Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, West Virginia’s 1st district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001205FEC H8WV03097

Portrait of Carol Miller, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.6%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

0.6% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 207th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $2.0M 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 Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 3.3% of the 30 bills Miller sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans. 79% of Miller’s statements discuss policy, in the top tenth of House Republicans (average 68%).

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

Small donations, 2026

0.6%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 207th of 220

Out of committee

3.3%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 201st of 216

Policy discussion

79%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 22nd of 221

Credit claiming

51%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 23rd of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.56

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 199th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.02

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Miller says

Miller attacks opponents personally less than 88% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 640 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 197th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Miller’s 640 statements in the 119th Congress (478 posts on X, 110 press releases, 42 newsletters, 10 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Miller
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion507 statements
79%
68%
22nd of 221
Credit claiming325 statements
51%
37%
23rd of 221
Policy criticism99 statements
15%
15%
92nd of 221
Bipartisanship95 statements
15%
9%
34th of 221
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
197th of 221
Show the data
Miller's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMillerPeers
Policy discussion79%68%
Credit claiming51%37%
Policy criticism15%15%
Bipartisanship15%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
640

statements classified

478 posts on X, 110 press releases, 42 newsletters, 10 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 478 (74.7%)posts on X 478press releases: 110 (17.2%)newsletters: 42 (6.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 10 (1.6%)
Show the data
Miller's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X478
press releases110
newsletters42
Congressional Record speeches10
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Miller used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, 36% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at far Left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “far left”4
  2. “radical”2
  3. “extreme”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far Left1
  2. Green Deal1
  3. Green New Deal1
  4. Medicaid cuts1
  5. SchumerShutdown1
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: 652025-02: 582025-03: 462025-04: 232025-05: 182025-06: 282025-07: 212025-08: 212025-09: 322025-10: 172025-11: 222025-12: 252026-01: 342026-02: 312026-03: 342026-04: 322026-05: 222026-06: 312026-07: 242026-08: 222026-09: 212026-10: 13peak 65 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 1.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.5% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Policy criticismpeak 28.6% · Sep ’26 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.2% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-02: 19.0% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-03: 23.9% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-04: 26.1% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-07: 19.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-08: 4.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.6% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-10: 23.5% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.6% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-12: 0.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.9% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.5% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-04: 9.4% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.6% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-06: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.2% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.5% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-09: 28.6% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Policy discussionpeak 96.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 76.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 78.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-02: 96.5% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-03: 93.5% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-04: 87.0% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-05: 66.7% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-06: 92.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-08: 85.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-09: 81.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.7% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-11: 63.6% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-12: 72.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.4% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-02: 64.5% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-03: 76.5% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-05: 86.4% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.5% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-07: 54.2% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.9% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.0% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.9% of 13Bipartisanshippeak 32.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 16.9% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 32.8% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 15.2% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 26.1% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.6% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 25.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.5% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 4.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 6.3% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.9% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.6% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 24.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 12.9% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 20.6% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 27.3% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.3% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 9.1% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 23.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Credit claimingpeak 68.2% · May ’26 · latest 15.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 60.0% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-02: 62.1% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-03: 60.9% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-04: 56.5% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-05: 50.0% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-06: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-07: 61.9% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-08: 33.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-09: 62.5% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-10: 29.4% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-11: 50.0% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-12: 56.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-01: 38.2% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-02: 41.9% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-03: 58.8% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-04: 40.6% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-05: 68.2% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-06: 45.2% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-07: 20.8% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-08: 50.0% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-09: 47.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-10: 15.4% of 13Extreme labelspeak 5.9% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.2% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-10: 5.9% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-05: 4.5% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Miller, 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 ’25651.5%26.2%78.5%16.9%60.0%1.5%
Feb ’25580.0%19.0%96.5%32.8%62.1%5.2%
Mar ’25460.0%23.9%93.5%15.2%60.9%2.2%
Apr ’25230.0%26.1%87.0%26.1%56.5%0.0%
May ’25180.0%5.6%66.7%5.6%50.0%0.0%
Jun ’25280.0%10.7%92.9%25.0%50.0%0.0%
Jul ’25210.0%19.1%76.2%9.5%61.9%0.0%
Aug ’25210.0%4.8%85.7%4.8%33.3%0.0%
Sep ’25320.0%15.6%81.3%6.3%62.5%0.0%
Oct ’25170.0%23.5%64.7%5.9%29.4%5.9%
Nov ’25220.0%13.6%63.6%13.6%50.0%0.0%
Dec ’25250.0%0.0%72.0%24.0%56.0%0.0%
Jan ’26340.0%11.8%79.4%5.9%38.2%0.0%
Feb ’26310.0%12.9%64.5%12.9%41.9%0.0%
Mar ’26340.0%26.5%76.5%20.6%58.8%0.0%
Apr ’26320.0%9.4%75.0%3.1%40.6%0.0%
May ’26220.0%13.6%86.4%27.3%68.2%4.5%
Jun ’26310.0%6.5%64.5%0.0%45.2%0.0%
Jul ’26240.0%4.2%54.2%8.3%20.8%0.0%
Aug ’26220.0%4.5%90.9%9.1%50.0%0.0%
Sep ’26210.0%28.6%81.0%23.8%47.6%0.0%
Oct ’26130.0%0.0%76.9%0.0%15.4%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 Miller’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Newsletter: August 31-September 4 Dear Friend, I hope that all has been well. We are back at it in full swing after the August district work period! I want to share some updates on the work being done since I returned to Washington. Last week, I introduced legislation to make mastectomy bras and si…

Sep 6, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Environmental Protection; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues

Personal attacks

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

Jan 28, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; target: Joe Biden · Source

Extreme label

Miller, Colleagues Introduce Rural Hospital Revitalization Act Washington, D.C. - Last week, Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV), joined her colleagues, Reps. Jill N. Tokuda (HI-02), Jack Bergman (MI-01), Shomari Figures (AL-02), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Tracey Mann (KS-01), Sharice Davids (KS-03), Jeff Hurd (CO…

May 27, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Medicaid cuts · 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 · credit claiming · Immigration · target: Joe BidenSource

All 640 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: 478 posts on X, 110 press releases, 42 newsletters, 10 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Miller talks about most: 34% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 199th of 221).

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 Miller talks about. The bills Miller sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Miller talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%37%
Miller
Peers
Health172 statements
34%
15%
Energy92 statements
18%
9%
Foreign Trade and International Finance92 statements
18%
3%
Economics and Public Finance84 statements
17%
19%
Commerce75 statements
15%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Miller talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMillerPeers
Health34%15%
Energy18%9%
Foreign Trade and International Finance18%3%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Commerce15%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Miller’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House 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 37%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 34% (House Republicans 15%)34%Health, legislates on: 33% (House Republicans 11%)33%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 9%)18%Energy, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 3%)2%Foreign Trade andInternational FinanceForeign Trade and International Finance, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 3%)18%Foreign Trade and International Finance, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 1%)9%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 9%)15%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%
Show the data
Miller's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health34%15%33%11%
Energy18%9%2%3%
Foreign Trade and International Finance18%3%9%1%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%0%2%
Commerce15%9%1%2%
0.56

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 199th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Miller sits at +1.02 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 55% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.00 to +1.03, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,360 donors and 3,756 roll calls.

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

+1.02

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.00 to +1.03. From 1,360 donors and 3,756 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Miller +1.0House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Miller, 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 Miller’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 Miller sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Miller +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Miller's CSIP score of +1.02 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Miller
House Republicans221+1.054%
All House439+0.377%
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 Miller 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 Miller.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Miller raised $2.0M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from West Virginia.

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
$2.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 344 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $545.0K (26.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.5M (71.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $34.3K (1.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $34.3K (1.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)27 squares$545.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3,266
  • PACs and other committees71 squares$1.5M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$34.3K
Show the data
Sources of Miller's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$545.0K26.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3,2660.2%
PACs and other committees$1.5M71.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$34.3K1.7%
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $912.2K$912.2K20202022 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20222024 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20242026 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Miller's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$912.2K
2022 cycle$1.2M
2024 cycle$1.8M
2026 cycle$2.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from West Virginia.

  1. West Virginia$177.1K
  2. Virginia$79.7K
  3. District of Columbia$39.3K
  4. Florida$34.3K
  5. Pennsylvania$33.4K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Miller
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
1%
9%
2022
2%
9%
2020
10%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMillerMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle1%9%
2022 cycle2%9%
2020 cycle10%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: $2,000NHWashington: $500WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $8,500ILWisconsin: $500WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $23.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $13.3KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $4,500OHPennsylvania: $33.4KPANew Jersey: $2,625NJConnecticut: $500CTCalifornia: $22.0KCAUtah: $5,500UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $1,250KYWest Virginia: $177.1KWVVirginia: $79.7KVAMaryland: $17.4KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,000TNNorth Carolina: $7,000NCSouth Carolina: $10.0KSCDistrict of Columbia: $39.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: $7,000MSAlabama: $2,000ALGeorgia: $1,666GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $14.5KTXFlorida: $34.3KFL
Show the data
Miller's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
West Virginia$177.1K
Virginia$79.7K
District of Columbia$39.3K
Florida$34.3K
Pennsylvania$33.4K
New York$23.0K
California$22.0K
Maryland$17.4K
Texas$14.5K
Massachusetts$13.3K
South Carolina$10.0K
Illinois$8,500
North Carolina$7,000
Mississippi$7,000
Utah$5,500
Ohio$4,500
New Jersey$2,625
New Hampshire$2,000
Alabama$2,000
Georgia$1,666
Kansas$1,500
Kentucky$1,250
Tennessee$1,000
Louisiana$1,000
Vermont$500
Washington$500
Wisconsin$500
Connecticut$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
HawaiiNo data
344

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

34%

from West Virginia

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 West Virginia. 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: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 8.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 46%46%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 29%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Miller's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 8.9% between +0.50 and +0.75, 46% between +0.75 and +1.00, 29% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.758.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0046%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2529%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Miller’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Miller’s own score is +1.02.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$46.8K 26 donors
  2. CONSULTANT$38.1K 34 donors
  3. CEO$37.9K 20 donors
  4. OWNER$27.1K 9 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$22.5K 16 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (CRNA-PAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIAN SERVICES INC PAC; AKA ACP SERVICES PAC$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION PHYSICAL THERAPY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PT-PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. FORM ENERGY$13.9K 8 donors
  2. KEYROCK ENERGY$8,000 3 donors
  3. CROSSROADS STRATEGIES$5,500 5 donors
  4. AKIN GUMP$3,750 3 donors
  5. MONUMENT ADVOCACY$3,500 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Miller voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 5.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Miller voted against the majority of House Republicans 12 times.

674 roll calls Miller could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House 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 Miller voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

12

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 20th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Miller
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.6%
96.3%
179th of 221
Party unity
99.5%
97.1%
20th of 221
Show the data
Miller's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMillerPeers
Attendance94.6%96.3%
Party unity99.5%97.1%
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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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 Miller most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR493 shared votes99%
  2. Doug LamalfaR328 shared votes99%
  3. Sam GravesR607 shared votes98%
  4. Guy ReschenthalerR618 shared votes98%
  5. Rudy YakymR638 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Miller least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD624 shared votes21%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD364 shared votes21%
  3. Delia RamirezD605 shared votes22%
  4. Gregorio CasarD543 shared votes22%
  5. Jan SchakowskyD594 shared votes23%
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

Miller sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 276 others. 3.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 201st of 216).

The bills Miller 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

Sponsored30 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3030Sponsored, In committee: 3030Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored276 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 276276Cosponsored, In committee: 276276Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Miller sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3030100
Cosponsored2762762521
How to read the blocks

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

3.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 201st of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Claudia Tenney31
  2. Mike Kelly28
  3. Adrian Smith25
  4. Eugene Vindman23
  5. Vern Buchanan20
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 Miller’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.Con.Res. 120Supporting the designation of the week of September 21 through September 25, 2026, as "National Falls Prevention Awareness Week" to raise awareness and encourage the prevention of falls among older adults.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10565Sexual Abuse Services in Detention ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10581Shenandoah VALOR ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10582Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10369Net Effective Cost Transparency and Prescription Drug Affordability Act of 2026CosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, 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. Sep 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 73 times in 90 days. Miller’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Miller posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Miller’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 Miller 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 Miller posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A posed photo of four adults standing in a modern office or waiting area, in front of a couch and a wall sign. A coffee table with magazines and a decorative bowl is in the foreground. Text is visible on the sign and magazines.
    A posed photo of four adults standing in a modern office or waiting area, in front of a couch and a wall sign. A coffee table with magazines and a decorative bowl is in the foreground. Text is visible on the sign and magazines.View post
  • Three people are talking and looking at industrial machinery inside a workshop. Shelves, tools, cables, and equipment fill the background. A small amount of text is visible on some objects.
    Three people are talking and looking at industrial machinery inside a workshop. Shelves, tools, cables, and equipment fill the background. A small amount of text is visible on some objects.View post
  • Three people stand in a machine workshop and examine a large black cylindrical piece of equipment mounted on a stand. Industrial machinery and tools fill the background. There is some handwritten text on the equipment.
    Three people stand in a machine workshop and examine a large black cylindrical piece of equipment mounted on a stand. Industrial machinery and tools fill the background. There is some handwritten text on the equipment.View post
  • Two people in a machine workshop examine and discuss a large industrial pipe-processing machine. Shelves of metal parts and other workshop equipment are visible in the background. Some text is visible on the equipment and pipe.
    Two people in a machine workshop examine and discuss a large industrial pipe-processing machine. Shelves of metal parts and other workshop equipment are visible in the background. Some text is visible on the equipment and pipe.View post
  • A speaker stands behind a wooden podium on a stage with red curtains while an audience of students watches from rows of seats. American and state flags are on the stage and wall. Text is visible on the podium and some clothing.
    A speaker stands behind a wooden podium on a stage with red curtains while an audience of students watches from rows of seats. American and state flags are on the stage and wall. Text is visible on the podium and some clothing.View post
About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Miller is most unusual among House 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
M001205
Bioguide
M001205
FEC candidate ids
H8WV03097

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