Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Ohio’s 1st district

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

Bioguide L000601FEC H2OH01194

Portrait of Greg Landsman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.74
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of House Democrats

Agreement 0.74 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Democrats is 0.67. Ranks 11th of 216, where 1st is the closest match.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Landsman sits at −0.54 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 94% of House Democrats. Landsman voted against the majority of House Democrats 50 times; party unity 90%, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.4%).

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

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.74

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 11th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.54

More conservative than 94% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Party unity

90%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 200th of 217 · 50 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Raised, 2026

$5.7M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 29th of 214

From Ohio, 2026

32%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 180th of 214 House Democrats

Policy discussion

67%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 177th of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Landsman says

Landsman attacks opponents personally less than 67% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.7% of 2,544 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 147th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Landsman’s 2,544 statements in the 119th Congress (2,337 posts on X, 94 newsletters, 65 press releases, 48 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Landsman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,707 statements
67%
73%
177th of 216
Policy criticism741 statements
29%
28%
101st of 216
Credit claiming459 statements
18%
23%
146th of 216
Bipartisanship265 statements
10%
10%
74th of 216
Personal attacks95 statements
4%
7%
147th of 216
Show the data
Landsman's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowLandsmanPeers
Policy discussion67%73%
Policy criticism29%28%
Credit claiming18%23%
Bipartisanship10%10%
Personal attacks4%7%
2,544

statements classified

2,337 posts on X, 94 newsletters, 65 press releases, 48 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,337 (91.9%)posts on X 2,337newsletters: 94 (3.7%)press releases: 65 (2.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 48 (1.9%)
Show the data
Landsman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,337
newsletters94
press releases65
Congressional Record speeches48
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Landsman used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 20 statements, most often aimed at MAGA Inc; peers 1.9%.

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

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA Inc2
  2. bill1
  3. Congressional Republicans1
  4. majority1
  5. party1
What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 1222025-02: 1272025-03: 1582025-04: 1772025-05: 1912025-06: 1882025-07: 1672025-08: 922025-09: 1412025-10: 1292025-11: 1062025-12: 972026-01: 1332026-02: 1052026-03: 532026-04: 502026-05: 692026-06: 842026-07: 1242026-08: 912026-09: 802026-10: 60peak 191 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 12.5% · Sep ’26 · latest 3.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.5% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.1% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.2% of 158Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.0% of 177Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.1% of 191Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.1% of 188Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.8% of 167Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.7% of 141Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.8% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.8% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.5% of 133Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.8% of 105Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.9% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-04: 12.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-05: 8.7% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.1% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.6% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-08: 8.8% of 91Personal attacks, 2026-09: 12.5% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-10: 3.3% of 60Policy criticismpeak 47.1% · May ’25 · latest 20.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.1% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-02: 43.3% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-03: 30.4% of 158Policy criticism, 2025-04: 39.0% of 177Policy criticism, 2025-05: 47.1% of 191Policy criticism, 2025-06: 35.1% of 188Policy criticism, 2025-07: 35.3% of 167Policy criticism, 2025-08: 32.6% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-09: 28.4% of 141Policy criticism, 2025-10: 36.4% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-11: 38.7% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.3% of 97Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.3% of 133Policy criticism, 2026-02: 23.8% of 105Policy criticism, 2026-03: 24.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-05: 23.2% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-06: 32.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.3% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-08: 13.2% of 91Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-10: 20.0% of 60Policy discussionpeak 83.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 81.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 55.7% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-02: 68.5% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-03: 63.9% of 158Policy discussion, 2025-04: 71.2% of 177Policy discussion, 2025-05: 71.2% of 191Policy discussion, 2025-06: 61.7% of 188Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.7% of 167Policy discussion, 2025-08: 59.8% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-09: 48.2% of 141Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.3% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.1% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-12: 52.6% of 97Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.5% of 133Policy discussion, 2026-02: 56.2% of 105Policy discussion, 2026-03: 67.9% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-05: 78.3% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-06: 61.9% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-07: 75.8% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-08: 78.0% of 91Policy discussion, 2026-09: 78.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-10: 81.7% of 60Bipartisanshippeak 17.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 13.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 15.6% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 17.3% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.8% of 158Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.9% of 177Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.3% of 191Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.1% of 188Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.4% of 167Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.7% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 17.0% of 141Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.7% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.4% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.3% of 97Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.3% of 133Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.8% of 105Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.6% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.3% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.7% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 6.6% of 91Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.3% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 13.3% of 60Credit claimingpeak 52.0% · Apr ’26 · latest 25.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 14.8% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-02: 22.8% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-03: 14.6% of 158Credit claiming, 2025-04: 11.3% of 177Credit claiming, 2025-05: 5.2% of 191Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.1% of 188Credit claiming, 2025-07: 13.8% of 167Credit claiming, 2025-08: 28.3% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-09: 9.2% of 141Credit claiming, 2025-10: 4.7% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-11: 8.5% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-12: 32.0% of 97Credit claiming, 2026-01: 15.8% of 133Credit claiming, 2026-02: 26.7% of 105Credit claiming, 2026-03: 30.2% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-04: 52.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-05: 26.1% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.4% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-07: 29.0% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.7% of 91Credit claiming, 2026-09: 33.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-10: 25.0% of 60Extreme labelspeak 3.8% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.3% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.8% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.9% of 158Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.1% of 177Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.5% of 191Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 188Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 167Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 141Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.8% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.5% of 133Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.9% of 105Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.8% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 91Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 60Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Landsman, 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 ’251222.5%27.1%55.7%15.6%14.8%3.3%
Feb ’251277.1%43.3%68.5%17.3%22.8%0.8%
Mar ’251583.2%30.4%63.9%10.8%14.6%1.9%
Apr ’251774.0%39.0%71.2%11.9%11.3%1.1%
May ’251911.1%47.1%71.2%6.3%5.2%0.5%
Jun ’251882.1%35.1%61.7%10.1%10.1%0.0%
Jul ’251671.8%35.3%70.7%8.4%13.8%0.0%
Aug ’25920.0%32.6%59.8%8.7%28.3%0.0%
Sep ’251410.7%28.4%48.2%17.0%9.2%0.0%
Oct ’251290.8%36.4%64.3%14.7%4.7%0.8%
Nov ’251062.8%38.7%65.1%9.4%8.5%0.0%
Dec ’25971.0%9.3%52.6%11.3%32.0%0.0%
Jan ’261337.5%11.3%83.5%5.3%15.8%1.5%
Feb ’261054.8%23.8%56.2%3.8%26.7%1.9%
Mar ’26531.9%24.5%67.9%11.3%30.2%3.8%
Apr ’265012.0%16.0%80.0%6.0%52.0%0.0%
May ’26698.7%23.2%78.3%11.6%26.1%2.9%
Jun ’26847.1%32.1%61.9%8.3%21.4%0.0%
Jul ’261241.6%15.3%75.8%5.7%29.0%0.0%
Aug ’26918.8%13.2%78.0%6.6%29.7%0.0%
Sep ’268012.5%8.8%78.8%16.3%33.8%0.0%
Oct ’26603.3%20.0%81.7%13.3%25.0%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Landsman’s words

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

Credit claiming

Learning from you [Rep. Greg Landsman newsletter banner image] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/cRP_-zeIu-ytiCAruMa-cw~~/AAS2yhA~/NtWQVyhlsMh0Z2Mufp-OZkg2suH1VFFJOeFzd6ta39zdNGc-PYO2Mg4x5Wzy13OAEZfFyXXpytMRABWh9N1QBqRCU0rkFErDdnHb85QOkanuZ_McutGFCqLC32ZaGbdwdOOTMefS6rp70oq5xDSamw~~> Friend, This…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Energy; Families; Health; Housing and Community Development; Transportation and Public Works

Personal attacks

“Morally binding” is not enough [Rep. Greg Landsman newsletter banner image] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/I_9U_BthUjG-jn6xnfMBZg~~/AAS2yhA~/dJ_VYKSQ7enrf1PY2_7J0JWwOugleFcqvpZvwpM-TGf3b8re6nmvoi5icBCGvrQAck2kLIbpyiFtURpxoNhsRsT4gZINlho2L-9yDtbIGXHopWV5n756qKUPFhZSuFaCB6lVhUJyQr60eFJ9Jg6VaQ~~>…

Oct 4, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance; Health; Taxation; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Donald Trump

Extreme label

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

May 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Congressional Republicans · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Newsletters

    “Morally binding” is not enough [Rep. Greg Landsman newsletter banner image] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/I_9U_BthUjG-jn6xnfMBZg~~/AAS2yhA~/dJ_VYKSQ7enrf1PY2_7J0JWwOugleFcqvpZvwpM-TGf3b8re6nmvoi5icBCGvrQAck2kLIbpyiFtURpxoNhsRsT4gZINlho2L-9yDtbIGXHopWV5n756qKUPFhZSuFaCB6lVhUJyQr60eFJ9Jg6VaQ~~> Friend, We spent this week at home in Southwest Ohio, meeting with local groups, hearing your concerns, and discussing…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Health · Taxation · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Education · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald Trump

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Newsletters

    We came to work. They sent us home. [Rep. Greg Landsman newsletter banner image] <https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/ifFJK__Ay8sAOj39KYZf1w~~/AAS2yhA~/kv5ju8DP6s02SiMpjz9EbsWX_A-EXyvb1zSE8qzlwIu4kU1zCqgKOuuVa-yExp9yd13o3QqVASM_hl5VXGFYQmgH7LTD3ell8PTjEJzkbDIvtFPVRDN9MfDb6hus8YLQ2tmpDzNKMe9BkuMRr_eM2w~~> Friend, This week, Congressional Republicans canceled votes early and sent the House home for six weeks. We wante…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Immigration · Energy · Environmental Protection · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Health · Taxation · target: Donald Trump

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: TrumpSource

All 2,544 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: 2,337 posts on X, 94 newsletters, 65 press releases, 48 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Landsman talks about most: 34% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.74 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 11th of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Landsman talks about. The bills Landsman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Landsman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%38%
Landsman
Peers
Health588 statements
34%
26%
Economics and Public Finance390 statements
23%
20%
Government Operations and Politics325 statements
19%
20%
Taxation213 statements
12%
6%
Armed Forces and National Security177 statements
10%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Landsman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowLandsmanPeers
Health34%26%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%
Taxation12%6%
Armed Forces and National Security10%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Landsman’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 38%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 34% (House Democrats 26%)34%Health, legislates on: 20% (House Democrats 16%)20%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 20%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 20%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 6%)12%Taxation, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 6%)7%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 10% (House Democrats 16%)10%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 7%)7%
Show the data
Landsman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health34%26%20%16%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%11%11%
Taxation12%6%7%6%
Armed Forces and National Security10%16%7%7%
0.74

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 11th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Landsman sits at −0.54 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 94% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.55 to −0.52, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,992 donors and 1,850 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”.

−0.54

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.55 to −0.52. From 3,992 donors and 1,850 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Landsman −0.5House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Landsman, 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 Landsman’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 Landsman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Landsman −0.5All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Landsman's CSIP score of −0.54 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Landsman
House Democrats217−1.094%
All House439+0.346%
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 Landsman 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 Landsman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Landsman raised $5.7M in the 2026 cycle, 2.9 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 9.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 32% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.

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

Election cycle
$5.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,774 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.2M (56.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $333.0K (5.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (21.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $904.7K (16.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)57 squares$3.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)6 squares$333.0K
  • PACs and other committees21 squares$1.2M
  • Party committees$6,140
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)16 squares$904.7K
Show the data
Sources of Landsman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.2M56.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$333.0K5.9%
PACs and other committees$1.2M21.1%
Party committees$6,1400.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$904.7K16.0%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M20222024 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20242026 cycle: $5.7M$5.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Landsman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$2.8M
2024 cycle$3.7M
2026 cycle$5.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 32% came from Ohio.

  1. Ohio$818.7K
  2. California$388.6K
  3. New York$269.5K
  4. Massachusetts$163.7K
  5. Maryland$128.3K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Landsman
Median
2026
9%
13%
2024
12%
13%
2022
26%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowLandsmanMedian
2026 cycle9%13%
2024 cycle12%13%
2022 cycle26%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $500AKMaine: $14.5KMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $10.5KNHWashington: $33.8KWAIdaho: $7,000IDMontana: $625MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $11.4KMNIllinois: $96.8KILWisconsin: $3,000WIMichigan: $12.3KMINew York: $269.5KNYRhode Island: $3,650RIMassachusetts: $163.7KMAOregon: $18.7KORNevada: $13.0KNVWyoming: $1,250WYSouth Dakota: $3,500SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,787INOhio: $818.7KOHPennsylvania: $18.6KPANew Jersey: $25.3KNJConnecticut: $56.9KCTCalifornia: $388.6KCAUtah: $3,250UTColorado: $26.2KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $6,307MOKentucky: $28.3KKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $37.0KVAMaryland: $128.3KMDDelaware: $4,000DEArizona: $7,000AZNew Mexico: $3,250NMKansas: $80KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $500TNNorth Carolina: $12.1KNCSouth Carolina: $7,500SCDistrict of Columbia: $94.2KDCOklahoma: $7,000OKLouisiana: $2,000LAMississippi: $7,000MSAlabama: $20.7KALGeorgia: $33.6KGAHawaii: $2,541HITexas: $44.6KTXFlorida: $110.3KFL
Show the data
Landsman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Ohio$818.7K
California$388.6K
New York$269.5K
Massachusetts$163.7K
Maryland$128.3K
Florida$110.3K
Illinois$96.8K
District of Columbia$94.2K
Connecticut$56.9K
Texas$44.6K
Virginia$37.0K
Washington$33.8K
Georgia$33.6K
Kentucky$28.3K
Colorado$26.2K
New Jersey$25.3K
Alabama$20.7K
Oregon$18.7K
Pennsylvania$18.6K
Maine$14.5K
Nevada$13.0K
Michigan$12.3K
North Carolina$12.1K
Minnesota$11.4K
New Hampshire$10.5K
South Carolina$7,500
Idaho$7,000
Arizona$7,000
Oklahoma$7,000
Mississippi$7,000
Missouri$6,307
Delaware$4,000
Rhode Island$3,650
South Dakota$3,500
Utah$3,250
New Mexico$3,250
Wisconsin$3,000
Hawaii$2,541
Louisiana$2,000
Indiana$1,787
Wyoming$1,250
Montana$625
Alaska$500
Tennessee$500
Kansas$80
VermontNo data
North DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArkansasNo data
1,774

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

32%

from Ohio

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.0%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 5.8%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 46%46%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 27%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.7%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Landsman's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 5.8% between −1.25 and −1.00, 46% between −1.00 and −0.75, 27% between −0.75 and −0.50, 6.2% between −0.50 and −0.25, 6.1% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.005.8%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7546%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5027%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Landsman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Landsman’s own score is −0.54.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$814.3K 630 donors
  2. RETIRED$238.2K 156 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$175.4K 130 donors
  4. CEO$118.5K 56 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$69.3K 32 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ZINC COLLECTIVE PAC$13.2K
  2. ACROSS THE AISLE PAC$10.0K
  3. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BLACKSTONE$15.0K 5 donors
  2. BGR GROUP$14.8K 10 donors
  3. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI$14.2K 6 donors
  4. REMINGTON ROAD GROUP$14.0K 3 donors
  5. THE UROLOGY GROUP$13.5K 26 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Landsman voted with the majority of House Democrats on 90% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Landsman voted against the majority of House Democrats 50 times.

674 roll calls Landsman could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Landsman voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

50

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 90%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 200th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Landsman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.9%
96.9%
66th of 217
Party unity
90%
96.4%
200th of 217
Show the data
Landsman's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowLandsmanPeers
Attendance98.9%96.9%
Party unity90%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Landsman most often

  1. Eric SorensenD661 shared votes97%
  2. Frank MrvanD646 shared votes96%
  3. Greg StantonD651 shared votes96%
  4. Chris PappasD663 shared votes95%
  5. Josh GottheimerD586 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Landsman least often

  1. Chip RoyR627 shared votes21%
  2. Ralph NormanR590 shared votes23%
  3. Eric BurlisonR636 shared votes24%
  4. Josh BrecheenR634 shared votes24%
  5. Andy BiggsR603 shared votes24%
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

Landsman sponsored 34 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 549 others. 5.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 65th of 207).

The bills Landsman 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

Sponsored34 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3434Sponsored, In committee: 3434Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored549 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 549549Cosponsored, In committee: 549549Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2626Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Landsman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3434200
Cosponsored5495492641
How to read the blocks

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

5.9%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 65th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick47
  2. Eleanor Norton46
  3. Josh Gottheimer36
  4. Eugene Vindman36
  5. Don Bacon29
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 Landsman’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. 1088121st Century Vehicle Choice ActSponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10782Clean School Bus Reauthorization ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10761Campus Accountability and Safety Act of 2026CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 84 times in 90 days. Landsman’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Landsman posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Landsman’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 Landsman 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 Landsman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of adults and a child pose for a photo inside an ornate Hindu temple, in front of gold-colored shrines decorated with flowers and religious statues. Some people are holding their hands in prayer or holding a folder. There is no prominent text.
    A group of adults and a child pose for a photo inside an ornate Hindu temple, in front of gold-colored shrines decorated with flowers and religious statues. Some people are holding their hands in prayer or holding a folder. There is no prominent text.View post
  • Several people converse in a decorated indoor venue. A smiling bald man in a blue jacket stands with a woman wearing glasses and traditional clothing, while two men are seen from the side or back. Text is printed on a garment.
    Several people converse in a decorated indoor venue. A smiling bald man in a blue jacket stands with a woman wearing glasses and traditional clothing, while two men are seen from the side or back. Text is printed on a garment.View post
  • A bald man in a blue jacket greets and shakes hands with a woman in a line of women at an indoor event. A photographer is taking pictures in the background, and posters and framed pictures are visible on the walls.
    A bald man in a blue jacket greets and shakes hands with a woman in a line of women at an indoor event. A photographer is taking pictures in the background, and posters and framed pictures are visible on the walls.View post
  • A bald man wearing a white shirt and flower garland stands behind an ornate podium, clapping beside a microphone on a stage with red curtains. There is a small amount of text on the podium.
    A bald man wearing a white shirt and flower garland stands behind an ornate podium, clapping beside a microphone on a stage with red curtains. There is a small amount of text on the podium.View post
  • Two men talk beside industrial conveyor equipment in a factory. One man wears a high-visibility vest and gestures while speaking; the other wears a blue jacket and listens. Some labels and other text are visible on the machinery.
    Two men talk beside industrial conveyor equipment in a factory. One man wears a high-visibility vest and gestures while speaking; the other wears a blue jacket and listens. Some labels and other text are visible on the machinery.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 Landsman is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
L000601
Bioguide
L000601
FEC candidate ids
H2OH01194

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