Skip to content

Independent · U.S. House, California’s 3rd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide K000401FEC H2CA03157

Portrait of Kevin Kiley, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
679
statements classified

311 posts on X, 234 Congressional Record speeches, 122 newsletters in the 119th Congress. Too little data in the 119th Congress to compare with peers.

Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.

At a glance

What the record holds for Kiley. Kiley has 679 classified statements in the 119th Congress.

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

CSIP ideology

+0.48

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

Statements

679

311 posts on X, 234 Congressional Record speeches, 122 newsletters

Roll calls

674

Compared with House independents

Bills sponsored

23

and 134 cosponsored

In office since

2023

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kiley says

4.9% of Kiley’s statements are personal attacks. Personal attacks in 4.9% of 679 statements, against 4.9% for the average House independent; 1st of 1.

An AI model reads each of Kiley’s 679 statements in the 119th Congress (311 posts on X, 234 Congressional Record speeches, 122 newsletters, 12 press releases) 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 independents and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Kiley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion598 statements
88%
88%
Credit claiming342 statements
50%
50%
Policy criticism285 statements
42%
42%
Bipartisanship118 statements
17%
17%
Personal attacks33 statements
5%
5%
Show the data
Kiley's share of statements in each category against the House independents average.
RowKileyPeers
Policy discussion88%88%
Credit claiming50%50%
Policy criticism42%42%
Bipartisanship17%17%
Personal attacks5%5%
679

statements classified

311 posts on X, 234 Congressional Record speeches, 122 newsletters, 12 press releases.

posts on X: 311 (45.8%)posts on X 311Congressional Record speeches: 234 (34.5%)Congressional Record speeches 234newsletters: 122 (18.0%)press releases: 12 (1.8%)
Show the data
Kiley's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X311
Congressional Record speeches234
newsletters122
press releases12
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kiley used extreme labels in 2.8% of statements, close to the peer average. 19 statements, most often aimed at California policies; peers 2.8%.

  1. “radical”11
  2. “extreme”4
  3. “far left”2
  4. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. California policies1
  2. California politicians1
  3. Chinese Communist Party1
  4. communist propaganda1
  5. far left1
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: 292025-02: 292025-03: 502025-04: 372025-05: 682025-06: 672025-07: 352025-08: 192025-09: 372025-10: 202025-11: 262025-12: 372026-01: 362026-02: 392026-03: 212026-04: 272026-05: 172026-06: 272026-07: 192026-08: 62026-09: 162026-10: 17peak 68 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 21.1% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 6.9% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-04: 8.1% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-07: 5.7% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-08: 21.1% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-09: 18.9% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.7% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.7% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.8% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-06: 3.7% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Policy criticismpeak 62.2% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 48.3% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-02: 24.1% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-03: 40.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-04: 62.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-05: 41.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-06: 53.7% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-07: 45.7% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-08: 47.4% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-09: 43.2% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-10: 50.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-11: 46.2% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-12: 48.6% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-01: 33.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-02: 61.5% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-03: 57.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-04: 22.2% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-05: 29.4% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.5% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 50.0% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Mar ’26 · latest 70.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 89.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-02: 86.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-03: 86.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-04: 94.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-05: 86.8% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-06: 88.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-07: 91.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-08: 79.0% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-09: 81.1% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-10: 85.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-11: 88.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-12: 97.3% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-01: 91.7% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-02: 92.3% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-03: 100.0% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-04: 81.5% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-05: 94.1% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-06: 88.9% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-07: 73.7% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 93.8% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-10: 70.6% of 17Bipartisanshippeak 33.3% · Feb ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 10.3% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 18.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 13.2% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 14.9% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.9% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 30.8% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 29.7% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 16.7% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 33.3% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 33.3% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.4% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 17.6% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.6% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.5% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 25.0% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Credit claimingpeak 75.9% · Feb ’25 · latest 29.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 62.1% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-02: 75.9% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-03: 44.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-04: 67.6% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-05: 48.5% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-06: 50.7% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-07: 51.4% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-08: 68.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-09: 43.2% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-10: 10.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-11: 53.8% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-12: 51.3% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-01: 52.8% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-02: 66.7% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-03: 52.4% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-04: 18.5% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.3% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-06: 70.4% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-07: 36.8% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 37.5% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-10: 29.4% of 17Extreme labelspeak 13.5% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-04: 13.5% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.4% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.4% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-07: 10.5% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 17Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kiley, 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 ’25296.9%48.3%89.7%10.3%62.1%0.0%
Feb ’25290.0%24.1%86.2%13.8%75.9%0.0%
Mar ’25506.0%40.0%86.0%18.0%44.0%4.0%
Apr ’25378.1%62.2%94.6%18.9%67.6%13.5%
May ’25685.9%41.2%86.8%13.2%48.5%4.4%
Jun ’25673.0%53.7%88.1%14.9%50.7%4.5%
Jul ’25355.7%45.7%91.4%2.9%51.4%0.0%
Aug ’251921.1%47.4%79.0%10.5%68.4%5.3%
Sep ’253718.9%43.2%81.1%18.9%43.2%5.4%
Oct ’25205.0%50.0%85.0%10.0%10.0%0.0%
Nov ’25267.7%46.2%88.5%30.8%53.8%0.0%
Dec ’25372.7%48.6%97.3%29.7%51.3%2.7%
Jan ’26362.8%33.3%91.7%16.7%52.8%0.0%
Feb ’26390.0%61.5%92.3%33.3%66.7%0.0%
Mar ’26210.0%57.1%100.0%33.3%52.4%0.0%
Apr ’26270.0%22.2%81.5%7.4%18.5%0.0%
May ’26170.0%29.4%94.1%17.6%35.3%0.0%
Jun ’26273.7%18.5%88.9%29.6%70.4%0.0%
Jul ’26190.0%21.1%73.7%10.5%36.8%10.5%
Aug ’266— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26160.0%50.0%93.8%25.0%37.5%0.0%
Oct ’26170.0%0.0%70.6%0.0%29.4%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%. One month is hatched here.

In Kiley’s words

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

Policy criticism

Rep. Kiley Responds to President Trump’s Media Access Bill Washington, D.C. – Representative Kevin Kiley, author of the PRESS Act, released the following statement following President Trump’s decision to deny reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico access to the White House: “Freedom of the press i…

Sep 19, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, we had an election in California last Tuesday. It is now the following Monday, and the State still has millions of votes to count. How can this be? Nothing like this happens in any other State in the country or, for that matter, any other democratic country in the world. California's ab…

Jun 8, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Extreme label

A new survey from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that two-thirds of Californians oppose Governor Newsom's ban on gas-powered cars. This ban was imposed by the Governor without so much as a vote in the legislature or the people of California. The good news is that the will of the peo…

Jul 22, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Sacramento policies · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, we had an election in California last Tuesday. It is now the following Monday, and the State still has millions of votes to count. How can this be? Nothing like this happens in any other State in the country or, for that matter, any other democratic country in the world. California's absurdly slow, glacial vote counting has been the subject of broad, sweeping bipartisan criticism. The Washington Post's e…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and PoliticsSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to examine the biggest fraud scandal in the history of California and probably in the history of the United States, and that was the fraud in unemployment benefits that occurred in California during the COVID years, amounting to a minimum of $32 billion--$32 billion. It is easy to kind of throw these numbers around and lose sight of what they really mean, so just to p…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · HealthSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge prompt action on a matter that could make life a lot more difficult for millions and millions of people in this country, and that is the expiration of tax credits that could lead to a massive increase in healthcare costs. We are talking about 22 million Americans who will be directly affected, some of them seeing thousands and thousands of dollars in increases in their healthcare cos…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Taxation · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · CommerceSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Chief of StaffSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, last week, Governor Gavin Newsom's chief of staff was indicted for 23 felony counts in a Federal corruption investigation. This is his former chief of staff. She left the office at the end of last year. The charges include conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, subscribing to false tax returns, and making false state…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Transportation and Public Works · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · EnergySource

All 679 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: 311 posts on X, 234 Congressional Record speeches, 122 newsletters, 12 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Kiley talks about most: 30% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House independents average 0.67; 1st of 1).

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

What Kiley talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Kiley
Peers
Government Operations and Politics180 statements
30%
30%
Education157 statements
26%
26%
Economics and Public Finance114 statements
19%
19%
Transportation and Public Works104 statements
17%
17%
Health100 statements
17%
17%
Show the data
Policy areas Kiley talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House independents average.
RowKileyPeers
Government Operations and Politics30%30%
Education26%26%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
Transportation and Public Works17%17%
Health17%17%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 30% (House independents 30%)30%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House independents 12%)12%EducationEducation, talks about: 26% (House independents 26%)26%Education, legislates on: 9% (House independents 9%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House independents 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House independents 1%)1%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 17% (House independents 17%)17%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 6% (House independents 6%)6%HealthHealth, talks about: 17% (House independents 17%)17%Health, legislates on: 9% (House independents 9%)9%
Show the data
Kiley's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse independents, talks aboutLegislates onHouse independents, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics30%30%12%12%
Education26%26%9%9%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%1%1%
Transportation and Public Works17%17%6%6%
Health17%17%9%9%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House independents average 0.67. Ranks 1st of 1.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kiley sits at +0.48 on the CSIP scale, right of 0. Approximate range +0.47 to +0.50, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,194 donors and 2,411 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”.

+0.48

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.47 to +0.50. From 5,194 donors and 2,411 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kiley +0.5House independents +0.5All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Kiley, 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 Kiley’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 Kiley sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House independentsmedian +0.5Kiley +0.5All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Kiley's CSIP score of +0.48 placed against House independents, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kiley
House independents1+0.50%
All House439+0.351%
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 Kiley 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 Kiley.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kiley raised $3.7M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House independents’ median of $3.7M. 22% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 89% of itemized individual money came from California.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$3.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,429 itemized donors. House independents’ median $3.7M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (48.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $514.6K (13.8%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)PACs and other committees: $427.3K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $974.3K (26.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)48 squares$1.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)14 squares$514.6K
  • PACs and other committees12 squares$427.3K
  • Party committees$5,000
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$25
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)26 squares$974.3K
Show the data
Sources of Kiley's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.8M48.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$514.6K13.8%
PACs and other committees$427.3K11.5%
Party committees$5,0000.1%
The candidate’s own money and loans$250.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$974.3K26.2%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House independents’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $3.2M$3.2M20222024 cycle: $4.3M$4.3M20242026 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M2026House independents median $3.7M
Show the data
Kiley's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House independents median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$3.2M
2024 cycle$4.3M
2026 cycle$3.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 89% came from California.

  1. California$1.4M
  2. New York$23.6K
  3. Virginia$15.3K
  4. Colorado$14.5K
  5. Maryland$12.6K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Kiley
Median
2026
22%
22%
2024
24%
22%
2022
26%
22%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House independents median
RowKileyMedian
2026 cycle22%22%
2024 cycle24%22%
2022 cycle26%22%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $275NHWashington: $8,380WAIdaho: $4,275IDMontana: $1,000MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $8,000MNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $500MINew York: $23.6KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $2,500MAOregon: $450ORNevada: $8,650NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $12.0KPANew Jersey: $4,000NJConnecticut: $11.8KCTCalifornia: $1.4MCAUtah: $3,700UTColorado: $14.5KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $100MOKentucky: $250KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $15.3KVAMaryland: $12.6KMDDelaware: $250DEArizona: $1,761AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $6,675TNNorth Carolina: $7,500NCSouth Carolina: $675SCDistrict of Columbia: $6,999DCOklahoma: $475OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $50GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $7,525TXFlorida: $6,000FL
Show the data
Kiley's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.4M
New York$23.6K
Virginia$15.3K
Colorado$14.5K
Maryland$12.6K
Pennsylvania$12.0K
Connecticut$11.8K
Nevada$8,650
Washington$8,380
Minnesota$8,000
Texas$7,525
North Carolina$7,500
District of Columbia$6,999
Tennessee$6,675
Florida$6,000
Idaho$4,275
New Jersey$4,000
Utah$3,700
Massachusetts$2,500
Arizona$1,761
Montana$1,000
South Carolina$675
Michigan$500
Oklahoma$475
Oregon$450
New Hampshire$275
Kentucky$250
Delaware$250
Missouri$100
Georgia$50
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
North DakotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,429

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

89%

from California

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.7%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 51%51%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 30%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 8.0%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.5%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kiley's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.50: 51% between +0.25 and +0.50, 30% between +0.50 and +0.75, 8.0% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.7%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5051%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7530%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.008.0%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.5%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Kiley’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kiley’s own score is +0.48.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$670.5K 875 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$57.0K 28 donors
  3. OWNER$56.2K 33 donors
  4. BUSINESS OWNER$41.9K 12 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$41.7K 17 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NORPAC$18.0K
  2. BUILDING AMERICA'S REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATION PAC$10.0K
  3. FOREVER YOUTH ORGANIZATION UTILIZING A NEW GENERATION PAC$10.0K
  4. GOOGLE LLC NETPAC$10.0K
  5. MVL PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. PINNEY INSURANCE$11.0K 3 donors
  2. GIFFORD ANDERSON PLUMBING$5,150 3 donors
  3. GOOGLE$4,999 3 donors
  4. COLDWELL BANKER$975 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kiley voted with the majority of House Democrats on 69% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 674 roll calls. House independents on average: 69% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kiley voted against the majority of House Democrats 147 times.

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

147

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 69%, House independents average 69%, ranks 1st of 1. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Kiley, the thin grey bar the House independents average. The scale runs from 60% to 100% to show the gap.

60%100%
Kiley
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.1%
99.1%
1st of 1
Party unity
69%
69%
1st of 1
Show the data
Kiley's attendance and party unity against House independents.
RowKileyPeers
Attendance99.1%99.1%
Party unity69%69%
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
YeaAgainst 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
YeaAgainst 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 Kiley most often

  1. Dan NewhouseR650 shared votes96%
  2. Carlos GimenezR622 shared votes96%
  3. Mario Diaz-BalartR640 shared votes96%
  4. Glenn ThompsonR658 shared votes96%
  5. Mike SimpsonR652 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kiley least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD651 shared votes29%
  2. Delia RamirezD634 shared votes30%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD383 shared votes30%
  4. Dan GoldmanD583 shared votes31%
  5. Grace MengD618 shared votes31%
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

Kiley sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 134 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House independents average 17%; 1st of 1).

The bills Kiley sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored134 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 134134Cosponsored, In committee: 134134Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2929Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kiley sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323000
Cosponsored1341342966
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Kiley sponsored, ochre blocks bills Kiley 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

House independents average 17%. Ranks 1st of 1.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Darrell Issa15
  2. Jay Obernolte13
  3. Ken Calvert12
  4. Young Kim11
  5. Joe Neguse11
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 Kiley’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. 10114To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15642 Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, California, as the "Mary Kageyama Nomura Post Office Building".CosponsorAug 17, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Aug 17, 2026
H.R. 10089Representation ActCosponsorAug 13, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Aug 13, 2026
H.R. 10031READ ActCosponsorAug 3, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Aug 3, 2026
H.R. 9997National Guard for National Service Act of 2026CosponsorJul 30, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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. Jul 30, 2026
H.R. 9899Afghanistan TPS Act of 2026CosponsorJul 23, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jul 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 12 times in 90 days. Kiley’s official site had 8 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kiley posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    kiley.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    8

    pages crawled

    12

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    electkevinkiley.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    28

    pages crawled

    32

    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 Kiley posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A formal letter from a member of Congress to California’s superintendent of public instruction, expressing concern about a data breach involving an educational testing service and asking questions about responsibility, how it occurred, and prevention. The letter includes a congressional letterhead, date, recipient address, numbered questions, and a handwritten signature.
    A formal letter from a member of Congress to California’s superintendent of public instruction, expressing concern about a data breach involving an educational testing service and asking questions about responsibility, how it occurred, and prevention. The letter includes a congressional letterhead, date, recipient address, numbered questions, and a handwritten signature.View post
  • A large group of students and adults pose together on a staircase in a modern building. Two people at the front hold certificates, and the group holds a large event sign with text.
    A large group of students and adults pose together on a staircase in a modern building. Two people at the front hold certificates, and the group holds a large event sign with text.View post
  • A group of people wearing hard hats take part in a ceremonial groundbreaking, lifting shovels of dirt at a construction site. An elevated blue boom lift and a partly cloudy sky are behind them. There is text on the machinery and some people wear name badges.
    A group of people wearing hard hats take part in a ceremonial groundbreaking, lifting shovels of dirt at a construction site. An elevated blue boom lift and a partly cloudy sky are behind them. There is text on the machinery and some people wear name badges.View post
  • A group of people wearing hard hats pose with ceremonial shovels at a construction site, with construction machinery, blue and white balloons, and large decorative letters behind them. Some text is visible on the machinery and badges.
    A group of people wearing hard hats pose with ceremonial shovels at a construction site, with construction machinery, blue and white balloons, and large decorative letters behind them. Some text is visible on the machinery and badges.View post
  • A man in a blazer speaks to seated attendees in a classroom or meeting room. A large dark display is mounted on the wall, and a laptop and bags are visible. No prominent text is visible.
    A man in a blazer speaks to seated attendees in a classroom or meeting room. A large dark display is mounted on the wall, and a laptop and bags are visible. No prominent text is visible.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 Kiley is most unusual among peers, 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. That is the case for Kiley in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
K000401
Bioguide
K000401
FEC candidate ids
H2CA03157

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