of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans
0.4% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 50th of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $1.6M raised in all.
Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among Senate Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
0
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0.2% of Moran’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 2.9%). 0.1% of Moran’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 2.1%).
The measures on which Moran sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Small donations, 2026
0.4%
Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 50th of 51
Extreme labels
0.2%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 49th of 52
Personal attacks
0.1%
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 47th of 52
Bipartisanship
21%
Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 6th of 52
Attendance
94.2%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 49th of 53 · 915 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.75
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Moran, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Moran is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Moran attacks opponents personally less than 88% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,704 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 47th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Moran’s 1,704 statements in the 119th Congress (1,088 posts on X, 307 press releases, 197 Congressional Record speeches, 112 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
Moran
Senate Republicans, average of 52
0%20%40%60%80%
Moran
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,313 statements
77%
70%
15th of 52
Credit claiming744 statements
44%
36%
9th of 52
Bipartisanship359 statements
21%
13%
6th of 52
Policy criticism307 statements
18%
17%
21st of 52
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
47th of 52
+ Show the data
Moran's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
Moran
Peers
Policy discussion
77%
70%
Credit claiming
44%
36%
Bipartisanship
21%
13%
Policy criticism
18%
17%
Personal attacks
0%
2%
1,704
statements classified
1,088 posts on X, 307 press releases, 197 Congressional Record speeches, 112 newsletters.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
newsletters
+ Show the data
Moran's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
1,088
press releases
307
Congressional Record speeches
197
newsletters
112
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Moran; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Moran does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Moran used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 6.3% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at continuing resolution; peers 2.9%.
“fascist”1
“radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
continuing resolution1
fascism1
Nazi1
+ − 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
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for Moran, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
59
1.7%
13.6%
71.2%
17.0%
37.3%
0.0%
Feb ’25
65
0.0%
33.9%
89.2%
53.8%
63.1%
1.5%
Mar ’25
66
0.0%
15.2%
84.9%
25.8%
45.5%
0.0%
Apr ’25
61
0.0%
24.6%
75.4%
24.6%
44.3%
0.0%
May ’25
97
0.0%
23.7%
84.5%
19.6%
46.4%
0.0%
Jun ’25
84
0.0%
20.2%
71.4%
15.5%
32.1%
0.0%
Jul ’25
103
1.0%
13.6%
76.7%
16.5%
51.5%
0.0%
Aug ’25
64
0.0%
15.6%
79.7%
18.8%
51.6%
0.0%
Sep ’25
96
0.0%
6.3%
59.4%
12.5%
38.5%
2.1%
Oct ’25
80
0.0%
25.0%
75.0%
27.5%
38.8%
0.0%
Nov ’25
77
0.0%
28.6%
74.0%
19.5%
37.7%
0.0%
Dec ’25
69
0.0%
15.9%
82.6%
26.1%
39.1%
0.0%
Jan ’26
79
0.0%
7.6%
74.7%
5.1%
41.8%
0.0%
Feb ’26
85
0.0%
22.4%
82.3%
23.5%
51.8%
0.0%
Mar ’26
98
0.0%
21.4%
75.5%
28.6%
42.9%
0.0%
Apr ’26
91
0.0%
15.4%
80.2%
13.2%
31.9%
0.0%
May ’26
75
0.0%
14.7%
70.7%
24.0%
38.7%
0.0%
Jun ’26
103
0.0%
19.4%
76.7%
22.3%
56.3%
0.0%
Jul ’26
65
0.0%
15.4%
87.7%
32.3%
53.8%
0.0%
Aug ’26
91
0.0%
15.4%
73.6%
14.3%
37.4%
0.0%
Sep ’26
60
0.0%
13.3%
76.7%
15.0%
40.0%
0.0%
Oct ’26
36
0.0%
16.7%
83.3%
16.7%
38.9%
0.0%
+ − How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Moran’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Calling on DHS to Establish a Permanent USCIS Field Office in Southwest Kansas
If you are having trouble viewing this email, please view it on my website<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=KS01JM&crop=16820.100400491.7165403.8465482&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mor…
Oct 27, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Immigration; Labor and Employment
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 22, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; target: VA officials · Source
Extreme label
Mr. President, we for a second time failed to pass a continuing resolution to allow the Federal Government to continue to operate. It is because we are coming to the end of the fiscal year. Not all the appropriations bills have been approved, though most all of them have been approved by the Senate…
Sep 30, 2025 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at continuing resolution · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: VA officialsSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. President, for the past 8 years, I have benefited from the service, hard work, and loyalty of my communications director and deputy chief of staff Tom Brandt. Tom has worked in three congressional offices and is well-known and respected in the Senate by reporters, staffers, and my colleagues. His career as a staffer on Capitol Hill is concluding, and I am sad about that; but he will continue serving the American…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Science, Technology, Communications · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · HealthSource ↗
All 1,704 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
+ − The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,088 posts on X, 307 press releases, 197 Congressional Record speeches, 112 newsletters.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Moran talks about most: 39% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 30th of 52).
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 Moran talks about. The bills Moran sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Moran talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Moran
Senate Republicans average
0%11%21%32%43%
Moran
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security510 statements
39%
25%
Agriculture and Food320 statements
24%
9%
Health301 statements
23%
15%
Transportation and Public Works261 statements
20%
7%
Science, Technology, Communications246 statements
19%
9%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Moran talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
Moran
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security
39%
25%
Agriculture and Food
24%
9%
Health
23%
15%
Transportation and Public Works
20%
7%
Science, Technology, Communications
19%
9%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Moran’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. 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 43%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
Senate Republicans
+ Show the data
Moran's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
Senate Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
Senate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security
39%
25%
29%
8%
Agriculture and Food
24%
9%
6%
4%
Health
23%
15%
6%
11%
Transportation and Public Works
20%
7%
9%
3%
Science, Technology, Communications
19%
9%
5%
3%
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 30th of 52.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Moran legislates on exactly the areas Moran 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 Moran sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Moran sits at +0.75 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 81% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.73 to +0.76, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,869 donors and 4,638 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”.
+0.75
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.73 to +0.76. From 2,869 donors and 4,638 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Moran, 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 Moran’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 Moran sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
+ Show the data
Moran's CSIP score of +0.75 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Moran
Senate Republicans
51
+1.0
18%
All Senate
98
+0.4
57%
+ − 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 Moran 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 Moran.
Moran raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 0.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 33% of itemized individual money came from Kansas.
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.
$1.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 112 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
Itemized individual (over $200)14 squares$213.7K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$809
PACs and other committees26 squares$404.5K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)60 squares$940.1K
+ Show the data
Sources of Moran's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$213.7K
13.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$809
0.1%
PACs and other committees
$404.5K
25.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$940.1K
60.3%
+ − 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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Moran's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$1.3M
2022 cycle
$5.5M
2024 cycle
$1.8M
2026 cycle
$1.6M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 33% came from Kansas.
Kansas$84.7K
Texas$30.4K
New York$16.7K
California$12.8K
Colorado$11.4K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
Moran
Median
0%20%40%60%
Moran
Median
2026
0%
17%
2024
12%
17%
2022
6%
17%
2020
11%
17%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
Row
Moran
Median
2026 cycle
0%
17%
2024 cycle
12%
17%
2022 cycle
6%
17%
2020 cycle
11%
17%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$250$84.7Kno data
+ Show the data
Moran's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Kansas
$84.7K
Texas
$30.4K
New York
$16.7K
California
$12.8K
Colorado
$11.4K
Indiana
$10.4K
South Dakota
$9,500
District of Columbia
$9,500
Virginia
$9,250
Georgia
$8,500
Nebraska
$7,876
West Virginia
$7,876
Illinois
$7,250
Maryland
$7,205
Florida
$6,816
Rhode Island
$6,644
Utah
$3,500
Minnesota
$2,000
North Carolina
$2,000
Pennsylvania
$1,500
New Jersey
$1,500
Arizona
$1,500
Kentucky
$1,250
Wyoming
$500
South Carolina
$500
Louisiana
$500
Washington
$250
Alabama
$250
Alaska
No data
Maine
No data
Vermont
No data
New Hampshire
No data
Idaho
No data
Montana
No data
North Dakota
No data
Wisconsin
No data
Michigan
No data
Massachusetts
No data
Oregon
No data
Nevada
No data
Iowa
No data
Ohio
No data
Connecticut
No data
Missouri
No data
Delaware
No data
New Mexico
No data
Arkansas
No data
Tennessee
No data
Oklahoma
No data
Mississippi
No data
Hawaii
No data
112
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
33%
from Kansas
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 Kansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Moran's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 6.7% between −0.25 and 0.00, 9.8% between +0.25 and +0.50, 38% between +0.50 and +0.75, 30% between +0.75 and +1.00, 7.3% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
0.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
1.8%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
2.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
6.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
4.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
9.8%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
38%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
30%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
7.3%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Moran’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Moran’s own score is +0.75.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
OWNER$28.2K 4 donors
ATTORNEY$24.4K 14 donors
BANKER$19.4K 4 donors
LAWYER$18.3K 4 donors
HOMEMAKER$14.1K 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
ELANCO US INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ('ELANCO PAC')$12.5K
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$11.9K
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL PORK PAC$10.0K
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS--PAC OF AAOS$7,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
GRAY MEDIA$3,750 7 donors
CCK$3,572 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Moran voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 5.8% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Moran voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 17 times.
915 roll calls Moran could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. 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 Moran voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
17
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 98.4%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 43rd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Moran, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Moran
Senate Republicans, average of 53
80%90%100%
Moran
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.2%
97.1%
49th of 53
Party unity
98.4%
98.4%
43rd of 53
+ Show the data
Moran's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
Row
Moran
Peers
Attendance
94.2%
97.1%
Party unity
98.4%
98.4%
+ − 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
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
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
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
Nay
With majority
Concurrent Resolution Rejected
D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay
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
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
Yea
With majority
Resolution Agreed to
D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay
close 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 Moran most often
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.
Moran sponsored 86 bills in the 119th Congress; 2 became law. Cosponsored 210 others. 23% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 20th of 51).
The bills Moran 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Moran sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
86
85
17
3
2
Cosponsored
210
208
57
4
3
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Moran sponsored, ochre blocks bills Moran cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
23%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 20th of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Moran, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Roger Marshall42
John Boozman41
Amy Klobuchar41
Pete Ricketts36
Marsha Blackburn34
+ − 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 Moran’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day".
Cosponsor
Sep 30, 2026
Passed one chamber
Environmental Protection
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272) Sep 30, 2026
A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".
Cosponsor
Sep 30, 2026
Passed one chamber
Armed Forces and National Security
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".
Cosponsor
Sep 29, 2026
Passed one chamber
Agriculture and Food
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2026
Passed one chamber
Government Operations and Politics
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona.
Cosponsor
Sep 23, 2026
Passed one chamber
Government Operations and Politics
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026
A site that changed 120 times in 90 days. Moran’s official site had 47 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Moran posted on Oct 25, 2026.
The lab crawls Moran’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 Moran posts with a vision model.
“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.
A packed indoor basketball arena during a game or pregame ceremony. Cheerleaders stand around the court, and uniformed flag bearers hold several flags near center court. A large overhead video scoreboard shows Kansas and Duke with a game clock. Banners hang from the rafters, and text appears on the scoreboard and banners.View post ↗
02
A college basketball game is underway in a packed indoor arena. Players gather at center court for the opening tip beneath a large illuminated scoreboard. Banners hang from the rafters, and there is text throughout the scene.View post ↗
03
A group of officials and attendees pose for a ribbon-cutting ceremony inside a large industrial facility. A blue ribbon is stretched across the group, with people gathered in the foreground watching and taking photos. Text and an American flag are visible in the background.View post ↗
04
A group of people pose for a photo at an aerospace exhibition booth, with a large aircraft image behind them and company branding above. Text is visible on the booth.View post ↗
05
A public health poster promotes returning unwanted medication for safe disposal. Red-and-blue capsules are scattered across a white background, with a medication bottle in the background. The poster includes prominent text and branding.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.
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 Moran is most unusual among Senate Republicans, 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 …”).
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.
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
