Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Ohio’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 3, 1983119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide K000009FEC H2OH09031

Portrait of Marcy Kaptur, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
49
votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 89%, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Kaptur voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Kaptur voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Kaptur raised $5.9M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of House Democrats (median $2.0M). 15% of Kaptur’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.6 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%.

The measures on which Kaptur 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.

Party unity

89%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 201st of 217 · 49 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$5.9M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 24th of 214

Bipartisanship

15%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 30th of 216

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.62

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 189th of 216

Policy discussion

66%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 184th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.77

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kaptur says

Kaptur attacks opponents personally less than 70% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.5% of 1,808 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 153rd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Kaptur’s 1,808 statements in the 119th Congress (1,281 posts on X, 282 Congressional Record speeches, 222 press releases, 23 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Kaptur
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,198 statements
66%
73%
184th of 216
Policy criticism476 statements
26%
28%
138th of 216
Credit claiming415 statements
23%
23%
98th of 216
Bipartisanship275 statements
15%
10%
30th of 216
Personal attacks63 statements
3%
7%
153rd of 216
Show the data
Kaptur's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowKapturPeers
Policy discussion66%73%
Policy criticism26%28%
Credit claiming23%23%
Bipartisanship15%10%
Personal attacks3%7%
1,808

statements classified

1,281 posts on X, 282 Congressional Record speeches, 222 press releases, 23 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,281 (70.9%)posts on X 1,281Congressional Record speeches: 282 (15.6%)press releases: 222 (12.3%)newsletters: 23 (1.3%)
Show the data
Kaptur's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,281
Congressional Record speeches282
press releases222
newsletters23
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kaptur used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, below the peer average. 22 statements, most often aimed at bill; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”12
  2. “communist”7
  3. “radical”4
  4. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. bill2
  2. America1
  3. Communist China1
  4. DOE cuts1
  5. Donald Trump1
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: 632025-02: 802025-03: 902025-04: 1002025-05: 1222025-06: 1052025-07: 1102025-08: 692025-09: 1372025-10: 932025-11: 532025-12: 692026-01: 862026-02: 792026-03: 862026-04: 812026-05: 582026-06: 812026-07: 982026-08: 492026-09: 522026-10: 47peak 137 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 8.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 2.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.8% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-02: 8.8% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.6% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.7% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 105Personal attacks, 2025-07: 5.5% of 110Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.5% of 137Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.1% of 93Personal attacks, 2025-11: 5.7% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-12: 8.7% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.7% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.3% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-03: 3.5% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-04: 3.7% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.5% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-07: 2.0% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.1% of 47Policy criticismpeak 38.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 6.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.4% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-02: 38.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-03: 25.6% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-04: 38.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2025-05: 24.6% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-06: 26.7% of 105Policy criticism, 2025-07: 26.4% of 110Policy criticism, 2025-08: 26.1% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-09: 27.0% of 137Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.6% of 93Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.0% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.2% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-01: 22.1% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-02: 36.7% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-03: 30.2% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-04: 21.0% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-05: 17.2% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-06: 17.3% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-07: 18.4% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-08: 18.4% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-09: 23.1% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-10: 6.4% of 47Policy discussionpeak 77.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 66.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.8% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-02: 77.5% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-03: 63.3% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-04: 75.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2025-05: 61.5% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-06: 63.8% of 105Policy discussion, 2025-07: 71.8% of 110Policy discussion, 2025-08: 60.9% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-09: 55.5% of 137Policy discussion, 2025-10: 63.4% of 93Policy discussion, 2025-11: 69.8% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.0% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-01: 75.6% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-02: 68.3% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-03: 58.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.6% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-05: 70.7% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-06: 59.3% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-07: 64.3% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-08: 61.2% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-09: 69.2% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-10: 66.0% of 47Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 12.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 28.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 25.0% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 11.1% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 13.9% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 8.6% of 105Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 10.9% of 110Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.7% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 20.4% of 137Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.7% of 93Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 22.6% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.4% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 23.3% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 13.9% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.0% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 9.9% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 27.6% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 22.2% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 12.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 15.4% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.8% of 47Credit claimingpeak 39.7% · Jan ’25 · latest 34.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.7% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-02: 33.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-03: 18.9% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2025-05: 18.9% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-06: 21.9% of 105Credit claiming, 2025-07: 20.0% of 110Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.2% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-09: 20.4% of 137Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.9% of 93Credit claiming, 2025-11: 15.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.1% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-01: 29.1% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-02: 16.5% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-03: 19.8% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-04: 19.8% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.9% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-06: 28.4% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-07: 19.4% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-08: 20.4% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-09: 30.8% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-10: 34.0% of 47Extreme labelspeak 5.1% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.3% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.8% of 105Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.9% of 110Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.1% of 137Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 93Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.2% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 47Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kaptur, 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 ’25634.8%25.4%69.8%28.6%39.7%0.0%
Feb ’25808.8%38.8%77.5%25.0%33.8%1.3%
Mar ’25905.6%25.6%63.3%11.1%18.9%0.0%
Apr ’251005.0%38.0%75.0%9.0%26.0%2.0%
May ’251225.7%24.6%61.5%13.9%18.9%3.3%
Jun ’251050.0%26.7%63.8%8.6%21.9%3.8%
Jul ’251105.5%26.4%71.8%10.9%20.0%0.9%
Aug ’25691.5%26.1%60.9%8.7%23.2%0.0%
Sep ’251371.5%27.0%55.5%20.4%20.4%5.1%
Oct ’25931.1%37.6%63.4%9.7%12.9%0.0%
Nov ’25535.7%34.0%69.8%22.6%15.1%0.0%
Dec ’25698.7%23.2%71.0%17.4%26.1%2.9%
Jan ’26864.7%22.1%75.6%23.3%29.1%1.2%
Feb ’26791.3%36.7%68.3%13.9%16.5%0.0%
Mar ’26863.5%30.2%58.1%14.0%19.8%0.0%
Apr ’26813.7%21.0%71.6%9.9%19.8%0.0%
May ’26580.0%17.2%70.7%27.6%25.9%0.0%
Jun ’26812.5%17.3%59.3%22.2%28.4%0.0%
Jul ’26982.0%18.4%64.3%8.2%19.4%0.0%
Aug ’26490.0%18.4%61.2%12.2%20.4%0.0%
Sep ’26521.9%23.1%69.2%15.4%30.8%0.0%
Oct ’26472.1%6.4%66.0%12.8%34.0%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 Kaptur’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Kaptur, Fitzpatrick, Quigley, Costa, Panetta, Kelly, Tillis, and Slotkin Urge Pentagon to Restore and Expand Starshield Access for Ukraine Bipartisan, bicameral letter calls on the Department of Defense to expand Starshield support and prevent disruptions to the communications Ukrainian forces rely…

Oct 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

Kaptur, Murray: As Families Pay More & More for Energy, Reports Show Trump Energy Department Withholding Billions and Playing Politics Toledo, OH – Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Senator Patty Mu…

Oct 13, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

Kaptur, DeLauro, Meng, and Pingree Applaud Passage of Appropriations Package Washington, DC – Today, House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science…

Jan 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Water Resources Development; Environmental Protection; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; extreme label “extreme” aimed at funding cuts · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Press releases

    Kaptur, Murray: As Families Pay More & More for Energy, Reports Show Trump Energy Department Withholding Billions and Playing Politics Toledo, OH – Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Wate…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Energy · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, the President's US Trade Ambassador was born in California, graduated from college in Utah, and lived in Virginia. He does not know anything about the Great Lakes region or our economy. The Great Lakes economy is the third largest in the world, amounting to over $6 trillion. The administration has now imposed more huge tariffs on the American people. Tariffs are taxes on the American people. They increas…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public FinanceSource

  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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: PresidentSource

  4. Press releases

    Energy Secretary’s Own Lawyers Flatly Contradict His Repeated Denials That Politics Played Any Role in Mass Termination of Projects Kaptur, Murray, respond to DOE’s recent legal filing admitting that politics was the only reason nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects in blue states were terminated during the shutdown last October Toledo, OH — Today, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Ranking Member of the House App…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald Trump, Chris WrightSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Transportation and Public Works · target: PresidentSource

All 1,808 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: 1,281 posts on X, 282 Congressional Record speeches, 222 press releases, 23 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Kaptur talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 189th 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 Kaptur talks about. The bills Kaptur sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Kaptur talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Kaptur
Peers
Economics and Public Finance369 statements
31%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security269 statements
22%
16%
Health235 statements
20%
26%
International Affairs188 statements
16%
8%
Energy180 statements
15%
5%
Show the data
Policy areas Kaptur talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowKapturPeers
Economics and Public Finance31%20%
Armed Forces and National Security22%16%
Health20%26%
International Affairs16%8%
Energy15%5%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Kaptur’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 onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 31% (House Democrats 20%)31%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 16%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 7%)9%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 26%)20%Health, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 16%)10%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 8%)16%International Affairs, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 8%)17%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 5%)15%Energy, legislates on: 2% (House Democrats 2%)2%
Show the data
Kaptur's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance31%20%1%1%
Armed Forces and National Security22%16%9%7%
Health20%26%10%16%
International Affairs16%8%17%8%
Energy15%5%2%2%
0.62

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 189th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kaptur sits at −0.77 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 77% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.79 to −0.76, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,104 donors and 7,357 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.77

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.79 to −0.76. From 4,104 donors and 7,357 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kaptur −0.8House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Kaptur, 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 Kaptur’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 Kaptur sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Kaptur −0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Kaptur's CSIP score of −0.77 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kaptur
House Democrats217−1.076%
All House439+0.338%
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 Kaptur 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 Kaptur.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kaptur raised $5.9M in the 2026 cycle, 3.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 19% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 31% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.

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
$5.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,600 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): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.8M (47.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $666.7K (11.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (25.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $912.4K (15.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)47 squares$2.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$666.7K
  • PACs and other committees26 squares$1.5M
  • Party committees$2,000
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)16 squares$912.4K
Show the data
Sources of Kaptur's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.8M47.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$666.7K11.3%
PACs and other committees$1.5M25.8%
Party committees$2,0000.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$912.4K15.5%
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: $1.1M$1.1M20202022 cycle: $3.4M$3.4M20222024 cycle: $5.1M$5.1M20242026 cycle: $5.9M$5.9M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Kaptur's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.1M
2022 cycle$3.4M
2024 cycle$5.1M
2026 cycle$5.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 31% came from Ohio.

  1. Ohio$560.8K
  2. California$323.5K
  3. New York$237.4K
  4. Massachusetts$148.2K
  5. Illinois$71.2K

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%
Kaptur
Median
2026
19%
13%
2024
20%
13%
2022
25%
13%
2020
6%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowKapturMedian
2026 cycle19%13%
2024 cycle20%13%
2022 cycle25%13%
2020 cycle6%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $600AKMaine: $140MEVermont: $200VTNew Hampshire: $3,750NHWashington: $50.5KWAIdaho: $500IDMontana: $625MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $15.4KMNIllinois: $71.2KILWisconsin: $10.1KWIMichigan: $6,875MINew York: $237.4KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $148.2KMAOregon: $14.1KORNevada: $12.5KNVWyoming: $4,750WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $5,032INOhio: $560.8KOHPennsylvania: $9,538PANew Jersey: $22.3KNJConnecticut: $12.8KCTCalifornia: $323.5KCAUtah: $2,500UTColorado: $25.1KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $10.3KMOKentucky: $11.7KKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $50.2KVAMaryland: $55.9KMDDelaware: $500DEArizona: $7,235AZNew Mexico: $2,500NMKansas: $150KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $3,000TNNorth Carolina: $4,790NCSouth Carolina: $1,350SCDistrict of Columbia: $62.1KDCOklahoma: $1,703OKLouisiana: $75LAMississippi: $7,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $380GAHawaii: $2,141HITexas: $24.9KTXFlorida: $21.8KFL
Show the data
Kaptur's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Ohio$560.8K
California$323.5K
New York$237.4K
Massachusetts$148.2K
Illinois$71.2K
District of Columbia$62.1K
Maryland$55.9K
Washington$50.5K
Virginia$50.2K
Colorado$25.1K
Texas$24.9K
New Jersey$22.3K
Florida$21.8K
Minnesota$15.4K
Oregon$14.1K
Connecticut$12.8K
Nevada$12.5K
Kentucky$11.7K
Missouri$10.3K
Wisconsin$10.1K
Pennsylvania$9,538
Arizona$7,235
Mississippi$7,000
Michigan$6,875
Indiana$5,032
North Carolina$4,790
Wyoming$4,750
New Hampshire$3,750
Tennessee$3,000
Utah$2,500
New Mexico$2,500
Hawaii$2,141
Oklahoma$1,703
South Carolina$1,350
Rhode Island$1,000
Montana$625
Alaska$600
Idaho$500
Iowa$500
Delaware$500
Georgia$380
Vermont$200
Kansas$150
Maine$140
Louisiana$75
North DakotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArkansasNo data
AlabamaNo data
1,600

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

31%

from Ohio

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.1%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 15%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 73%73%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 6.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kaptur's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 15% between −1.25 and −1.00, 73% between −1.00 and −0.75, 6.2% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.1%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0015%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7573%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.506.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Kaptur’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kaptur’s own score is −0.77.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$593.3K 686 donors
  2. RETIRED$222.7K 156 donors
  3. NO EMPLOYER$107.6K 58 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$76.0K 79 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$72.4K 63 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NO EMPLOYER$107.6K 58 donors
  2. UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO$8,350 8 donors
  3. STRATEGIC HEALTH CARE$7,500 3 donors
  4. JONES DAY$4,500 3 donors
  5. J.A. GREEN & CO.$4,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kaptur voted with the majority of House Democrats on 89% of party-line votes and missed 3.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kaptur voted against the majority of House Democrats 49 times.

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

49

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 89%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 201st of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Kaptur
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
96.9%
163rd of 217
Party unity
89%
96.4%
201st of 217
Show the data
Kaptur's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowKapturPeers
Attendance96.5%96.9%
Party unity89%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst 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 Kaptur most often

  1. Sharice DavidsD639 shared votes95%
  2. Josh RileyD632 shared votes95%
  3. Frank MrvanD628 shared votes95%
  4. Eugene VindmanD639 shared votes94%
  5. Stephen LynchD620 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kaptur least often

  1. Chip RoyR607 shared votes23%
  2. Keith SelfR631 shared votes25%
  3. Eric BurlisonR614 shared votes25%
  4. Josh BrecheenR614 shared votes25%
  5. Ralph NormanR569 shared votes25%
How to read the agreement lists

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

Full voting record

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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Kaptur sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 214 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Kaptur 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

Sponsored24 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2424Sponsored, In committee: 2424Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored214 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 214214Cosponsored, In committee: 214214Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kaptur sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2424000
Cosponsored2142141621
How to read the blocks

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

  1. Debbie Dingell16
  2. Mike Quigley15
  3. Joe Wilson15
  4. Brian Fitzpatrick14
  5. Eleanor Norton14
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 Kaptur’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. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, 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 15, 2026
H.Res. 1628Supporting the designation of the week beginning on October 10, 2026, as "National Wildlife Refuge Week".CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 15, 2026
H.Res. 1624Recognizing the 110th anniversary of the Nation's First Presidential library, the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library & Museums.SponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10639Regional Great Lakes Partnership Act of 2026CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10557Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 57 times in 90 days. Kaptur’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kaptur posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    kaptur.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    57

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    marcykaptur.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    7

    pages crawled

    5

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Kaptur posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three people are talking in an indoor hallway. A young girl wearing a blue shirt and a badge-covered sash faces two women; one wears a blue shirt and the other a white sweater. Text is visible on the blue shirt.
    Three people are talking in an indoor hallway. A young girl wearing a blue shirt and a badge-covered sash faces two women; one wears a blue shirt and the other a white sweater. Text is visible on the blue shirt.View post
  • A smiling girl and an older woman pose together indoors, with the woman’s arm around the girl. Other people and a hallway or community-room setting are visible in the background. There is text on the girl’s shirt and name badge.
    A smiling girl and an older woman pose together indoors, with the woman’s arm around the girl. Other people and a hallway or community-room setting are visible in the background. There is text on the girl’s shirt and name badge.View post
  • An older woman wearing glasses, a white jacket, and a blue top holds up a colorful embroidered patch in a softly blurred indoor hallway. The patch contains text.
    An older woman wearing glasses, a white jacket, and a blue top holds up a colorful embroidered patch in a softly blurred indoor hallway. The patch contains text.View post
  • An older woman wearing glasses stands between two smiling young girls, with her arms around them. They are posing in a carpeted indoor hallway where several other people are visible in the background. There is some text on a name tag and an illuminated exit sign.
    An older woman wearing glasses stands between two smiling young girls, with her arms around them. They are posing in a carpeted indoor hallway where several other people are visible in the background. There is some text on a name tag and an illuminated exit sign.View post
  • A group of nine adults pose outdoors on a sidewalk on either side of a blue park sign. Trees, grass, and houses are visible in the background. The sign contains text.
    A group of nine adults pose outdoors on a sidewalk on either side of a blue park sign. Trees, grass, and houses are visible in the background. The sign contains text.View post
About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Kaptur 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
K000009
Bioguide
K000009
FEC candidate ids
H2OH09031

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