%10.3%0.0%
May ’265010.0%26.0%50.0%0.0%12.0%2.0%
Jun ’266311.1%25.4%47.6%0.0%9.5%0.0%
Jul ’264015.0%2.5%42.5%12.5%0.0%0.0%
Aug ’263810.5%18.4%73.7%0.0%21.1%0.0%
Sep ’26450.0%11.1%71.1%0.0%2.2%0.0%
Oct ’26140.0%0.0%71.4%0.0%7.1%7.1%
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 Johnson’s words

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

Credit claiming

Time for a COVID Reckoning [Image] Mission: To Help People Real Stories, Real People [Image] On September 28, I held a four-hour roundtable discussion<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenRonJohnson&crop=18098.36396575.16238380.21703673&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2f…

Oct 14, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health

Personal attacks

Anthony Fauci was lying through his teeth [Image] Mission: To Help People Fauci's Phone [Image]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenRonJohnson&crop=17939.34249724.16082024.21703673&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ronjohnson.senate.gov%2f2026%2f08%2f10%2fsenators-jo…

Aug 19, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; target: Anthony Fauci, Peter Marks

Extreme label

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

Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical leftists, 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. Newsletters

    Anthony Fauci was lying through his teeth [Image] Mission: To Help People Fauci's Phone [Image]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenRonJohnson&crop=17939.34249724.16082024.21703673&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ronjohnson.senate.gov%2f2026%2f08%2f10%2fsenators-johnson-paul-release-initial-texts-from-dr-faucis-government-iphone-2%2f&redir_log=997368416903854> Last week, Senator Ra…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: Anthony Fauci, Peter Marks

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Anthony FauciSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: FauciSource

  4. Press releases

    ICYMI: Sen. Johnson Joins The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show and America Reports WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appeared on The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show and America Reports to discuss one of the text chain messages obtained from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s government-issued cellphone. The phone contains more than 34,000 text messa…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · target: Anthony Fauci, Tom ShimabukuroSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Anthony FauciSource

All 914 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: 687 posts on X, 141 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 29 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Johnson talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 2.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 38th of 52).

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%47%
Johnson
Peers
Health253 statements
42%
15%
Government Operations and Politics204 statements
34%
19%
Economics and Public Finance155 statements
26%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security73 statements
12%
25%
Crime and Law Enforcement55 statements
9%
11%
Show the data
Policy areas Johnson talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowJohnsonPeers
Health42%15%
Government Operations and Politics34%19%
Economics and Public Finance26%17%
Armed Forces and National Security12%25%
Crime and Law Enforcement9%11%
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 Senate 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 47%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 42% (Senate Republicans 15%)42%Health, legislates on: 18% (Senate Republicans 11%)18%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 34% (Senate Republicans 19%)34%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 28% (Senate Republicans 11%)28%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 26% (Senate Republicans 17%)26%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 1%)8%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 12% (Senate Republicans 25%)12%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 8%)1%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 9% (Senate Republicans 11%)9%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 8%)7%
Show the data
Johnson's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Health42%15%18%11%
Government Operations and Politics34%19%28%11%
Economics and Public Finance26%17%8%1%
Armed Forces and National Security12%25%1%8%
Crime and Law Enforcement9%11%7%8%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 38th of 52.

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 +1.19 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 81% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.18 to +1.21, which understates the uncertainty; from 41,174 donors and 4,880 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”.

+1.19

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.18 to +1.21. From 41,174 donors and 4,880 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Johnson +1.2Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

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 →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Johnson +1.2All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Johnson's CSIP score of +1.19 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Johnson
Senate Republicans51+1.080%
All Senate98+0.490%
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 $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, 38% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 27% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 25% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.

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
$1.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,480 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $819.2K (66.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $296.3K (24.1%)PACs and other committees: $40.0K (3.3%)PACs and other committees: $40.0K (3.3%)PACs and other committees: $40.0K (3.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $72.2K (5.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)67 squares$819.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)24 squares$296.3K
  • PACs and other committees3 squares$40.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$72.2K
Show the data
Sources of Johnson's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$819.2K66.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$296.3K24.1%
PACs and other committees$40.0K3.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$72.2K5.9%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $590.2K$590.2K20202022 cycle: $34.9M$34.9M20222024 cycle: $5.4M$5.4M20242026 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Johnson's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$590.2K
2022 cycle$34.9M
2024 cycle$5.4M
2026 cycle$1.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 25% came from Wisconsin.

  1. Wisconsin$228.8K
  2. California$142.0K
  3. Texas$83.8K
  4. Florida$78.7K
  5. New York$33.2K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Johnson
Median
2026
27%
17%
2024
31%
17%
2022
40%
17%
2020
67%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowJohnsonMedian
2026 cycle27%17%
2024 cycle31%17%
2022 cycle40%17%
2020 cycle67%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,704AKMaine: $340MEVermont: $18.5KVTNew Hampshire: $2,523NHWashington: $6,050WAIdaho: $4,881IDMontana: $1,496MTNorth Dakota: $450NDMinnesota: $9,184MNIllinois: $32.6KILWisconsin: $228.8KWIMichigan: $15.5KMINew York: $33.2KNYRhode Island: $1,800RIMassachusetts: $18.1KMAOregon: $6,203ORNevada: $7,726NVWyoming: $1,324WYSouth Dakota: $1,332SDIowa: $1,164IAIndiana: $13.1KINOhio: $19.3KOHPennsylvania: $15.0KPANew Jersey: $11.0KNJConnecticut: $4,770CTCalifornia: $142.0KCAUtah: $5,485UTColorado: $11.9KCONebraska: $450NEMissouri: $4,372MOKentucky: $3,842KYWest Virginia: $1,213WVVirginia: $13.9KVAMaryland: $12.4KMDDelaware: $670DEArizona: $21.1KAZNew Mexico: $3,265NMKansas: $2,958KSArkansas: $1,480ARTennessee: $11.8KTNNorth Carolina: $18.1KNCSouth Carolina: $6,451SCDistrict of Columbia: $1,604DCOklahoma: $3,386OKLouisiana: $4,542LAMississippi: $4,620MSAlabama: $4,900ALGeorgia: $10.3KGAHawaii: $716HITexas: $83.8KTXFlorida: $78.7KFL
Show the data
Johnson's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Wisconsin$228.8K
California$142.0K
Texas$83.8K
Florida$78.7K
New York$33.2K
Illinois$32.6K
Arizona$21.1K
Ohio$19.3K
Vermont$18.5K
North Carolina$18.1K
Massachusetts$18.1K
Michigan$15.5K
Pennsylvania$15.0K
Virginia$13.9K
Indiana$13.1K
Maryland$12.4K
Colorado$11.9K
Tennessee$11.8K
New Jersey$11.0K
Georgia$10.3K
Minnesota$9,184
Nevada$7,726
South Carolina$6,451
Oregon$6,203
Washington$6,050
Utah$5,485
Alabama$4,900
Idaho$4,881
Connecticut$4,770
Mississippi$4,620
Louisiana$4,542
Missouri$4,372
Kentucky$3,842
Oklahoma$3,386
New Mexico$3,265
Kansas$2,958
Alaska$2,704
New Hampshire$2,523
Rhode Island$1,800
District of Columbia$1,604
Montana$1,496
Arkansas$1,480
South Dakota$1,332
Wyoming$1,324
West Virginia$1,213
Iowa$1,164
Hawaii$716
Delaware$670
North Dakota$450
Nebraska$450
Maine$340
1,480

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

25%

from Wisconsin

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 4.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 16%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 73%73%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.9%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Johnson's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.75: 16% between +0.75 and +1.00, 73% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.754.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0016%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2573%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.9%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
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 +1.19.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$508.6K 1,079 donors
  2. REAL ESTATE$25.3K 13 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$22.0K 10 donors
  4. NOT EMPLOYED$20.0K 7 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$17.6K 7 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. PAC FOR AMERICA$10.0K
  2. FASPAC FAREWAY STORES INC PAC$6,500
  3. FEDERATION OF EXCHANGE ACCOMODATORS 1031 PAC$5,000
  4. IN THE ARENA PAC$5,000
  5. AT&T INC. EMPLOYEE FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T EMPLOYEE FEDERAL PAC)$4,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ENTREPRENEUR$12.7K 10 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Johnson voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Johnson voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 22 times.

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

22

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 21st of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Johnson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
97.1%
19th of 53
Party unity
99.7%
98.4%
21st of 53
Show the data
Johnson's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowJohnsonPeers
Attendance98.6%97.1%
Party unity99.7%98.4%
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 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
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. Rick ScottR901 shared votes99%
  2. Ted CruzR856 shared votes99%
  3. Tommy TubervilleR843 shared votes99%
  4. Mike LeeR880 shared votes99%
  5. Bill HagertyR871 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Johnson least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD896 shared votes2.1%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD889 shared votes2.4%
  3. Bernie SandersI840 shared votes2.5%
  4. Jeff MerkleyD896 shared votes2.9%
  5. Chris Van HollenD891 shared votes3.1%
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 22 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 62 others. 27% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 16th of 51).

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

Sponsored22 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2222Sponsored, In committee: 1919Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored62 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 6262Cosponsored, In committee: 6060Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2424Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Johnson sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2219200
Cosponsored62602411
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.

27%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 16th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Rick Scott27
  2. James Lankford24
  3. Mike Lee16
  4. James Risch15
  5. Ted Cruz14
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
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 897A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona.CosponsorSep 23, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026
S.Con.Res. 38A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036.SponsorAug 7, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinancePlaced on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 550. (text: CR S4571-4577) Aug 7, 2026
S.Res. 821A resolution designating July 30, 2026, as "National Whistleblower Appreciation Day".CosponsorJul 30, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4365; text: CR S4391) Jul 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 55 times in 90 days. Johnson’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Johnson posted on Sep 11, 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 memorial reflecting pool at the World Trade Center site, with skyscrapers in the background and a small American flag among engraved names in the foreground. Large commemorative text is overlaid on the image.
    A memorial reflecting pool at the World Trade Center site, with skyscrapers in the background and a small American flag among engraved names in the foreground. Large commemorative text is overlaid on the image.View post
  • A black-and-white memorial graphic showing a man in a suit raising a fist, with memorial text beside him.
    A black-and-white memorial graphic showing a man in a suit raising a fist, with memorial text beside him.View post
  • A blue message-detail screen showing sender and recipient information, a message, delivery and read-status fields, and timestamps. Some names are obscured.
    A blue message-detail screen showing sender and recipient information, a message, delivery and read-status fields, and timestamps. Some names are obscured.View post
  • A screenshot of an email discussing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. Some identifying details are obscured with black bars.
    A screenshot of an email discussing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. Some identifying details are obscured with black bars.View post
  • A green text-message-style screenshot with a short message about symptoms after a second vaccine dose and a timestamp.
    A green text-message-style screenshot with a short message about symptoms after a second vaccine dose and a timestamp.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 Senate 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
J000293
Bioguide
J000293
FEC candidate ids
S0WI00197

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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