Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New York’s 5th district

Serving since Feb 5, 1998119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001137FEC H8NY06048

Portrait of Gregory Meeks, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.3%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

0.3% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 212th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $2.3M 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 House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 22% of the 45 bills Meeks sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Democrats. The policy areas Meeks talks about and legislates on agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats.

The measures on which Meeks 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.3%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 212th of 214

Out of committee

22%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 2nd of 207

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.58

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 207th of 216

Bipartisanship

13%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 41st of 216

Attendance

95.9%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 169th of 217 · 674 roll calls

CSIP ideology

−0.98

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Meeks says

Meeks claims credit less than 75% of House Democrats. Credit claiming in 16% of 1,038 statements, against 23% for the average House Democrat; 165th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Meeks’s 1,038 statements in the 119th Congress (601 posts on X, 200 Congressional Record speeches, 171 press releases, 66 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%
Meeks
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion744 statements
72%
73%
137th of 216
Policy criticism349 statements
34%
28%
60th of 216
Credit claiming168 statements
16%
23%
165th of 216
Bipartisanship136 statements
13%
10%
41st of 216
Personal attacks80 statements
8%
7%
75th of 216
Show the data
Meeks's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMeeksPeers
Policy discussion72%73%
Policy criticism34%28%
Credit claiming16%23%
Bipartisanship13%10%
Personal attacks8%7%
1,038

statements classified

601 posts on X, 200 Congressional Record speeches, 171 press releases, 66 newsletters.

posts on X: 601 (57.9%)posts on X 601Congressional Record speeches: 200 (19.3%)press releases: 171 (16.5%)newsletters: 66 (6.4%)
Show the data
Meeks's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X601
Congressional Record speeches200
press releases171
newsletters66
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Meeks used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, above the peer average. 26 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”15
  2. “MAGA”8
  3. “radical”3
  4. “woke”2
  5. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans3
  2. MAGA extremists2
  3. MAGA Republicans2
  4. Trump2
  5. Trump administration2
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: 302025-02: 532025-03: 692025-04: 632025-05: 462025-06: 472025-07: 402025-08: 282025-09: 442025-10: 312025-11: 252025-12: 522026-01: 442026-02: 692026-03: 812026-04: 752026-05: 562026-06: 822026-07: 532026-08: 212026-09: 152026-10: 14peak 82 · Jun ’26Personal attackspeak 18.9% · Feb ’25 · latest 7.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-02: 18.9% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-03: 13.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-04: 12.7% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-06: 10.6% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-08: 7.1% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-10: 9.7% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-11: 8.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-12: 5.8% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-01: 11.4% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-02: 7.2% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-03: 3.7% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-04: 8.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-05: 5.4% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-06: 3.7% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-07: 7.5% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.5% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.7% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.1% of 14Policy criticismpeak 51.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-02: 43.4% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-03: 27.5% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-04: 50.8% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-05: 37.0% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-06: 36.2% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-07: 45.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-08: 50.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-09: 34.1% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-10: 51.6% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-11: 28.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.1% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-01: 20.4% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-02: 36.2% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-03: 39.5% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-04: 28.0% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-05: 33.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-06: 32.9% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-07: 24.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-08: 19.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-09: 6.7% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 14Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 100.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 63.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-02: 77.4% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-03: 79.7% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-04: 92.1% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-05: 63.0% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-06: 63.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-07: 72.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-08: 82.1% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.9% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-10: 74.2% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.2% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.6% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-02: 65.2% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-03: 51.8% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-06: 61.0% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-07: 73.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-08: 95.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-09: 60.0% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-10: 100.0% of 14Bipartisanshippeak 25.0% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 13.2% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 15.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.3% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 25.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 6.5% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 12.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.3% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 13.6% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 18.8% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 12.3% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 21.4% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 21.9% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 17.0% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 14Credit claimingpeak 24.0% · Nov ’25 · latest 7.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 23.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-02: 18.9% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-03: 18.8% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-04: 17.5% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-05: 10.9% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.5% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-07: 7.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-08: 7.1% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-09: 15.9% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.9% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-11: 24.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-12: 13.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-01: 13.6% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-02: 21.7% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-03: 7.4% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-04: 22.7% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-05: 17.9% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-06: 23.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-07: 18.9% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-08: 14.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-09: 13.3% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-10: 7.1% of 14Extreme labelspeak 8.9% · May ’26 · latest 7.1%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 6.7% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.7% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.3% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.6% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.7% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-05: 8.9% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-10: 7.1% of 14Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Meeks, 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 ’25303.3%26.7%63.3%6.7%23.3%6.7%
Feb ’255318.9%43.4%77.4%13.2%18.9%5.7%
Mar ’256913.0%27.5%79.7%14.5%18.8%4.3%
Apr ’256312.7%50.8%92.1%15.9%17.5%1.6%
May ’25462.2%37.0%63.0%4.3%10.9%2.2%
Jun ’254710.6%36.2%63.8%0.0%8.5%0.0%
Jul ’25407.5%45.0%72.5%5.0%7.5%2.5%
Aug ’25287.1%50.0%82.1%0.0%7.1%0.0%
Sep ’25440.0%34.1%65.9%25.0%15.9%2.3%
Oct ’25319.7%51.6%74.2%6.5%12.9%0.0%
Nov ’25258.0%28.0%72.0%12.0%24.0%0.0%
Dec ’25525.8%23.1%71.2%17.3%13.5%0.0%
Jan ’264411.4%20.4%88.6%13.6%13.6%2.3%
Feb ’26697.2%36.2%65.2%18.8%21.7%0.0%
Mar ’26813.7%39.5%51.8%12.3%7.4%3.7%
Apr ’26758.0%28.0%73.3%12.0%22.7%2.7%
May ’26565.4%33.9%71.4%21.4%17.9%8.9%
Jun ’26823.7%32.9%61.0%21.9%23.2%2.4%
Jul ’26537.5%24.5%73.6%17.0%18.9%0.0%
Aug ’26219.5%19.1%95.2%4.8%14.3%0.0%
Sep ’26156.7%6.7%60.0%0.0%13.3%0.0%
Oct ’26147.1%0.0%100.0%0.0%7.1%7.1%
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 Meeks’s words

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

Bipartisanship

House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Meeks, Beyer Reiterate Concerns on Senate Passage of Russia Sanctions Bill Washington, D.C. - Representatives Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Don Beyer (D-VA), Senior House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, toda…

Aug 7, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Credit claiming

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service and impactful leadership of Justice Kenneth C Holder. His 41- year legal career is defined by his commitment to the public good and his overwhelming compassion for the people he served. He approached the law with the belief that the justic…

Oct 9, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Law; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at DOJ; target: Trump, 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 · Immigration · Law · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “radical” aimed at DOJ · target: Trump, RepublicansSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Meeks, Kamlager-Dove Demand Answers from Lutnick on Trump's Financial Interests Surrounding UAE Export Control Decisions Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Gregory W. Meeks (NY-05), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia, sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. Press releases

    House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Meeks Delivers Remarks During Floor Debate on Iran War Powers Resolution Washington, DC – Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today delivered the following remarks on the floor, as prepared, during debate on H.Con.Res.89, the War Powers Resolution that directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Ira…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Energy · Economics and Public Finance · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,038 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: 601 posts on X, 200 Congressional Record speeches, 171 press releases, 66 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Meeks talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 3.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 207th 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 Meeks talks about. The bills Meeks sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Meeks talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%42%
Meeks
Peers
International Affairs211 statements
28%
8%
Government Operations and Politics202 statements
27%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security192 statements
26%
16%
Health177 statements
24%
26%
Economics and Public Finance160 statements
22%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Meeks talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMeeksPeers
International Affairs28%8%
Government Operations and Politics27%20%
Armed Forces and National Security26%16%
Health24%26%
Economics and Public Finance22%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Meeks’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 42%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 8%)28%International Affairs, legislates on: 38% (House Democrats 8%)38%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 20%)27%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 11%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 26% (House Democrats 16%)26%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 2% (House Democrats 7%)2%HealthHealth, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 26%)24%Health, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 16%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 20%)22%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%
Show the data
Meeks's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
International Affairs28%8%38%8%
Government Operations and Politics27%20%13%11%
Armed Forces and National Security26%16%2%7%
Health24%26%7%16%
Economics and Public Finance22%20%0%1%
0.58

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 207th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Meeks sits at −0.98 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 53% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.00 to −0.96, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,896 donors and 7,123 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”.

−0.98

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.00 to −0.96. From 1,896 donors and 7,123 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Meeks, 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 Meeks’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 Meeks sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Meeks −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Meeks's CSIP score of −0.98 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Meeks
House Democrats217−1.053%
All House439+0.326%
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 Meeks 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 Meeks.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Meeks raised $2.3M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 0.3% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 48% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$2.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 330 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): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $828.7K (36.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (50.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.6K (13.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$828.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$2,570
  • PACs and other committees50 squares$1.1M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)14 squares$310.6K
Show the data
Sources of Meeks's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$828.7K36.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$2,5700.1%
PACs and other committees$1.1M50.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$310.6K13.6%
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: $2.1M$2.1M20202022 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M20222024 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M20242026 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Meeks's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.1M
2022 cycle$2.7M
2024 cycle$3.0M
2026 cycle$2.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 48% came from New York.

  1. New York$267.7K
  2. California$87.8K
  3. Maryland$53.3K
  4. District of Columbia$43.0K
  5. New Jersey$22.5K

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%
Meeks
Median
2026
0%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
1%
13%
2020
3%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMeeksMedian
2026 cycle0%13%
2024 cycle1%13%
2022 cycle1%13%
2020 cycle3%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: $4,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $267.7KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $10.5KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $4,500INOhio: $3,000OHPennsylvania: $3,500PANew Jersey: $22.5KNJConnecticut: $12.6KCTCalifornia: $87.8KCAUtah: $500UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $2,500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $20.3KVAMaryland: $53.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $43.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: $3,500HITexas: no dataTXFlorida: $19.0KFL
Show the data
Meeks's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$267.7K
California$87.8K
Maryland$53.3K
District of Columbia$43.0K
New Jersey$22.5K
Virginia$20.3K
Florida$19.0K
Connecticut$12.6K
Massachusetts$10.5K
Indiana$4,500
Illinois$4,000
Pennsylvania$3,500
Hawaii$3,500
Ohio$3,000
Kentucky$2,500
Rhode Island$1,000
North Carolina$1,000
Utah$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
TexasNo data
330

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

48%

from New York

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 New York. 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: 16%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 35%35%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 14%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 12%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 13%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Meeks's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +0.75: 16% between −1.25 and −1.00, 35% between −1.00 and −0.75, 14% between −0.75 and −0.50, 12% between −0.50 and −0.25, 13% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0016%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7535%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5014%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2512%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0013%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Meeks’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Meeks’s own score is −0.98.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$88.2K 67 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$47.7K 38 donors
  3. CEO$31.3K 8 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$27.0K 13 donors
  5. PARTNER$24.5K 16 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTHROPIC PBC$28.0K 4 donors
  2. ARES MANAGEMENT$21.0K 3 donors
  3. THEGROUP$10.5K 3 donors
  4. GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS,$9,000 3 donors
  5. BGR GROUP$8,650 9 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Meeks voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 4.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Meeks voted against the majority of House Democrats 11 times.

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

11

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.2%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 115th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Meeks
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.9%
96.9%
169th of 217
Party unity
98.2%
96.4%
115th of 217
Show the data
Meeks's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMeeksPeers
Attendance95.9%96.9%
Party unity98.2%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 Meeks most often

  1. Hakeem JeffriesD643 shared votes99%
  2. Pete AguilarD641 shared votes99%
  3. Katherine ClarkD645 shared votes98%
  4. Sean CastenD642 shared votes98%
  5. Madeleine DeanD638 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Meeks least often

  1. Chip RoyR608 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR573 shared votes18%
  3. Andy BiggsR581 shared votes18%
  4. Eric BurlisonR619 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR635 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

Meeks sponsored 45 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 247 others. 22% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 2nd of 207).

The bills Meeks 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

Sponsored45 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4545Sponsored, In committee: 4545Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 88Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored247 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 247247Cosponsored, In committee: 247247Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1919Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Meeks sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4545810
Cosponsored2472471922
How to read the blocks

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

22%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 2nd of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Sydney Kamlager-Dove28
  2. Eleanor Norton26
  3. Brad Sherman25
  4. Michael Lawler22
  5. Gabe Amo19
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 Meeks’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. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 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. 10692Restoring Essential Plan Coverage ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 1, 2026
H.J.Res. 217Disapproving the proposed civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia submitted to the Congress on September 14, 2026.SponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10361To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to reimburse public employee retirement systems for accidental disability retirements and accidental deaths resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.CosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Sep 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 46 times in 90 days. Meeks’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Meeks posted on Oct 24, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Meeks posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue-toned political poster promoting early voting in New York, with a ballot being placed in a ballot box. It also includes a small logo and text near the bottom.
    A blue-toned political poster promoting early voting in New York, with a ballot being placed in a ballot box. It also includes a small logo and text near the bottom.View post
  • A blue voter-registration poster encouraging people to participate in the election. It features a ballot box, voter ID cards, ballot papers, and checkmarks beside election reminders. There is prominent text throughout.
    A blue voter-registration poster encouraging people to participate in the election. It features a ballot box, voter ID cards, ballot papers, and checkmarks beside election reminders. There is prominent text throughout.View post
  • A blue informational poster announcing that Medicare enrollment is open. It features a large stethoscope illustration, a clipboard with enrollment details, and a congressional office logo near the bottom. Text appears throughout the poster.
    A blue informational poster announcing that Medicare enrollment is open. It features a large stethoscope illustration, a clipboard with enrollment details, and a congressional office logo near the bottom. Text appears throughout the poster.View post
  • A breast cancer awareness poster featuring a large pink ribbon, silhouettes of women, and prominent awareness messaging on a blue background. There is also a small congressional logo and a screening information banner.
    A breast cancer awareness poster featuring a large pink ribbon, silhouettes of women, and prominent awareness messaging on a blue background. There is also a small congressional logo and a screening information banner.View post
  • A commemorative graphic for Indigenous Peoples’ Day, featuring a decorated traditional pottery vessel against an abstract blue background. A congressional office logo appears near the bottom left.
    A commemorative graphic for Indigenous Peoples’ Day, featuring a decorated traditional pottery vessel against an abstract blue background. A congressional office logo appears near the bottom left.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 Meeks 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
M001137
Bioguide
M001137
FEC candidate ids
H8NY06048

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