Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 51st district

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

Bioguide J000305FEC H8CA49074

Portrait of Sara Jacobs, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.7×
the House Democrat rate of policy criticism

47% of 1,752 statements criticize a policy (828 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 1st of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Jacobs’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters 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 House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 36% of Jacobs’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Democrats (median 13%). 81% of Jacobs’s statements discuss policy, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 73%).

The measures on which Jacobs 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 criticism

47%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 1st of 216

Small donations, 2026

36%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 24th of 214

Party unity

99.7%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 20th of 217 · 13 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Attendance

99.8%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 23rd of 217 · 674 roll calls

Policy discussion

81%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 25th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.17

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 Jacobs, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Jacobs is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Jacobs says

Jacobs criticizes policies more than any other House Democrat. Policy criticism in 47% of 1,752 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 1st of 216.

An AI model reads each of Jacobs’s 1,752 statements in the 119th Congress (1,575 posts on X, 102 press releases, 41 newsletters, 34 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%
Jacobs
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,423 statements
81%
73%
25th of 216
Policy criticism828 statements
47%
28%
1st of 216
Credit claiming277 statements
16%
23%
168th of 216
Personal attacks140 statements
8%
7%
65th of 216
Bipartisanship103 statements
6%
10%
166th of 216
Show the data
Jacobs's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowJacobsPeers
Policy discussion81%73%
Policy criticism47%28%
Credit claiming16%23%
Personal attacks8%7%
Bipartisanship6%10%
1,752

statements classified

1,575 posts on X, 102 press releases, 41 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,575 (89.9%)posts on X 1,575press releases: 102 (5.8%)newsletters: 41 (2.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 34 (1.9%)
Show the data
Jacobs's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,575
press releases102
newsletters41
Congressional Record speeches34
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Jacobs used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, below the peer average. 19 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”3
  2. “MAGA”2
  3. “far right”2
  4. “fascist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Trump5
  2. MAGA2
  3. Republicans2
  4. fascism1
  5. ICE1
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: 842025-02: 1022025-03: 1042025-04: 1012025-05: 832025-06: 992025-07: 962025-08: 552025-09: 832025-10: 722025-11: 742025-12: 722026-01: 772026-02: 742026-03: 962026-04: 772026-05: 672026-06: 702026-07: 782026-08: 612026-09: 742026-10: 53peak 104 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 14.8% · Aug ’26 · latest 7.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.8% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.8% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-04: 11.9% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-05: 8.4% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2025-07: 5.2% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-08: 9.1% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-09: 12.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.2% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-12: 13.9% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-01: 9.1% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-02: 10.8% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-03: 8.3% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-04: 9.1% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-05: 10.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-06: 10.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.1% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-08: 14.8% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-09: 9.5% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.5% of 53Policy criticismpeak 70.8% · Mar ’26 · latest 17.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 63.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-02: 52.0% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-03: 55.8% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-04: 43.6% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-05: 45.8% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-06: 54.5% of 99Policy criticism, 2025-07: 54.2% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-08: 52.7% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-09: 47.0% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-10: 61.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-11: 60.8% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-12: 44.4% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-01: 29.9% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-02: 55.4% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-03: 70.8% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-04: 36.4% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-06: 51.4% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-07: 37.2% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-08: 26.2% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-09: 18.9% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-10: 17.0% of 53Policy discussionpeak 92.5% · Oct ’26 · latest 92.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 84.5% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-02: 78.4% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-03: 82.7% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.2% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.9% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-06: 81.8% of 99Policy discussion, 2025-07: 86.5% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-08: 76.4% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-09: 67.5% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.4% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-11: 78.4% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-12: 81.9% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.9% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-02: 78.4% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-03: 88.5% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-04: 88.3% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.6% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-06: 77.1% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.5% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-08: 83.6% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.5% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-10: 92.5% of 53Bipartisanshippeak 18.1% · Dec ’25 · latest 1.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.4% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 3.9% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.8% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.9% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.0% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 99Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 6.3% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.6% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 6.9% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 18.1% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.9% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 1.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.4% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 10.4% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 7.1% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.9% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 8.1% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 1.9% of 53Credit claimingpeak 27.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 11.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 26.2% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-02: 27.5% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-03: 14.4% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-04: 22.8% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-05: 15.7% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-06: 14.1% of 99Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-08: 16.4% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-09: 13.3% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-10: 8.3% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-11: 14.9% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-12: 23.6% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-01: 6.5% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-02: 2.7% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-03: 13.5% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-04: 7.8% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-05: 11.9% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.4% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-07: 12.8% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-08: 13.1% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-09: 14.9% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-10: 11.3% of 53Extreme labelspeak 4.0% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.8% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.1% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.9% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.3% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 53Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Jacobs, 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 ’25840.0%63.1%84.5%2.4%26.2%1.2%
Feb ’251027.8%52.0%78.4%3.9%27.5%0.0%
Mar ’251044.8%55.8%82.7%5.8%14.4%1.0%
Apr ’2510111.9%43.6%76.2%6.9%22.8%0.0%
May ’25838.4%45.8%75.9%6.0%15.7%0.0%
Jun ’25994.0%54.5%81.8%0.0%14.1%4.0%
Jul ’25965.2%54.2%86.5%6.3%25.0%1.0%
Aug ’25559.1%52.7%76.4%0.0%16.4%1.8%
Sep ’258312.0%47.0%67.5%9.6%13.3%1.2%
Oct ’25724.2%61.1%76.4%6.9%8.3%2.8%
Nov ’25744.0%60.8%78.4%5.4%14.9%2.7%
Dec ’257213.9%44.4%81.9%18.1%23.6%0.0%
Jan ’26779.1%29.9%90.9%3.9%6.5%0.0%
Feb ’267410.8%55.4%78.4%1.4%2.7%0.0%
Mar ’26968.3%70.8%88.5%9.4%13.5%2.1%
Apr ’26779.1%36.4%88.3%10.4%7.8%0.0%
May ’266710.4%34.3%71.6%4.5%11.9%0.0%
Jun ’267010.0%51.4%77.1%7.1%21.4%2.9%
Jul ’26785.1%37.2%79.5%5.1%12.8%1.3%
Aug ’266114.8%26.2%83.6%4.9%13.1%0.0%
Sep ’26749.5%18.9%90.5%8.1%14.9%1.4%
Oct ’26537.5%17.0%92.5%1.9%11.3%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Jacobs’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Rep. Sara Jacobs Pens Newsweek Op-ed on How to Win the AI Race Rep. Sara Jacobs (CA-51) penned an op-ed for Newsweek, arguing that her colleagues have largely misdiagnosed the AI race with China. She lays out how Congress needs to address AI on the societal, model, deployer, and impact levels in ord…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source

Policy criticism

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

Oct 17, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 4, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Pete Hegseth · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

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

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · target: Stephen Miller, Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource

All 1,752 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,575 posts on X, 102 press releases, 41 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Jacobs talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 96th 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 Jacobs talks about. The bills Jacobs sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Jacobs talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Jacobs
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security420 statements
30%
16%
Health311 statements
22%
26%
International Affairs232 statements
16%
8%
Economics and Public Finance225 statements
16%
20%
Government Operations and Politics197 statements
14%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Jacobs talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowJacobsPeers
Armed Forces and National Security30%16%
Health22%26%
International Affairs16%8%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%
Government Operations and Politics14%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Jacobs’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 onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 30% (House Democrats 16%)30%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 7%)13%HealthHealth, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 26%)22%Health, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 16%)11%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 8%)16%International Affairs, legislates on: 19% (House Democrats 8%)19%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 20%)14%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%
Show the data
Jacobs's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security30%16%13%7%
Health22%26%11%16%
International Affairs16%8%19%8%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics14%20%11%11%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 96th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Jacobs sits at −1.17 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 76% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.19 to −1.15, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,282 donors and 2,855 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”.

−1.17

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.19 to −1.15. From 1,282 donors and 2,855 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Jacobs −1.2House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Jacobs, 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 Jacobs’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 Jacobs sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Jacobs −1.2All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Jacobs's CSIP score of −1.17 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Jacobs
House Democrats217−1.024%
All House439+0.312%
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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Jacobs raised $1.9M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 36% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 75% of itemized individual money came from California.

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
$1.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 309 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): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $335.2K (18.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $189.8K (10.2%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)PACs and other committees: $266.8K (14.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $934.0K (50.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $139.2K (7.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)18 squares$335.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$189.8K
  • PACs and other committees14 squares$266.8K
  • The candidate’s own money and loans50 squares$934.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)8 squares$139.2K
Show the data
Sources of Jacobs's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$335.2K18.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$189.8K10.2%
PACs and other committees$266.8K14.3%
The candidate’s own money and loans$934.0K50.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$139.2K7.5%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $7.7M$7.7M20202022 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20222024 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20242026 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Jacobs's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$7.7M
2022 cycle$1.7M
2024 cycle$1.7M
2026 cycle$1.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 75% came from California.

  1. California$184.0K
  2. New York$25.1K
  3. Texas$10.7K
  4. Kentucky$7,000
  5. Colorado$5,300

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%
Jacobs
Median
2026
36%
13%
2024
26%
13%
2022
10%
13%
2020
8%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowJacobsMedian
2026 cycle36%13%
2024 cycle26%13%
2022 cycle10%13%
2020 cycle8%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: $25.1KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $1,700MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $90OHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: $3,500NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $184.0KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $5,300CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $7,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $375VAMaryland: $500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $2,000NCSouth Carolina: $500SCDistrict of Columbia: $4,550DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $10.7KTXFlorida: $500FL
Show the data
Jacobs's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$184.0K
New York$25.1K
Texas$10.7K
Kentucky$7,000
Colorado$5,300
District of Columbia$4,550
New Jersey$3,500
North Carolina$2,000
Massachusetts$1,700
Pennsylvania$500
Maryland$500
South Carolina$500
Georgia$500
Florida$500
Virginia$375
Ohio$90
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
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
309

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

75%

from California

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.2%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 2.9%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 58%58%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 32%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →
Show the data
Ideology of Jacobs's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +0.75: 58% between −1.25 and −1.00, 32% between −1.00 and −0.75, 5.1% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.2%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.252.9%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0058%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7532%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Jacobs’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Jacobs’s own score is −1.17.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$113.0K 186 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$17.6K 15 donors
  3. CEO$15.6K 11 donors
  4. CO-FOUNDER$10.8K 3 donors
  5. FOUNDER$5,450 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  2. INT'L UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS$10.0K
  3. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PAC$10.0K
  4. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K
  5. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Jacobs voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Jacobs voted against the majority of House Democrats 13 times.

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

13

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.7%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 20th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Jacobs
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
96.9%
23rd of 217
Party unity
99.7%
96.4%
20th of 217
Show the data
Jacobs's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowJacobsPeers
Attendance99.8%96.9%
Party unity99.7%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
Did not vote—PassedD 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
NayAgainst 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 Jacobs most often

  1. Suzanne BonamiciD664 shared votes99%
  2. LaMonica McIverD669 shared votes99%
  3. Valerie FousheeD659 shared votes99%
  4. Dwight EvansD624 shared votes99%
  5. Bonnie Watson ColemanD665 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Jacobs least often

  1. Chip RoyR633 shared votes15%
  2. Ralph NormanR596 shared votes16%
  3. Eric BurlisonR641 shared votes17%
  4. Andy BiggsR608 shared votes17%
  5. Keith SelfR658 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

Jacobs sponsored 32 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 376 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Jacobs 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

Sponsored32 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3232Sponsored, In committee: 3232Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored376 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 376376Cosponsored, In committee: 376376Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1212Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Jacobs sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3232000
Cosponsored3763761222
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Jacobs sponsored, ochre blocks bills Jacobs 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 Jacobs, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Eleanor Norton40
  2. Rashida Tlaib32
  3. Pramila Jayapal18
  4. Bonnie Watson Coleman18
  5. Ted Lieu16
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 Jacobs’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. 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.R. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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. 1635Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day".CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10600Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 66 times in 90 days. Jacobs’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Jacobs posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Jacobs’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 Jacobs 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 Jacobs posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three adults pose for a photograph in an office, with a framed map on the wall behind them and two flags on either side. Text is visible on the map.
    Three adults pose for a photograph in an office, with a framed map on the wall behind them and two flags on either side. Text is visible on the map.View post
  • A woman leads a group activity in a classroom decorated with Halloween-themed items. Several people sit around tables, with one participant raising a hand. Text is visible on signs, decorations, and clothing.
    A woman leads a group activity in a classroom decorated with Halloween-themed items. Several people sit around tables, with one participant raising a hand. Text is visible on signs, decorations, and clothing.View post
  • A group of children and adults pose together outdoors at a school or community facility. A tree, fenced sports court, and a wooden pergola are visible in the background. Some clothing has text or logos.
    A group of children and adults pose together outdoors at a school or community facility. A tree, fenced sports court, and a wooden pergola are visible in the background. Some clothing has text or logos.View post
  • Several people are in a commercial food storage or distribution room. A smiling woman reaches toward a box of fruit while holding a plastic bag, with an older man and another woman nearby. Crates and boxes of produce are in the foreground. Signs and labels are visible.
    Several people are in a commercial food storage or distribution room. A smiling woman reaches toward a box of fruit while holding a plastic bag, with an older man and another woman nearby. Crates and boxes of produce are in the foreground. Signs and labels are visible.View post
  • A group of people pose together in a commercial kitchen or food-preparation area. Two people at the front hold a decorative sign, and another person holds an oversized fork. There is text on the sign and a label on a refrigerator.
    A group of people pose together in a commercial kitchen or food-preparation area. Two people at the front hold a decorative sign, and another person holds an oversized fork. There is text on the sign and a label on a refrigerator.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 Jacobs 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
J000305
Bioguide
J000305
FEC candidate ids
H8CA49074

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