Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Alaska

Serving since Jan 7, 2003119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide M001153FEC S4AK00099

Portrait of Lisa Murkowski, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
99%
of Senate Republicans score to the right of Murkowski on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +0.13 (approximate range +0.12 to +0.14, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 5,921 donors and 4,769 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Murkowski sits among Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. Murkowski voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 123 times; party unity 85%, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 98.4%). 28% of Murkowski’s statements criticize a policy, 1.6 times the Senate Republican average of 17%.

The measures on which Murkowski 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.

CSIP ideology

+0.13

More liberal than 99% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Party unity

85%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 52nd of 53 · 123 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Policy criticism

28%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 4th of 52

Bipartisanship

24%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 4th of 52

Out of committee

33%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 9th of 51

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.61

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 44th of 52

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Murkowski says

Murkowski attacks opponents personally less than 63% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 766 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 34th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Murkowski’s 766 statements in the 119th Congress (400 posts on X, 245 press releases, 121 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Murkowski
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion566 statements
74%
70%
21st of 52
Credit claiming299 statements
39%
36%
22nd of 52
Policy criticism215 statements
28%
17%
4th of 52
Bipartisanship187 statements
24%
13%
4th of 52
Personal attacks4 statements
1%
2%
34th of 52
Show the data
Murkowski's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowMurkowskiPeers
Policy discussion74%70%
Credit claiming39%36%
Policy criticism28%17%
Bipartisanship24%13%
Personal attacks1%2%
766

statements classified

400 posts on X, 245 press releases, 121 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 400 (52.2%)posts on X 400press releases: 245 (32.0%)press releases 245Congressional Record speeches: 121 (15.8%)
Show the data
Murkowski's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X400
press releases245
Congressional Record speeches121
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Murkowski used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 14% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at eco-colonialist allies; peers 2.9%.

  1. “far left”2
  2. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. eco-colonialist allies1
  2. eco-colonialists1
  3. programs1
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: 562025-02: 452025-03: 432025-04: 342025-05: 352025-06: 532025-07: 262025-08: 132025-09: 192025-10: 702025-11: 322025-12: 492026-01: 532026-02: 282026-03: 282026-04: 242026-05: 212026-06: 482026-07: 282026-08: 192026-09: 292026-10: 13peak 70 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 3.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Policy criticismpeak 42.9% · May ’26 · latest 23.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 28.6% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-03: 41.9% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-04: 38.2% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-05: 31.4% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-06: 22.6% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.8% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-08: 30.8% of 13Policy criticism, 2025-09: 36.8% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-10: 25.7% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-11: 18.8% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-12: 14.3% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-01: 28.3% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-02: 35.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-03: 25.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-04: 33.3% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-05: 42.9% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-06: 25.0% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-07: 28.6% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-08: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.3% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-10: 23.1% of 13Policy discussionpeak 95.2% · May ’26 · latest 76.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.0% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-02: 66.7% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-05: 62.9% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-06: 77.4% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.9% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-08: 76.9% of 13Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.7% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-10: 71.4% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-11: 78.1% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-12: 57.1% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-01: 64.1% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-02: 78.6% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-03: 85.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-04: 87.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-05: 95.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-06: 60.4% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-07: 82.1% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-08: 94.7% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-09: 89.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.9% of 13Bipartisanshippeak 42.9% · Feb ’26 · latest 15.4%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 17.9% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 17.8% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 30.2% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 29.4% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 14.3% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 18.9% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.7% of 13Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 36.8% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 25.7% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 21.9% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 26.5% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 18.9% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 42.9% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 39.3% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 29.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 23.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.2% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 32.1% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 26.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 27.6% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 15.4% of 13Credit claimingpeak 64.3% · Jul ’26 · latest 38.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 35.7% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-02: 26.7% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-03: 48.8% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-04: 47.1% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-05: 20.0% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-06: 41.5% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-07: 38.5% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.1% of 13Credit claiming, 2025-09: 26.3% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-10: 38.6% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.4% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-01: 26.4% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-02: 35.7% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-03: 57.1% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-04: 58.3% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-05: 61.9% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-06: 35.4% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-07: 64.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-08: 47.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-09: 48.3% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-10: 38.5% of 13Extreme labelspeak 7.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-07: 7.7% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 13Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Murkowski, 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 ’25563.6%28.6%75.0%17.9%35.7%0.0%
Feb ’25450.0%35.6%66.7%17.8%26.7%0.0%
Mar ’25430.0%41.9%76.7%30.2%48.8%0.0%
Apr ’25340.0%38.2%70.6%29.4%47.1%0.0%
May ’25350.0%31.4%62.9%14.3%20.0%0.0%
Jun ’25530.0%22.6%77.4%18.9%41.5%0.0%
Jul ’25260.0%30.8%76.9%7.7%38.5%7.7%
Aug ’25130.0%30.8%76.9%7.7%23.1%0.0%
Sep ’25190.0%36.8%73.7%36.8%26.3%0.0%
Oct ’25701.4%25.7%71.4%25.7%38.6%1.4%
Nov ’25323.1%18.8%78.1%21.9%34.4%0.0%
Dec ’25490.0%14.3%57.1%26.5%30.6%0.0%
Jan ’26530.0%28.3%64.1%18.9%26.4%0.0%
Feb ’26280.0%35.7%78.6%42.9%35.7%0.0%
Mar ’26280.0%25.0%85.7%39.3%57.1%0.0%
Apr ’26240.0%33.3%87.5%29.2%58.3%0.0%
May ’26210.0%42.9%95.2%23.8%61.9%0.0%
Jun ’26480.0%25.0%60.4%29.2%35.4%0.0%
Jul ’26280.0%28.6%82.1%32.1%64.3%0.0%
Aug ’26190.0%21.1%94.7%26.3%47.4%0.0%
Sep ’26290.0%10.3%89.7%27.6%48.3%0.0%
Oct ’26130.0%23.1%76.9%15.4%38.5%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 Murkowski’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Murkowski, Colleagues Urge President to Reverse Russian Diesel Deal, Enforce Sanctions Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Alan Armstrong (R-OK), Sheldon…

Oct 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Personal attacks

Murkowski: “It’s past time that everyone involved in Epstein’s illegal operation be brought to justice” Washington, DC — U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) released the following statement after the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 4405, The Epstein Files Transparency Act,: “This afternoo…

Nov 18, 2025 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; target: Jeffrey Epstein · Source

Extreme label

Senate Nullifies Biden-era Lock-Up of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve Washington, DC—The U.S. Senate, by a vote of 52 to 45, today passed Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (both R-Alaska) joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the Biden admini…

Oct 30, 2025 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Labor and Employment; extreme label “far left” aimed at eco-colonialists · 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

    Murkowski: “It’s past time that everyone involved in Epstein’s illegal operation be brought to justice” Washington, DC — U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) released the following statement after the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 4405, The Epstein Files Transparency Act,: “This afternoon, the House voted almost unanimously to pass H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bill requires the Depar…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jeffrey EpsteinSource

  2. Press releases

    Delegation Celebrates Series of Interior Announcements for Alaska Day Washington, DC— U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, U.S. Congressman Nick Begich, and Governor Mike Dunleavy, all R-Alaska, today participated in an “Alaska Day” ceremony at the U.S. Department of the Interior with Secretary Doug Burgum. Secretary Burgum announced a series of administrative actions, including the signing of three land al…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Environmental Protection · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Transportation and Public Works · target: Sally JewellSource

  3. Press releases

    Senator Murkowski Releases Statement on Hegseth Nomination Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) released the following statement on her decision to vote against confirming Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense: “Since Mr. Hegseth’s nomination last November, I have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings, various reports, and other pertinent materials. I closely followed his hearing befor…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Pete HegsethSource

  4. Press releases

    Alaska Delegation Condemns Interior as ANWR Leasing Charade Receives Zero Bids WASHINGTON—US Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and Congressman Nick Begich III (all R-Alaska), today slammed the Department of the Interior (DOI) for holding a lease sale in the non-wilderness Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in a manner that predictably resulted in no bids. The lease sale, announced in…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Energy · Foreign Trade and International FinanceSource

All 766 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: 400 posts on X, 245 press releases, 121 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Murkowski talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 44th 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 Murkowski talks about. The bills Murkowski sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Murkowski talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Murkowski
Peers
Government Operations and Politics135 statements
24%
19%
Economics and Public Finance121 statements
21%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security118 statements
21%
25%
Energy103 statements
18%
10%
Public Lands and Natural Resources103 statements
18%
4%
Show the data
Policy areas Murkowski talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowMurkowskiPeers
Government Operations and Politics24%19%
Economics and Public Finance21%17%
Armed Forces and National Security21%25%
Energy18%10%
Public Lands and Natural Resources18%4%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Murkowski’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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 24% (Senate Republicans 19%)24%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 5% (Senate Republicans 11%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (Senate Republicans 17%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 21% (Senate Republicans 25%)21%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 8%)7%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 10%)18%Energy, legislates on: 6% (Senate Republicans 2%)6%Public Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 4%)18%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 4%)9%
Show the data
Murkowski's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics24%19%5%11%
Economics and Public Finance21%17%1%1%
Armed Forces and National Security21%25%7%8%
Energy18%10%6%2%
Public Lands and Natural Resources18%4%9%4%
0.61

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 44th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Murkowski sits at +0.13 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 99% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.12 to +0.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,921 donors and 4,769 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”.

+0.13

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.12 to +0.14. From 5,921 donors and 4,769 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Murkowski +0.1Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Murkowski, 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 Murkowski’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 Murkowski sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Murkowski +0.1All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Murkowski's CSIP score of +0.13 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Murkowski
Senate Republicans51+1.00%
All Senate98+0.448%
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 Murkowski 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 Murkowski.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Murkowski raised $1.4M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 4.9% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 25% of itemized individual money came from Alaska.

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
$1.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 563 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): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $892.9K (64.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.4K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.4K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $46.4K (3.4%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)PACs and other committees: $376.8K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $64.0K (4.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $64.0K (4.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $64.0K (4.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $64.0K (4.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $64.0K (4.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)65 squares$892.9K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$46.4K
  • PACs and other committees27 squares$376.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)5 squares$64.0K
Show the data
Sources of Murkowski's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$892.9K64.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$46.4K3.4%
PACs and other committees$376.8K27.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$64.0K4.6%
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20202022 cycle: $9.3M$9.3M20222024 cycle: $689.2K$689.2K20242026 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Murkowski's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.0M
2022 cycle$9.3M
2024 cycle$689.2K
2026 cycle$1.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 25% came from Alaska.

  1. Alaska$213.9K
  2. California$85.9K
  3. Virginia$76.4K
  4. New York$65.3K
  5. District of Columbia$60.5K

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.

0%60%
Murkowski
Median
2026
5%
17%
2024
8%
17%
2022
7%
17%
2020
11%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowMurkowskiMedian
2026 cycle5%17%
2024 cycle8%17%
2022 cycle7%17%
2020 cycle11%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $213.9KAKMaine: $1,000MEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: $5,000NHWashington: $44.0KWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $6,630MNIllinois: $17.6KILWisconsin: $3,750WIMichigan: $14.0KMINew York: $65.3KNYRhode Island: $750RIMassachusetts: $18.5KMAOregon: $1,800ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: $2,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $650IAIndiana: $4,000INOhio: $1,500OHPennsylvania: $1,780PANew Jersey: $5,345NJConnecticut: $17.3KCTCalifornia: $85.9KCAUtah: $8,300UTColorado: $17.5KCONebraska: $4,500NEMissouri: $6,000MOKentucky: $1,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $76.4KVAMaryland: $17.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $10.6KAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $2,420KSArkansas: $7,000ARTennessee: $3,750TNNorth Carolina: $5,675NCSouth Carolina: $4,250SCDistrict of Columbia: $60.5KDCOklahoma: $4,650OKLouisiana: $3,500LAMississippi: $250MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $7,750GAHawaii: $250HITexas: $37.3KTXFlorida: $49.2KFL
Show the data
Murkowski's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Alaska$213.9K
California$85.9K
Virginia$76.4K
New York$65.3K
District of Columbia$60.5K
Florida$49.2K
Washington$44.0K
Texas$37.3K
Massachusetts$18.5K
Illinois$17.6K
Colorado$17.5K
Maryland$17.3K
Connecticut$17.3K
Michigan$14.0K
Arizona$10.6K
Utah$8,300
Georgia$7,750
Arkansas$7,000
Minnesota$6,630
Missouri$6,000
North Carolina$5,675
New Jersey$5,345
New Hampshire$5,000
Oklahoma$4,650
Nebraska$4,500
South Carolina$4,250
Indiana$4,000
Wisconsin$3,750
Tennessee$3,750
Louisiana$3,500
Kansas$2,420
Wyoming$2,000
Oregon$1,800
Pennsylvania$1,780
Ohio$1,500
Maine$1,000
Kentucky$1,000
Rhode Island$750
Iowa$650
Vermont$500
Mississippi$250
Hawaii$250
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
NevadaNo data
South DakotaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
AlabamaNo data
563

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

25%

from Alaska

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 Alaska. 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: 1.7%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 9.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 4.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 11%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 31%31%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 13%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 17%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 4.5%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Murkowski's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 9.3% between −1.00 and −0.75, 5.6% between −0.75 and −0.50, 11% between −0.25 and 0.00, 31% between 0.00 and +0.25, 13% between +0.25 and +0.50, 17% between +0.50 and +0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.001.7%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.759.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.254.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0011%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2531%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5013%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7517%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.004.5%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Murkowski’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Murkowski’s own score is +0.13.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$186.0K 144 donors
  2. CEO$78.4K 34 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$54.6K 36 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$28.0K 13 donors
  5. LOBBYIST$22.2K 12 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS, INC. PAC (AHIP PAC)$10.0K
  2. HIGHMARK PAC OF HIGHMARK INC.$7,500
  3. CROSSPARTISAN PAC II$7,000
  4. CENTENE CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CENTENE PAC)$6,500
  5. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS INC. PAC$6,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONOCOPHILLIPS$16.1K 4 donors
  2. GCI$11.5K 5 donors
  3. LYNDEN$9,000 3 donors
  4. TRIDENT SEAFOODS$7,500 3 donors
  5. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION$7,000 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Murkowski voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed 4.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Murkowski voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 123 times.

915 roll calls Murkowski 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 Murkowski voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

123

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 85%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 52nd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Murkowski
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.8%
97.1%
43rd of 53
Party unity
85%
98.4%
52nd of 53
Show the data
Murkowski's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowMurkowskiPeers
Attendance95.8%97.1%
Party unity85%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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Murkowski most often

  1. Susan CollinsR877 shared votes89%
  2. Mitch McConnellR750 shared votes88%
  3. Markwayne MullinR660 shared votes87%
  4. Roger WickerR846 shared votes87%
  5. Mike RoundsR871 shared votes87%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Murkowski least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD871 shared votes16%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD865 shared votes16%
  3. Bernie SandersI815 shared votes16%
  4. Christopher MurphyD854 shared votes17%
  5. Chris Van HollenD866 shared votes17%
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

Murkowski sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 248 others. 33% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 9th of 51).

The bills Murkowski 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

Sponsored61 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6161Sponsored, In committee: 6060Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1010Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored248 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 248248Cosponsored, In committee: 245245Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5353Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Murkowski sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored61601000
Cosponsored2482455366
How to read the blocks

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

33%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 9th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Dan Sullivan83
  2. Susan Collins50
  3. Jeanne Shaheen44
  4. Amy Klobuchar40
  5. Christopher Coons37
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 Murkowski’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5652Build American Efficiency ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeHousing and Community DevelopmentRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 931A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5574NEST ActCosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 29, 2026
S. 5603Protecting Presidential Memorials ActCosponsorSep 29, 2026IntroducedGovernment Operations and PoliticsRead the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 688. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 919A resolution honoring the leadership of Lonnie G. Bunch III, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and recognizing his career as a public servant and the enduring value of the Smithsonian Institution to the people of the United States.CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text: CR S5174) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 70 times in 90 days. Murkowski’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Murkowski posted on Oct 23, 2026.

The lab crawls Murkowski’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 Murkowski 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 Murkowski posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of people pose together indoors, several wearing light-colored traditional-style clothing and baseball caps. Two people in the foreground hold up phones to photograph or record the group. There is visible text on clothing and phone screens.
    A group of people pose together indoors, several wearing light-colored traditional-style clothing and baseball caps. Two people in the foreground hold up phones to photograph or record the group. There is visible text on clothing and phone screens.View post
  • A group of people are gathered indoors, talking with a smiling blonde woman in a green patterned top. A small sign is visible on the wall behind them.
    A group of people are gathered indoors, talking with a smiling blonde woman in a green patterned top. A small sign is visible on the wall behind them.View post
  • A group of five people pose together at an indoor craft or art market booth. Behind them, a grid display is covered with handmade masks and sculptural art, while tables and stands in front hold jewelry and other crafts. There is some text visible on clothing and display items.
    A group of five people pose together at an indoor craft or art market booth. Behind them, a grid display is covered with handmade masks and sculptural art, while tables and stands in front hold jewelry and other crafts. There is some text visible on clothing and display items.View post
  • A conference audience faces a stage where two people stand together at a podium. The stage has curtains, chairs, a flag, and a large banner with event text.
    A conference audience faces a stage where two people stand together at a podium. The stage has curtains, chairs, a flag, and a large banner with event text.View post
  • An aerial view of a snow-covered, flat landscape with a small settlement and an airstrip. The area appears remote and partially buried in snow. No text is visible.
    An aerial view of a snow-covered, flat landscape with a small settlement and an airstrip. The area appears remote and partially buried in snow. No text is visible.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 Murkowski 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 …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
M001153
Bioguide
M001153
FEC candidate ids
S4AK00099

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top