Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Maryland’s 7th district

Serving since Jan 6, 1987119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M000687FEC H0MD07114, H6MD07020, S6MD03185

Portrait of Kweisi Mfume, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$489.7K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

The median for House Democrats is $2.0M. Ranks 203rd of 214, where 1st raised the most. 160 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Mfume’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Democrats. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Mfume missed 6.5% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.9%). 3.7% of Mfume’s statements use an extreme label, 2.0 times the House Democrat average of 1.9%.

The measures on which Mfume 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.

Raised, 2026

$489.7K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 203rd of 214

Attendance

93.4%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 197th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Extreme labels

3.7%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 23rd of 216

Small donations, 2026

4.3%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 178th of 214

Policy criticism

20%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 165th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.99

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Mfume says

Mfume criticizes policies less than 75% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 20% of 483 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 165th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Mfume’s 483 statements in the 119th Congress (316 posts on X, 118 press releases, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 16 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Mfume
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion334 statements
69%
73%
160th of 216
Credit claiming122 statements
25%
23%
72nd of 216
Policy criticism96 statements
20%
28%
165th of 216
Bipartisanship47 statements
10%
10%
88th of 216
Personal attacks32 statements
7%
7%
89th of 216
Show the data
Mfume's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMfumePeers
Policy discussion69%73%
Credit claiming25%23%
Policy criticism20%28%
Bipartisanship10%10%
Personal attacks7%7%
483

statements classified

316 posts on X, 118 press releases, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 16 newsletters.

posts on X: 316 (65.4%)posts on X 316press releases: 118 (24.4%)press releases 118Congressional Record speeches: 33 (6.8%)newsletters: 16 (3.3%)
Show the data
Mfume's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X316
press releases118
Congressional Record speeches33
newsletters16
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Mfume used extreme labels in 3.7% of statements, 2.0 times the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”11
  2. “extreme”2
  3. “far right”1
  4. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans2
  2. anti-worker politicians1
  3. Congressional Democrats1
  4. Donald Trump1
  5. MAGA1
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: 182025-02: 382025-03: 382025-04: 372025-05: 292025-06: 302025-07: 192025-08: 152025-09: 212025-10: 342025-11: 152025-12: 162026-01: 192026-02: 232026-03: 222026-04: 272026-05: 122026-06: 232026-07: 112026-08: 72026-09: 202026-10: 9peak 38 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 17.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 5.6% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-02: 7.9% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.9% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-04: 8.1% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.5% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-06: 6.7% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-09: 9.5% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-10: 17.6% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-01: 15.8% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-02: 17.4% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-04: 7.4% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-06: 8.7% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 46.7% · Aug ’25 · latest 10.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 33.3% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-02: 34.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-03: 15.8% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-04: 24.3% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-05: 17.2% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-06: 20.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-07: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-08: 46.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.3% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.4% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-11: 26.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-12: 6.3% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-02: 13.0% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-03: 31.8% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-06: 21.7% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 86.7% · Aug ’25 · latest 60.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 61.1% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-02: 76.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-03: 65.8% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-04: 81.1% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.0% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.7% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-08: 86.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-09: 76.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-10: 79.4% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-11: 60.0% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-12: 62.5% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-01: 68.4% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-02: 65.2% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-03: 63.6% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-04: 55.6% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-05: 41.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-06: 69.6% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-07: 54.5% of 11Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 60.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 33.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 5.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 33.3% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.6% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.4% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 3.5% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 13.3% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 19.1% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 14.7% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.3% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 18.8% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 17.4% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.1% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 17.4% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 9.1% of 11Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 42.9% · Sep ’25 · latest 25.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 38.9% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-02: 23.7% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-03: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.7% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-05: 20.7% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-06: 3.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-07: 26.3% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-08: 6.7% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-09: 42.9% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-10: 23.5% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-12: 31.3% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-01: 21.1% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.4% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-03: 31.8% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-04: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-05: 41.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-06: 26.1% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-07: 18.2% of 11Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 25.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 13.3% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.6% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-04: 10.8% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.5% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-06: 13.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-07: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-10: 11.8% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-12: 6.3% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 11Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Mfume, 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 ’25185.6%33.3%61.1%33.3%38.9%0.0%
Feb ’25387.9%34.2%76.3%7.9%23.7%2.6%
Mar ’25387.9%15.8%65.8%2.6%26.3%0.0%
Apr ’25378.1%24.3%81.1%5.4%29.7%10.8%
May ’25293.5%17.2%69.0%3.5%20.7%3.5%
Jun ’25306.7%20.0%66.7%6.7%3.3%13.3%
Jul ’25190.0%21.1%73.7%5.3%26.3%5.3%
Aug ’25150.0%46.7%86.7%13.3%6.7%0.0%
Sep ’25219.5%14.3%76.2%19.1%42.9%0.0%
Oct ’253417.6%29.4%79.4%14.7%23.5%11.8%
Nov ’25150.0%26.7%60.0%13.3%20.0%0.0%
Dec ’25160.0%6.3%62.5%18.8%31.3%6.3%
Jan ’261915.8%0.0%68.4%5.3%21.1%0.0%
Feb ’262317.4%13.0%65.2%17.4%30.4%4.3%
Mar ’26220.0%31.8%63.6%9.1%31.8%0.0%
Apr ’26277.4%11.1%55.6%3.7%29.6%0.0%
May ’26120.0%8.3%41.7%0.0%41.7%0.0%
Jun ’26238.7%21.7%69.6%17.4%26.1%4.3%
Jul ’26110.0%0.0%54.5%9.1%18.2%0.0%
Aug ’267— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26200.0%10.0%60.0%5.0%25.0%0.0%
Oct ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 2 months are hatched here.

In Mfume’s words

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

Credit claiming

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary service of Dr. Lonnie G Bunch, III, the 14th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, as he prepares to conclude his service to one of our Nation's most precious cultural institutions. Dr. Bunch's legacy is inseparable from the National Museu…

Oct 6, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Policy criticism

Reps. Mfume, Vindman Urge Netanyahu to Contain Violence and Protect Palestinians in the West Bank WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, and Congressman Eugene Vindman (D-VA) led a letter to Isra…

Sep 24, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

Extreme label

Congressman Mfume Statement After Protesting at the Supreme Court Against Decision to End Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07) issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court of the United States' decision to allow the T…

Jun 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Immigration; Law; Families; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “far right” aimed at Supreme Court · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Press releases

    Congressman Mfume Statement Opposing the Nomination of Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07) issued the following statement regarding President Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as the Director of National Intelligence: "I oppose the nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence," said Congressman Kweisi Mfume. "As U.S.…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jay ClaytonSource

  2. Newsletters

    Congressman Mfume Statement Opposing the Nomination of Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence | For Immediate ReleaseJune 10, 2026 Contact: MD07press@ Congressman Mfume Statement Opposing the Nomination of Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07) issued the following statement regarding President Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as the…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jay Clayton

  3. Press releases

    Congressman Mfume Statement on Trump's Iran Threats Image April 7, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07) issued the following statement regarding President Trump's dangerous and escalatory rhetoric towards Iran posted on Truth Social today: "The President's obscenity laden threat to destroy Iranian civilization as we know it is a brazen, illegal threat against innocent civilians and it would clear…

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

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Pam BondiSource

  5. Posts on X

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

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

All 483 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: 316 posts on X, 118 press releases, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 16 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Mfume talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 102nd 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 Mfume talks about. The bills Mfume sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Mfume talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%40%
Mfume
Peers
Government Operations and Politics122 statements
37%
20%
Health76 statements
23%
26%
Economics and Public Finance67 statements
20%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues58 statements
17%
13%
Armed Forces and National Security50 statements
15%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Mfume talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMfumePeers
Government Operations and Politics37%20%
Health23%26%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues17%13%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Mfume’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 40%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 37% (House Democrats 20%)37%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 24% (House Democrats 11%)24%HealthHealth, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 13%)17%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 5% (House Democrats 5%)5%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 7%)6%
Show the data
Mfume's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics37%20%24%11%
Health23%26%14%16%
Economics and Public Finance20%20%0%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues17%13%5%5%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%6%7%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 102nd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Mfume sits at −0.99 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 51% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.01 to −0.96, which understates the uncertainty; from 733 donors and 2,942 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”.

−0.99

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.01 to −0.96. From 733 donors and 2,942 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Mfume, 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 Mfume’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 Mfume sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Mfume −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Mfume's CSIP score of −0.99 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Mfume
House Democrats217−1.051%
All House439+0.325%
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 Mfume 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 Mfume.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Mfume raised $489.7K in the 2026 cycle, 25% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 4.3% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 78% of itemized individual money came from Maryland.

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
$489.7K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 160 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): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $183.4K (37.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8,226 (1.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $8,226 (1.7%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)PACs and other committees: $297.8K (60.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)37 squares$183.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$8,226
  • PACs and other committees61 squares$297.8K
Show the data
Sources of Mfume's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$183.4K37.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$8,2261.7%
PACs and other committees$297.8K60.8%
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20202022 cycle: $600.0K$600.0K20222024 cycle: $533.9K$533.9K20242026 cycle: $489.7K$489.7K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Mfume's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.0M
2022 cycle$600.0K
2024 cycle$533.9K
2026 cycle$489.7K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 78% came from Maryland.

  1. Maryland$134.8K
  2. District of Columbia$13.9K
  3. Ohio$8,000
  4. Virginia$5,625
  5. Florida$3,500

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%
Mfume
Median
2026
4%
13%
2024
2%
13%
2022
6%
13%
2020
12%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMfumeMedian
2026 cycle4%13%
2024 cycle2%13%
2022 cycle6%13%
2020 cycle12%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $1,000NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $8,000OHPennsylvania: $2,375PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $1,875KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $5,625VAMaryland: $134.8KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,000NCSouth Carolina: $500SCDistrict of Columbia: $13.9KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: $3,500FL
Show the data
Mfume's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Maryland$134.8K
District of Columbia$13.9K
Ohio$8,000
Virginia$5,625
Florida$3,500
Pennsylvania$2,375
Kentucky$1,875
New York$1,000
North Carolina$1,000
Massachusetts$500
South Carolina$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
160

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

78%

from Maryland

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 15%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 45%45%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 9.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 10%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 12%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Mfume's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +0.75: 15% between −1.25 and −1.00, 45% between −1.00 and −0.75, 9.3% between −0.75 and −0.50, 10% between −0.50 and −0.25, 12% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0015%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7545%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.509.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2510%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0012%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Mfume’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Mfume’s own score is −0.99.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$26.1K 27 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$15.5K 14 donors
  3. REAL ESTATE$13.8K 10 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$11.5K 5 donors
  5. CEO$9,750 7 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC$10.0K
  4. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K
  5. NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COM (NARFE-PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$6,500 6 donors
  2. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$4,169 4 donors
  3. MEDSTAR HEALTH$3,375 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Mfume voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 6.5% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mfume voted against the majority of House Democrats 10 times.

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

10

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 67th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Mfume
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.4%
96.9%
197th of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
67th of 217
Show the data
Mfume's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMfumePeers
Attendance93.4%96.9%
Party unity99.3%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
NayWith 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 Mfume most often

  1. Johnny OlszewskiD625 shared votes99%
  2. Emanuel Cleaver IID604 shared votes99%
  3. Joe NeguseD628 shared votes99%
  4. Glenn IveyD620 shared votes99%
  5. Grace MengD593 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Mfume least often

  1. Chip RoyR597 shared votes16%
  2. Andy BiggsR566 shared votes17%
  3. Josh BrecheenR601 shared votes17%
  4. Ralph NormanR561 shared votes17%
  5. Eric BurlisonR601 shared votes18%
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

Mfume sponsored 16 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 346 others. 6.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 60th of 207).

The bills Mfume 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

Sponsored16 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1616Sponsored, In committee: 1616Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored346 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 346346Cosponsored, In committee: 346346Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1515Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Mfume sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1616000
Cosponsored3463461511
How to read the blocks

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

6.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 60th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton59
  2. Rashida Tlaib33
  3. Stephen Lynch22
  4. Summer Lee22
  5. Shontel Brown20
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 Mfume’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. 10816DORIE Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10817U.S.S. Doris Miller Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10820Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.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 46 times in 90 days. Mfume’s official site had 20 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Mfume posted on Oct 19, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    mfume.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    20

    pages crawled

    46

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    mfumeforcongress.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    9

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Mfume posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue graphic featuring a faded image of the U.S. Capitol behind a white-bordered statement about recent mail threats to government offices. A congressional seal and representative identification appear at the bottom. The image contains prominent text.
    A blue graphic featuring a faded image of the U.S. Capitol behind a white-bordered statement about recent mail threats to government offices. A congressional seal and representative identification appear at the bottom. The image contains prominent text.View post
  • Four adults stand outdoors on a sidewalk beneath trees, holding handmade protest signs. Several are wearing jackets or hooded rain gear. There is handwritten text on the signs.
    Four adults stand outdoors on a sidewalk beneath trees, holding handmade protest signs. Several are wearing jackets or hooded rain gear. There is handwritten text on the signs.View post
  • A group of people stands along a sidewalk beside a road, holding signs and an American flag. A seated child in a stroller reaches toward the flag while an older man looks down at them. The scene appears to be a public gathering or demonstration, and several signs and clothing items contain text.
    A group of people stands along a sidewalk beside a road, holding signs and an American flag. A seated child in a stroller reaches toward the flag while an older man looks down at them. The scene appears to be a public gathering or demonstration, and several signs and clothing items contain text.View post
  • Three people stand on a sidewalk beside a black metal fence, holding political protest signs. Other demonstrators and a street are visible in the background. The signs contain text and drawings.
    Three people stand on a sidewalk beside a black metal fence, holding political protest signs. Other demonstrators and a street are visible in the background. The signs contain text and drawings.View post
  • A group of people gather beside a sidewalk and fence at what appears to be a political event. A man standing holds a sign and shakes hands with a seated man, while others hold signs and American flags. There is text on the signs and clothing.
    A group of people gather beside a sidewalk and fence at what appears to be a political event. A man standing holds a sign and shakes hands with a seated man, while others hold signs and American flags. There is text on the signs and clothing.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 Mfume 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
M000687
Bioguide
M000687
FEC candidate ids
H0MD07114, H6MD07020, S6MD03185

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