Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Massachusetts

Serving since Jul 16, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M000133FEC H6MA07101, S4MA00028

Portrait of Ed Markey, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
7.6%
of statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom 5% of Senate Democrats

7.6% of 3,281 statements use bipartisan language (251 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 18%. Ranks 44th of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Markey’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Markey sits at −1.65 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 97% of Senate Democrats. The policy areas Markey talks about and legislates on agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats.

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

Bipartisanship

7.6%

Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 44th of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.65

More liberal than 97% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01

Party unity

99.7%

Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 4th of 45 · 47 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.70

Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 5th of 45

Out of committee

5.5%

Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 40th of 45

Attendance

99.2%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 7th of 45 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Markey says

Markey stresses bipartisanship less than 95% of Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 7.6% of 3,281 statements, against 18% for the average Senate Democrat; 44th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Markey’s 3,281 statements in the 119th Congress (2,424 posts on X, 723 press releases, 129 Congressional Record speeches, 5 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Markey
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,730 statements
83%
78%
11th of 45
Policy criticism1,303 statements
40%
37%
14th of 45
Credit claiming807 statements
25%
26%
26th of 45
Personal attacks390 statements
12%
11%
15th of 45
Bipartisanship251 statements
8%
18%
44th of 45
Show the data
Markey's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowMarkeyPeers
Policy discussion83%78%
Policy criticism40%37%
Credit claiming25%26%
Personal attacks12%11%
Bipartisanship8%18%
3,281

statements classified

2,424 posts on X, 723 press releases, 129 Congressional Record speeches, 5 newsletters.

posts on X: 2,424 (73.9%)posts on X 2,424press releases: 723 (22.0%)press releases 723Congressional Record speeches: 129 (3.9%)newsletters: 5 (0.2%)
Show the data
Markey's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,424
press releases723
Congressional Record speeches129
newsletters5
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Markey used extreme labels in 5.1% of statements, 2.2 times the peer average. 166 statements, most often aimed at MAGA Republicans; peers 2.4%.

  1. “MAGA”87
  2. “extreme”30
  3. “far right”9
  4. “radical”9
  5. “fascist”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA Republicans50
  2. Republicans20
  3. Trump19
  4. Donald Trump10
  5. MAGA Republican10
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: 1622025-02: 2032025-03: 1772025-04: 1722025-05: 2072025-06: 2562025-07: 1852025-08: 972025-09: 1642025-10: 1752025-11: 1622025-12: 1392026-01: 1292026-02: 1582026-03: 1922026-04: 1492026-05: 872026-06: 1562026-07: 982026-08: 812026-09: 822026-10: 50peak 256 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 22.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 12.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 13.0% of 162Personal attacks, 2025-02: 22.7% of 203Personal attacks, 2025-03: 13.0% of 177Personal attacks, 2025-04: 9.3% of 172Personal attacks, 2025-05: 9.7% of 207Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.3% of 256Personal attacks, 2025-07: 9.2% of 185Personal attacks, 2025-08: 8.3% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-09: 13.4% of 164Personal attacks, 2025-10: 8.0% of 175Personal attacks, 2025-11: 12.3% of 162Personal attacks, 2025-12: 16.6% of 139Personal attacks, 2026-01: 18.6% of 129Personal attacks, 2026-02: 10.8% of 158Personal attacks, 2026-03: 10.4% of 192Personal attacks, 2026-04: 16.1% of 149Personal attacks, 2026-05: 9.2% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.7% of 156Personal attacks, 2026-07: 17.3% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-08: 14.8% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-09: 11.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-10: 12.0% of 50Policy criticismpeak 61.5% · Mar ’26 · latest 16.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 40.1% of 162Policy criticism, 2025-02: 50.2% of 203Policy criticism, 2025-03: 36.7% of 177Policy criticism, 2025-04: 30.2% of 172Policy criticism, 2025-05: 46.9% of 207Policy criticism, 2025-06: 30.1% of 256Policy criticism, 2025-07: 47.6% of 185Policy criticism, 2025-08: 48.4% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-09: 49.4% of 164Policy criticism, 2025-10: 48.0% of 175Policy criticism, 2025-11: 47.5% of 162Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.1% of 139Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.7% of 129Policy criticism, 2026-02: 48.1% of 158Policy criticism, 2026-03: 61.5% of 192Policy criticism, 2026-04: 30.9% of 149Policy criticism, 2026-05: 37.9% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-06: 46.8% of 156Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.4% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-08: 17.3% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-09: 24.4% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-10: 16.0% of 50Policy discussionpeak 93.9% · Jul ’26 · latest 92.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 82.1% of 162Policy discussion, 2025-02: 73.9% of 203Policy discussion, 2025-03: 71.8% of 177Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.3% of 172Policy discussion, 2025-05: 82.6% of 207Policy discussion, 2025-06: 84.8% of 256Policy discussion, 2025-07: 80.0% of 185Policy discussion, 2025-08: 90.7% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.0% of 164Policy discussion, 2025-10: 77.7% of 175Policy discussion, 2025-11: 80.9% of 162Policy discussion, 2025-12: 91.4% of 139Policy discussion, 2026-01: 93.0% of 129Policy discussion, 2026-02: 84.2% of 158Policy discussion, 2026-03: 86.5% of 192Policy discussion, 2026-04: 89.9% of 149Policy discussion, 2026-05: 86.2% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-06: 90.4% of 156Policy discussion, 2026-07: 93.9% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-08: 93.8% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-09: 91.5% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-10: 92.0% of 50Bipartisanshippeak 13.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 4.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 13.6% of 162Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.4% of 203Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.9% of 177Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.1% of 172Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 7.2% of 207Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.5% of 256Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.9% of 185Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 4.1% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 11.0% of 164Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.6% of 175Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.3% of 162Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.9% of 139Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.6% of 129Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.2% of 158Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.8% of 192Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.4% of 149Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 5.8% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.3% of 156Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 8.6% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 12.2% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.0% of 50Credit claimingpeak 44.9% · Jul ’26 · latest 26.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.4% of 162Credit claiming, 2025-02: 16.8% of 203Credit claiming, 2025-03: 23.7% of 177Credit claiming, 2025-04: 20.9% of 172Credit claiming, 2025-05: 18.4% of 207Credit claiming, 2025-06: 18.0% of 256Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.9% of 185Credit claiming, 2025-08: 26.8% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-09: 23.8% of 164Credit claiming, 2025-10: 20.6% of 175Credit claiming, 2025-11: 24.1% of 162Credit claiming, 2025-12: 25.2% of 139Credit claiming, 2026-01: 14.0% of 129Credit claiming, 2026-02: 24.1% of 158Credit claiming, 2026-03: 20.3% of 192Credit claiming, 2026-04: 25.5% of 149Credit claiming, 2026-05: 19.5% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-06: 40.4% of 156Credit claiming, 2026-07: 44.9% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.3% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-09: 34.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-10: 26.0% of 50Extreme labelspeak 17.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 2.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.1% of 162Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.5% of 203Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.1% of 177Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.7% of 172Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.9% of 207Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.3% of 256Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.7% of 185Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.6% of 164Extreme labels, 2025-10: 16.0% of 175Extreme labels, 2025-11: 17.3% of 162Extreme labels, 2025-12: 6.5% of 139Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.7% of 129Extreme labels, 2026-02: 8.2% of 158Extreme labels, 2026-03: 5.7% of 192Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.0% of 149Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.1% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.9% of 156Extreme labels, 2026-07: 3.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.0% of 50Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Markey, 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 ’2516213.0%40.1%82.1%13.6%36.4%3.1%
Feb ’2520322.7%50.2%73.9%6.4%16.8%1.5%
Mar ’2517713.0%36.7%71.8%7.9%23.7%5.1%
Apr ’251729.3%30.2%70.3%11.1%20.9%4.7%
May ’252079.7%46.9%82.6%7.2%18.4%3.9%
Jun ’252564.3%30.1%84.8%5.5%18.0%4.3%
Jul ’251859.2%47.6%80.0%5.9%25.9%2.7%
Aug ’25978.3%48.4%90.7%4.1%26.8%4.1%
Sep ’2516413.4%49.4%75.0%11.0%23.8%0.6%
Oct ’251758.0%48.0%77.7%8.6%20.6%16.0%
Nov ’2516212.3%47.5%80.9%9.3%24.1%17.3%
Dec ’2513916.6%28.1%91.4%7.9%25.2%6.5%
Jan ’2612918.6%14.7%93.0%1.6%14.0%4.7%
Feb ’2615810.8%48.1%84.2%3.2%24.1%8.2%
Mar ’2619210.4%61.5%86.5%8.8%20.3%5.7%
Apr ’2614916.1%30.9%89.9%7.4%25.5%2.0%
May ’26879.2%37.9%86.2%5.8%19.5%1.1%
Jun ’261567.7%46.8%90.4%8.3%40.4%3.9%
Jul ’269817.3%22.4%93.9%8.2%44.9%3.1%
Aug ’268114.8%17.3%93.8%8.6%38.3%1.2%
Sep ’268211.0%24.4%91.5%12.2%34.2%2.4%
Oct ’265012.0%16.0%92.0%4.0%26.0%2.0%
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 Markey’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; target: Trump · Source

Bipartisanship

Markey, Merkley Announce Joint Resolution of Disapproval on U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal, Setting Up Senate Vote Washington (October 15, 2026) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Jeff Merkley, co-chairs of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group today introduced a Joint…

Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Energy · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Health; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at 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. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: Pete Hegseth, JD VanceSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: RFK Jr.Source

  4. Posts on X

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

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

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Emergency Management · target: TrumpSource

All 3,281 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: 2,424 posts on X, 723 press releases, 129 Congressional Record speeches, 5 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Markey talks about most: 25% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 5th of 45).

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

What Markey talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Markey
Peers
Health675 statements
25%
27%
Armed Forces and National Security433 statements
16%
21%
Government Operations and Politics430 statements
16%
22%
Environmental Protection424 statements
16%
6%
Energy423 statements
16%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Markey talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowMarkeyPeers
Health25%27%
Armed Forces and National Security16%21%
Government Operations and Politics16%22%
Environmental Protection16%6%
Energy16%8%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 25% (Senate Democrats 27%)25%Health, legislates on: 15% (Senate Democrats 14%)15%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 21%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (Senate Democrats 7%)4%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 22%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 9%)6%Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Protection, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 6%)16%Environmental Protection, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 3%)5%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 8%)16%Energy, legislates on: 3% (Senate Democrats 2%)3%
Show the data
Markey's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Health25%27%15%14%
Armed Forces and National Security16%21%4%7%
Government Operations and Politics16%22%6%9%
Environmental Protection16%6%5%3%
Energy16%8%3%2%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 5th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Markey sits at −1.65 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 97% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.66 to −1.64, which understates the uncertainty; from 14,287 donors and 4,716 roll calls.

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

−1.65

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.66 to −1.64. From 14,287 donors and 4,716 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Markey −1.6Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Markey, 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 Markey’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 Markey sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Markey −1.6All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Markey's CSIP score of −1.65 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Markey
Senate Democrats45−1.12%
All Senate98+0.41%
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 Markey 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 Markey.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Markey raised $6.0M in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 33% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 54% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.

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
$6.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,085 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (29.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $890.3K (14.9%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)PACs and other committees: $681.4K (11.4%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.6M (42.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)30 squares$1.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)15 squares$890.3K
  • PACs and other committees11 squares$681.4K
  • Party committees1 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)43 squares$2.6M
Show the data
Sources of Markey's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.8M29.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$890.3K14.9%
PACs and other committees$681.4K11.4%
Party committees$62.0K1.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$2.6M42.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $11.8M$11.8M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20242026 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Markey's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$11.8M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.5M
2026 cycle$6.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 54% came from Massachusetts.

  1. Massachusetts$798.2K
  2. California$202.1K
  3. New York$149.9K
  4. District of Columbia$91.0K
  5. Maryland$30.1K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Markey
Median
2026
33%
35%
2024
12%
35%
2022
28%
35%
2020
32%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowMarkeyMedian
2026 cycle33%35%
2024 cycle12%35%
2022 cycle28%35%
2020 cycle32%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $2,522MEVermont: $6,263VTNew Hampshire: $16.2KNHWashington: $22.8KWAIdaho: $1,000IDMontana: $125MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $2,771MNIllinois: $8,023ILWisconsin: $575WIMichigan: $2,400MINew York: $149.9KNYRhode Island: $2,565RIMassachusetts: $798.2KMAOregon: $3,627ORNevada: $4,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,500INOhio: $1,160OHPennsylvania: $15.1KPANew Jersey: $9,477NJConnecticut: $9,730CTCalifornia: $202.1KCAUtah: $474UTColorado: $7,872CONebraska: $140NEMissouri: $1,875MOKentucky: $7,250KYWest Virginia: $2,500WVVirginia: $23.7KVAMaryland: $30.1KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $3,016AZNew Mexico: $2,508NMKansas: $100KSArkansas: $1,000ARTennessee: $1,846TNNorth Carolina: $1,190NCSouth Carolina: $2,935SCDistrict of Columbia: $91.0KDCOklahoma: $450OKLouisiana: $200LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,009GAHawaii: $650HITexas: $12.4KTXFlorida: $29.4KFL
Show the data
Markey's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Massachusetts$798.2K
California$202.1K
New York$149.9K
District of Columbia$91.0K
Maryland$30.1K
Florida$29.4K
Virginia$23.7K
Washington$22.8K
New Hampshire$16.2K
Pennsylvania$15.1K
Texas$12.4K
Connecticut$9,730
New Jersey$9,477
Illinois$8,023
Colorado$7,872
Kentucky$7,250
Vermont$6,263
Nevada$4,000
Oregon$3,627
Arizona$3,016
South Carolina$2,935
Minnesota$2,771
Rhode Island$2,565
Maine$2,522
New Mexico$2,508
West Virginia$2,500
Michigan$2,400
Georgia$2,009
Missouri$1,875
Tennessee$1,846
Indiana$1,500
North Carolina$1,190
Ohio$1,160
Idaho$1,000
Arkansas$1,000
Hawaii$650
Wisconsin$575
Utah$474
Oklahoma$450
Louisiana$200
Nebraska$140
Montana$125
Kansas$100
AlaskaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
DelawareNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
2,085

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

54%

from Massachusetts

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 17%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 19%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 41%41%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 20%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.2%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Markey's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 17% between −1.75 and −1.50, 19% between −1.50 and −1.25, 41% between −1.25 and −1.00, 20% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.5017%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2519%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0041%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7520%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.2%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Markey’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Markey’s own score is −1.65.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$501.3K 998 donors
  2. RETIRED$188.4K 334 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$84.7K 82 donors
  4. CEO$41.3K 21 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$39.9K 23 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. DSCC$62.0K
  2. A NEW DIRECTION PAC$10.0K
  3. ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K
  4. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. STEPTOE LLP$13.5K 10 donors
  2. HARVARD UNIVERSITY$9,130 9 donors
  3. GOOGLE$7,850 4 donors
  4. KECHES LAW GROUP$4,500 3 donors
  5. MIT$3,940 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Markey voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.8% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Markey voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 47 times.

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

47

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 99.7%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 4th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Markey
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
97.0%
7th of 45
Party unity
99.7%
95.3%
4th of 45
Show the data
Markey's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowMarkeyPeers
Attendance99.2%97.0%
Party unity99.7%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Markey most often

  1. Elizabeth WarrenD894 shared votes100%
  2. Bernie SandersI845 shared votes99%
  3. Christopher MurphyD883 shared votes99%
  4. Jeff MerkleyD901 shared votes98%
  5. Chris Van HollenD894 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Markey least often

  1. Ron JohnsonR896 shared votes2.1%
  2. Tommy TubervilleR848 shared votes2.1%
  3. Ted CruzR861 shared votes2.3%
  4. Bernie MorenoR903 shared votes2.3%
  5. Bill HagertyR876 shared votes2.4%
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

Markey sponsored 164 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 499 others. 5.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 40th of 45).

The bills Markey 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

Sponsored164 billsSponsored, Introduced: 164164Sponsored, In committee: 164164Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 77Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored499 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 499499Cosponsored, In committee: 496496Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6464Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Markey sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored164164700
Cosponsored4994966411
How to read the blocks

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

5.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 40th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Richard Blumenthal257
  2. Jeff Merkley243
  3. Elizabeth Warren236
  4. Cory Booker229
  5. Alex Padilla216
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 Markey’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S.J.Res. 221A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.CosponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedInternational AffairsUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Oct 15, 2026
S.J.Res. 220Original Slavery Remembrance Day ResolutionCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 931A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 920A resolution expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning, and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 924A resolution designating October 7, 2026, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEnergySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176-5177) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 130 times in 90 days. Markey’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Markey posted on Oct 22, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    www.markey.senate.gov

    Last crawled Oct 18, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    130

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.edmarkey.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    33

    pages crawled

    103

    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.

Social accounts

Images Markey posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A news graphic overlays a photograph of a protest sign outside a building. The sign alleges that detainees are being held illegally for long stays without meals or beds. A white panel displays a newspaper masthead and headline.
    A news graphic overlays a photograph of a protest sign outside a building. The sign alleges that detainees are being held illegally for long stays without meals or beds. A white panel displays a newspaper masthead and headline.View post
  • A blue-toned AFGE news graphic over a photograph of a protest crowd holding signs in front of the U.S. Capitol. The graphic includes a headline and prominent organization branding.
    A blue-toned AFGE news graphic over a photograph of a protest crowd holding signs in front of the U.S. Capitol. The graphic includes a headline and prominent organization branding.View post
  • A photograph of two men in suits, with the man on the left in focus and the man on the right blurred. A white rounded news-card graphic with text is overlaid across the bottom.
    A photograph of two men in suits, with the man on the left in focus and the man on the right blurred. A white rounded news-card graphic with text is overlaid across the bottom.View post
  • A news graphic featuring a dim photograph of a courthouse with tall columns in the background and a white rounded panel containing a headline. There is text in the image.
    A news graphic featuring a dim photograph of a courthouse with tall columns in the background and a white rounded panel containing a headline. There is text in the image.View post
  • A portrait of a man in a suit is shown behind a cream-colored news graphic. The graphic contains a publication name and a headline.
    A portrait of a man in a suit is shown behind a cream-colored news graphic. The graphic contains a publication name and a headline.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 Markey is most unusual among Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
M000133
Bioguide
M000133
FEC candidate ids
H6MA07101, S4MA00028

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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