Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Arizona

Serving since Dec 2, 2020119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide K000377FEC S0AZ00350

Portrait of Mark Kelly, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.72
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), the highest of 45 Senate Democrats

Agreement 0.72 on a 0–1 scale; the average for Senate Democrats is 0.66. Ranks 1st of 45, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Kelly’s statements matches the mix in the bills Kelly sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among Senate Democrats.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Kelly raised $47.4M in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M). 63% of Kelly’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats (median 35%).

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

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.72

Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 1st of 45

Raised, 2026

$47.4M

Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 2nd of 45

Small donations, 2026

63%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 4th of 45

Extreme labels

0.5%

Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 43rd of 45

Party unity

91.3%

Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 39th of 45 · 76 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

CSIP ideology

−1.04

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kelly says

Kelly attacks opponents personally less than 75% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 6.6% of 2,103 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 35th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Kelly’s 2,103 statements in the 119th Congress (1,534 posts on X, 508 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Kelly
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,696 statements
81%
78%
22nd of 45
Policy criticism774 statements
37%
37%
20th of 45
Credit claiming572 statements
27%
26%
20th of 45
Bipartisanship389 statements
19%
18%
17th of 45
Personal attacks139 statements
7%
11%
35th of 45
Show the data
Kelly's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowKellyPeers
Policy discussion81%78%
Policy criticism37%37%
Credit claiming27%26%
Bipartisanship19%18%
Personal attacks7%11%
2,103

statements classified

1,534 posts on X, 508 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,534 (72.9%)posts on X 1,534press releases: 508 (24.2%)press releases 508Congressional Record speeches: 57 (2.7%)newsletters: 4 (0.2%)
Show the data
Kelly's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,534
press releases508
Congressional Record speeches57
newsletters4
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kelly used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 20% of the peer average. 10 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”5

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans2
  2. administration1
  3. extremists1
  4. ICE1
  5. Pentagon decision1
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: 802025-02: 1032025-03: 1182025-04: 972025-05: 682025-06: 802025-07: 882025-08: 832025-09: 962025-10: 1472025-11: 922025-12: 872026-01: 962026-02: 1262026-03: 1112026-04: 1142026-05: 842026-06: 852026-07: 922026-08: 942026-09: 952026-10: 67peak 147 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 12.6% · Feb ’25 · latest 6.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 11.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-02: 12.6% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.6% of 118Personal attacks, 2025-04: 12.4% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.3% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.1% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.7% of 147Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.3% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-12: 8.1% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-01: 8.3% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.0% of 126Personal attacks, 2026-03: 9.9% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.1% of 114Personal attacks, 2026-05: 7.1% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-06: 9.4% of 85Personal attacks, 2026-07: 6.5% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-08: 10.6% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.3% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-10: 6.0% of 67Policy criticismpeak 49.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 32.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 20.0% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-02: 49.5% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-03: 33.1% of 118Policy criticism, 2025-04: 42.3% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-05: 41.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-06: 47.5% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-07: 33.0% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-08: 44.6% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-09: 39.6% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-10: 45.6% of 147Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.8% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.7% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-01: 24.0% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-02: 43.6% of 126Policy criticism, 2026-03: 44.1% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-04: 24.6% of 114Policy criticism, 2026-05: 46.4% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-06: 41.2% of 85Policy criticism, 2026-07: 33.7% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-08: 30.9% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-09: 23.2% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-10: 32.8% of 67Policy discussionpeak 97.9% · Aug ’26 · latest 92.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-02: 87.4% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-03: 83.9% of 118Policy discussion, 2025-04: 84.5% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-05: 79.4% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-06: 76.3% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.9% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-08: 72.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.0% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-10: 79.6% of 147Policy discussion, 2025-11: 66.3% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.0% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.4% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-02: 69.8% of 126Policy discussion, 2026-03: 80.2% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-04: 83.3% of 114Policy discussion, 2026-05: 85.7% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.8% of 85Policy discussion, 2026-07: 85.9% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-08: 97.9% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-09: 88.4% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-10: 92.5% of 67Bipartisanshippeak 38.0% · Nov ’25 · latest 19.4%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 33.8% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 23.3% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 17.8% of 118Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 17.5% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.8% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.3% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.6% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.2% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 19.8% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 31.3% of 147Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 38.0% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 21.8% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 15.6% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.5% of 126Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.9% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 11.4% of 114Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 13.1% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 28.2% of 85Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 22.8% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 17.0% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 14.7% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 19.4% of 67Credit claimingpeak 41.2% · Jun ’26 · latest 34.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 33.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-02: 29.1% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-03: 22.9% of 118Credit claiming, 2025-04: 35.0% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-05: 27.9% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-07: 18.2% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-09: 27.1% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-10: 16.3% of 147Credit claiming, 2025-11: 25.0% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-12: 27.6% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-01: 20.8% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-02: 15.1% of 126Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.1% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-04: 28.9% of 114Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.7% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-06: 41.2% of 85Credit claiming, 2026-07: 40.2% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-08: 30.9% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-09: 41.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-10: 34.3% of 67Extreme labelspeak 2.2% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 118Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 147Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.6% of 126Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 114Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 85Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.2% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 67Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kelly, 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 ’258011.3%20.0%73.8%33.8%33.8%1.3%
Feb ’2510312.6%49.5%87.4%23.3%29.1%0.0%
Mar ’251187.6%33.1%83.9%17.8%22.9%0.0%
Apr ’259712.4%42.3%84.5%17.5%35.0%2.1%
May ’25685.9%41.2%79.4%11.8%27.9%1.5%
Jun ’25801.3%47.5%76.3%6.3%13.8%0.0%
Jul ’25882.3%33.0%73.9%13.6%18.2%0.0%
Aug ’25831.2%44.6%72.3%7.2%20.5%1.2%
Sep ’25963.1%39.6%75.0%19.8%27.1%0.0%
Oct ’251472.7%45.6%79.6%31.3%16.3%0.0%
Nov ’25923.3%34.8%66.3%38.0%25.0%0.0%
Dec ’25878.1%28.7%77.0%21.8%27.6%0.0%
Jan ’26968.3%24.0%84.4%15.6%20.8%0.0%
Feb ’261264.0%43.6%69.8%9.5%15.1%1.6%
Mar ’261119.9%44.1%80.2%9.9%26.1%0.0%
Apr ’261146.1%24.6%83.3%11.4%28.9%0.0%
May ’26847.1%46.4%85.7%13.1%35.7%1.2%
Jun ’26859.4%41.2%78.8%28.2%41.2%0.0%
Jul ’26926.5%33.7%85.9%22.8%40.2%2.2%
Aug ’269410.6%30.9%97.9%17.0%30.9%0.0%
Sep ’26956.3%23.2%88.4%14.7%41.0%0.0%
Oct ’26676.0%32.8%92.5%19.4%34.3%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 Kelly’s words

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

Bipartisanship

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

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 17, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Families; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

Kelly, Hirono, Duckworth, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Protect Women’s Right to Serve in Combat Today, Senate Armed Service committee members Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and 13 other Senate Democrats introduced the Women Add Resourcefulness and Resilienc…

Jul 30, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Pete Hegseth; target: 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 · Economics and Public Finance · Families · 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 · Science, Technology, Communications · target: 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 · Energy · International Affairs · 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Nidal HasanSource

  5. 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: TrumpSource

All 2,103 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: 1,534 posts on X, 508 press releases, 57 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Kelly talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 1st of 45).

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

What Kelly talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Kelly
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security468 statements
28%
21%
Health392 statements
23%
27%
Economics and Public Finance322 statements
19%
24%
Government Operations and Politics288 statements
17%
22%
Science, Technology, Communications235 statements
14%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Kelly talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowKellyPeers
Armed Forces and National Security28%21%
Health23%27%
Economics and Public Finance19%24%
Government Operations and Politics17%22%
Science, Technology, Communications14%8%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 28% (Senate Democrats 21%)28%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 14% (Senate Democrats 7%)14%HealthHealth, talks about: 23% (Senate Democrats 27%)23%Health, legislates on: 9% (Senate Democrats 14%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (Senate Democrats 24%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (Senate Democrats 22%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 9%)8%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 8%)14%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 3%)5%
Show the data
Kelly's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security28%21%14%7%
Health23%27%9%14%
Economics and Public Finance19%24%0%0%
Government Operations and Politics17%22%8%9%
Science, Technology, Communications14%8%5%3%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 1st of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kelly sits at −1.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 77% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.05 to −1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 161,553 donors and 2,505 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”.

−1.04

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.05 to −1.02. From 161,553 donors and 2,505 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kelly −1.0Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Kelly, 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 Kelly’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 Kelly sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Kelly −1.0All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Kelly's CSIP score of −1.04 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kelly
Senate Democrats45−1.176%
All Senate98+0.436%
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 Kelly 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 Kelly.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kelly raised $47.4M in the 2026 cycle, 18.1 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 63% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 21% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.

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
$47.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 41,255 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $17.3M (36.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $29.7M (62.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $364.7K (0.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$17.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)63 squares$29.7M
  • PACs and other committees$35.8K
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$23
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$364.7K
Show the data
Sources of Kelly's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$17.3M36.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$29.7M62.7%
PACs and other committees$35.8K0.1%
The candidate’s own money and loans$230.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$364.7K0.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $99.7M$99.7M20202022 cycle: $92.8M$92.8M20222024 cycle: $10.9M$10.9M20242026 cycle: $47.4M$47.4M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Kelly's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$99.7M
2022 cycle$92.8M
2024 cycle$10.9M
2026 cycle$47.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 21% came from Arizona.

  1. Arizona$2.9M
  2. California$2.3M
  3. New York$730.5K
  4. Texas$683.4K
  5. Florida$596.3K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Kelly
Median
2026
63%
35%
2024
59%
35%
2022
45%
35%
2020
48%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowKellyMedian
2026 cycle63%35%
2024 cycle59%35%
2022 cycle45%35%
2020 cycle48%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $53.9KAKMaine: $51.4KMEVermont: $39.4KVTNew Hampshire: $66.2KNHWashington: $542.2KWAIdaho: $80.2KIDMontana: $50.6KMTNorth Dakota: $7,142NDMinnesota: $184.3KMNIllinois: $379.8KILWisconsin: $142.4KWIMichigan: $206.3KMINew York: $730.5KNYRhode Island: $44.4KRIMassachusetts: $531.0KMAOregon: $279.5KORNevada: $99.8KNVWyoming: $65.0KWYSouth Dakota: $23.0KSDIowa: $57.0KIAIndiana: $129.4KINOhio: $216.3KOHPennsylvania: $293.1KPANew Jersey: $240.9KNJConnecticut: $194.7KCTCalifornia: $2.3MCAUtah: $95.9KUTColorado: $368.8KCONebraska: $54.5KNEMissouri: $128.5KMOKentucky: $59.2KKYWest Virginia: $18.2KWVVirginia: $349.2KVAMaryland: $269.3KMDDelaware: $31.0KDEArizona: $2.9MAZNew Mexico: $148.1KNMKansas: $58.9KKSArkansas: $37.0KARTennessee: $127.6KTNNorth Carolina: $221.9KNCSouth Carolina: $84.6KSCDistrict of Columbia: $119.1KDCOklahoma: $55.3KOKLouisiana: $34.5KLAMississippi: $18.5KMSAlabama: $52.4KALGeorgia: $161.3KGAHawaii: $63.6KHITexas: $683.4KTXFlorida: $596.3KFL
Show the data
Kelly's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Arizona$2.9M
California$2.3M
New York$730.5K
Texas$683.4K
Florida$596.3K
Washington$542.2K
Massachusetts$531.0K
Illinois$379.8K
Colorado$368.8K
Virginia$349.2K
Pennsylvania$293.1K
Oregon$279.5K
Maryland$269.3K
New Jersey$240.9K
North Carolina$221.9K
Ohio$216.3K
Michigan$206.3K
Connecticut$194.7K
Minnesota$184.3K
Georgia$161.3K
New Mexico$148.1K
Wisconsin$142.4K
Indiana$129.4K
Missouri$128.5K
Tennessee$127.6K
District of Columbia$119.1K
Nevada$99.8K
Utah$95.9K
South Carolina$84.6K
Idaho$80.2K
New Hampshire$66.2K
Wyoming$65.0K
Hawaii$63.6K
Kentucky$59.2K
Kansas$58.9K
Iowa$57.0K
Oklahoma$55.3K
Nebraska$54.5K
Alaska$53.9K
Alabama$52.4K
Maine$51.4K
Montana$50.6K
Rhode Island$44.4K
Vermont$39.4K
Arkansas$37.0K
Louisiana$34.5K
Delaware$31.0K
South Dakota$23.0K
Mississippi$18.5K
West Virginia$18.2K
North Dakota$7,142
41,255

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

21%

from Arizona

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.50 to −2.25: 0%CSIP −2.25 to −2.00: 0%CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0.0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 1.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 65%65%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 31%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kelly's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.50 to +1.25: 65% between −1.25 and −1.00, 31% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.50 to −2.250%
CSIP −2.25 to −2.000%
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750.0%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.251.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0065%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7531%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Kelly’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kelly’s own score is −1.04.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$6.0M 20,998 donors
  2. RETIRED$3.7M 9,710 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$398.7K 917 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$231.4K 586 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$128.9K 142 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. M-PAC$10.0K
  2. NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND MARINE RETAILERS ASSOCIATION BOAT PAC$7,500
  3. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  4. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. SEAFARERS POLITICAL ACTIVITY DONATION - SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NA-AGLIW$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA$12.9K 42 donors
  2. GOOGLE$11.6K 21 donors
  3. ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY$10.5K 27 donors
  4. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$7,638 4 donors
  5. PURDUE UNIVERSITY$6,835 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kelly voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 91.3% of party-line votes and missed 5.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kelly voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 76 times.

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

76

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 91.3%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 39th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Kelly
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.5%
97.0%
37th of 45
Party unity
91.3%
95.3%
39th of 45
Show the data
Kelly's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowKellyPeers
Attendance94.5%97.0%
Party unity91.3%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
NayAgainst majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
YeaWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
NayWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kelly most often

  1. Ruben GallegoD774 shared votes94%
  2. Jack ReedD857 shared votes94%
  3. Raphael WarnockD842 shared votes93%
  4. Christopher CoonsD818 shared votes93%
  5. Elissa SlotkinD847 shared votes93%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kelly least often

  1. Mike LeeR838 shared votes13%
  2. Ron JohnsonR853 shared votes13%
  3. Tommy TubervilleR808 shared votes14%
  4. Ted CruzR819 shared votes14%
  5. Marsha BlackburnR814 shared votes14%
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

Kelly sponsored 60 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 406 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 15th of 45).

The bills Kelly 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

Sponsored60 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6060Sponsored, In committee: 5959Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 77Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored406 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 406406Cosponsored, In committee: 403403Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7474Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kelly sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6059711
Cosponsored4064037455
How to read the blocks

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

17%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 15th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Ruben Gallego93
  2. Richard Blumenthal66
  3. Christopher Coons59
  4. Tammy Duckworth56
  5. Kirsten Gillibrand56
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 Kelly’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5686No Public Executions in America ActSponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedArmed Forces and National SecurityUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5620UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5623Reaffirming Extended Nuclear Deterrence Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 51 times in 90 days. Kelly’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kelly posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Kelly’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 Kelly 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 Kelly posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue and yellow political-style poster with three white chevrons at the top and large white and yellow lettering. Smaller italic text and a candidate name appear near the bottom.
    A blue and yellow political-style poster with three white chevrons at the top and large white and yellow lettering. Smaller italic text and a candidate name appear near the bottom.View post
  • People are seated around a conference table in a meeting room. A man and a woman sit across from others, with U.S. and another flag in the background. There is some text on a name placard.
    People are seated around a conference table in a meeting room. A man and a woman sit across from others, with U.S. and another flag in the background. There is some text on a name placard.View post
  • Several men are gathered indoors in conversation. A man on the right gestures while speaking to a man in a suit near the center. Other people, large windows, and a whiteboard are visible in the background. There is faint text on the whiteboard.
    Several men are gathered indoors in conversation. A man on the right gestures while speaking to a man in a suit near the center. Other people, large windows, and a whiteboard are visible in the background. There is faint text on the whiteboard.View post
  • A group of people pose for a photo in an office or meeting room, with two flags and a blue campaign-style display behind them. Text is visible on the display.
    A group of people pose for a photo in an office or meeting room, with two flags and a blue campaign-style display behind them. Text is visible on the display.View post
  • A group of people pose for a photograph on the steps outside a building. There is text on a wooden sign above the entrance.
    A group of people pose for a photograph on the steps outside a building. There is text on a wooden sign above the entrance.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 Kelly is most unusual among Senate 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
K000377
Bioguide
K000377
FEC candidate ids
S0AZ00350

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