Skip to content

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

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001213FEC H0UT01205

Portrait of Blake Moore, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.3×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

21% of 799 statements use bipartisan language (164 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 13th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Moore’s posts on X, press releases, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 0.6% of Moore’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (median 9.4%). Moore sits at +0.69 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 86% of House Republicans.

The measures on which Moore 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.

Bipartisanship

21%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 13th of 221

Small donations, 2026

0.6%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 208th of 220

Attendance

99.7%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 21st of 221 · 674 roll calls

CSIP ideology

+0.69

More liberal than 86% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Policy discussion

61%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 176th of 221

Credit claiming

46%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 54th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Moore says

Moore attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.8% of 799 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 131st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Moore’s 799 statements in the 119th Congress (471 posts on X, 172 Congressional Record speeches, 102 press releases, 54 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Moore
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion487 statements
61%
68%
176th of 221
Credit claiming367 statements
46%
37%
54th of 221
Bipartisanship164 statements
21%
9%
13th of 221
Policy criticism152 statements
19%
15%
55th of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
131st of 221
Show the data
Moore's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMoorePeers
Policy discussion61%68%
Credit claiming46%37%
Bipartisanship21%9%
Policy criticism19%15%
Personal attacks1%2%
799

statements classified

471 posts on X, 172 Congressional Record speeches, 102 press releases, 54 newsletters.

posts on X: 471 (58.9%)posts on X 471Congressional Record speeches: 172 (21.5%)Congressional Record speeches 172press releases: 102 (12.8%)newsletters: 54 (6.8%)
Show the data
Moore's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X471
Congressional Record speeches172
press releases102
newsletters54
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Moore used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 13 statements, most often aimed at Biden; peers 3.0%.

  1. “MAGA”8
  2. “extreme”1
  3. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden2
  2. MAGA accounts2
  3. Democrats1
  4. DOD1
  5. MAGA Act1
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: 432025-03: 262025-04: 342025-05: 682025-06: 292025-07: 282025-08: 252025-09: 472025-10: 242025-11: 192025-12: 422026-01: 752026-02: 282026-03: 372026-04: 582026-05: 462026-06: 472026-07: 272026-08: 92026-09: 242026-10: 7peak 75 · Jan ’26Personal attackspeak 5.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.9% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.5% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2025-11: 5.3% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 41.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 16.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.2% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-02: 23.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-03: 26.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-04: 26.5% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-05: 10.3% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-06: 20.7% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-07: 10.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-08: 4.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-10: 41.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2025-11: 21.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.7% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-02: 35.7% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-03: 27.0% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-04: 25.9% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-05: 17.4% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-06: 4.3% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-07: 14.8% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 16.7% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 75.9% · Apr ’26 · latest 75.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 60.7% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-02: 62.8% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.1% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-04: 55.9% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-06: 55.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-07: 60.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-08: 60.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-09: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-10: 70.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2025-11: 57.9% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-12: 59.5% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-01: 30.7% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-03: 67.6% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.9% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-05: 56.5% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-06: 46.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-07: 70.4% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.0% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 38.5% · Mar ’25 · latest 29.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 23.2% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 23.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 38.5% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 20.6% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 27.6% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 25.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 16.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 31.9% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 20.8% of 24Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 15.8% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 26.2% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 6.7% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 24.3% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 22.4% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 15.2% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.9% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 29.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 64.3% · Feb ’26 · latest 41.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 58.9% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-02: 44.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-03: 53.8% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-04: 35.3% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-05: 44.1% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-06: 31.0% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-07: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-08: 52.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-09: 53.2% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.0% of 24Credit claiming, 2025-11: 47.4% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-12: 57.1% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-01: 22.7% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-02: 64.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-03: 48.6% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-04: 53.4% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-05: 45.6% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-06: 51.1% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-07: 44.4% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 41.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 11.8% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.8% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-05: 11.8% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.8% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Moore, 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 ’25560.0%23.2%60.7%23.2%58.9%1.8%
Feb ’25430.0%23.3%62.8%23.3%44.2%0.0%
Mar ’25263.9%26.9%73.1%38.5%53.8%0.0%
Apr ’25342.9%26.5%55.9%11.8%35.3%0.0%
May ’25682.9%10.3%69.1%20.6%44.1%11.8%
Jun ’25293.5%20.7%55.2%27.6%31.0%0.0%
Jul ’25280.0%10.7%60.7%25.0%50.0%0.0%
Aug ’25250.0%4.0%60.0%16.0%52.0%0.0%
Sep ’25470.0%14.9%66.0%31.9%53.2%2.1%
Oct ’25240.0%41.7%70.8%20.8%25.0%0.0%
Nov ’25195.3%21.1%57.9%15.8%47.4%0.0%
Dec ’25420.0%16.7%59.5%26.2%57.1%4.8%
Jan ’26750.0%14.7%30.7%6.7%22.7%0.0%
Feb ’26280.0%35.7%71.4%21.4%64.3%0.0%
Mar ’26370.0%27.0%67.6%24.3%48.6%2.7%
Apr ’26580.0%25.9%75.9%22.4%53.4%0.0%
May ’26460.0%17.4%56.5%15.2%45.6%0.0%
Jun ’26470.0%4.3%46.8%14.9%51.1%0.0%
Jul ’26270.0%14.8%70.4%3.7%44.4%0.0%
Aug ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26240.0%16.7%75.0%29.2%41.7%0.0%
Oct ’267— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 2 months are hatched here.

In Moore’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Rep. Blake Moore's Weekly Newsletter: October Update [https://kmagdgbbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=6636617f-664d-4225-bcb7-ecec86cb842d&a=1135149777290&c=b06e6054-f0e4-11f0-9dab-0242a2ded4be&ch=b06f098c-f0e4-11f0-9dab-0242a2ded4be] October 20, 2026 [https://files.constantcontact.com/a81033c4801/cb3f711…

Oct 20, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Finance and Financial Sector; Families; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works

Personal attacks

Rep. Blake Moore's Weekly Newsletter: An End to the Shutdown in Sight | I'm writing this opening blurb at the same time the U.S. Senate has passed legislation to end the longest government shutdown in our nation's history. This legislation also includes the passage of three of the 12 appropriations…

Nov 11, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; target: Chuck Schumer

Extreme label

Congressman Blake Moore Introduces Bill to Protect the Tax-Exempt Status of Religious Organizations WASHINGTON - Congressman Blake Moore introduced legislation to protect religious beliefs and practices and preserve the tax-exempt status of faith-based organizations. The Fair Treatment of Religious…

Mar 27, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education; Law; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Health; Taxation; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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. Newsletters

    Rep. Blake Moore's Weekly Newsletter: An End to the Shutdown in Sight | I'm writing this opening blurb at the same time the U.S. Senate has passed legislation to end the longest government shutdown in our nation's history. This legislation also includes the passage of three of the 12 appropriations bills and extends the deadline for completing the remaining nine bills through January 30, 2026. This is a very good th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · target: Chuck Schumer

  2. Newsletters

    Rep. Blake Moore's Weekly Newsletter: Roundtables, my latest op-ed, and more! | | | | | It is difficult not to at least mention the online feud by President Trump and Elon Musk last Thursday, but I don't want to give it too much oxygen. Simply put, this type of social media drama shouldn't be given much credibility, and in my experience, what is communicated online usually does not reflect reality. We have serious i…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Taxation · Health · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Elon Musk

  3. Newsletters

    Rep. Blake Moore's Weekly Newsletter: Historic Bill Passes the House | | | | | I am really glad this stretch is behind us! As I've mentioned, the two committees that do the lion's share of the reconciliation process, aka the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, are the House Budget and Ways & Means committees, which I am a part of. The work is not done to complete this monumental piece of legislation, but it feels like we ha…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Taxation · Transportation and Public Works · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Immigration · Education · Energy · Health · Water Resources Development · Labor and Employment · Environmental Protection · target: Elon Musk

  4. Press releases

    Congressman Blake Moore Publishes Opinion Piece on His Legislation to Create Investment Accounts for Every American Child WASHINGTON – Congressman Blake Moore introduced the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement (MAGA) Act to create investment accounts for every American child to show them the power of capitalism and help them better achieve the American Dream. This proposal has support from President Trump and…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Finance and Financial Sector · Economics and Public Finance · Education · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA Act · target: Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-CortezSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida never disappoints, and I thank him for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I will briefly close with some of the comments I have made before. President Trump in November, along with congressional majorities--the House majority stayed in Republican control. The Senate majority flipped to Republican. It was a clear show that we wanted to move past some of the policies that have been implem…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Taxation · Families · Economics and Public Finance · CommerceSource

All 799 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: 471 posts on X, 172 Congressional Record speeches, 102 press releases, 54 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Moore talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 135th 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 Moore talks about. The bills Moore sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Moore talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Moore
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security150 statements
31%
24%
Economics and Public Finance148 statements
30%
19%
Taxation118 statements
24%
10%
Government Operations and Politics103 statements
21%
19%
Health97 statements
20%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Moore talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMoorePeers
Armed Forces and National Security31%24%
Economics and Public Finance30%19%
Taxation24%10%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%
Health20%15%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 31% (House Republicans 24%)31%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 19%)30%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 10%)24%Taxation, legislates on: 28% (House Republicans 9%)28%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 15%)20%Health, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 11%)12%
Show the data
Moore's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security31%24%4%8%
Economics and Public Finance30%19%4%2%
Taxation24%10%28%9%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%9%12%
Health20%15%12%11%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 135th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Moore sits at +0.69 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 86% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.67 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,286 donors and 2,873 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”.

+0.69

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.67 to +0.71. From 1,286 donors and 2,873 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Moore +0.7House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Moore, 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 Moore’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 Moore sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Moore +0.7All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Moore's CSIP score of +0.69 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Moore
House Republicans221+1.014%
All House439+0.356%
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 Moore 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 Moore.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Moore raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 51% of itemized individual money came from Utah.

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
$2.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 430 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): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.1M (38.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (57.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $119.5K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $119.5K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $119.5K (4.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $119.5K (4.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)38 squares$1.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$6,374
  • PACs and other committees58 squares$1.6M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$119.5K
Show the data
Sources of Moore's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.1M38.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$6,3740.2%
PACs and other committees$1.6M57.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$119.5K4.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $858.7K$858.7K20202022 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20222024 cycle: $2.6M$2.6M20242026 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Moore's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$858.7K
2022 cycle$1.8M
2024 cycle$2.6M
2026 cycle$2.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 51% came from Utah.

  1. Utah$496.8K
  2. Virginia$100.9K
  3. California$94.0K
  4. District of Columbia$46.4K
  5. New York$45.3K

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%
Moore
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
0%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
6%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMooreMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle0%9%
2022 cycle1%9%
2020 cycle6%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $4,500VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $8,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $2,000MNIllinois: $2,750ILWisconsin: $11.1KWIMichigan: $1,000MINew York: $45.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,750MAOregon: $500ORNevada: $7,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,500INOhio: $8,480OHPennsylvania: $1,000PANew Jersey: $2,000NJConnecticut: $5,000CTCalifornia: $94.0KCAUtah: $496.8KUTColorado: $2,750CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $5,250MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $100.9KVAMaryland: $12.5KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $7,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $7,000NCSouth Carolina: $7,650SCDistrict of Columbia: $46.4KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $750LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $4,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $26.0KTXFlorida: $34.0KFL
Show the data
Moore's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Utah$496.8K
Virginia$100.9K
California$94.0K
District of Columbia$46.4K
New York$45.3K
Florida$34.0K
Texas$26.0K
Maryland$12.5K
Wisconsin$11.1K
Ohio$8,480
Washington$8,000
South Carolina$7,650
Nevada$7,000
Arizona$7,000
North Carolina$7,000
Missouri$5,250
Connecticut$5,000
Vermont$4,500
Georgia$4,000
Massachusetts$3,750
Illinois$2,750
Colorado$2,750
Minnesota$2,000
New Jersey$2,000
Indiana$1,500
Kansas$1,500
Michigan$1,000
Pennsylvania$1,000
Louisiana$750
Oregon$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
430

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

51%

from Utah

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 15%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 45%45%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 22%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Moore's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 5.7% between −0.25 and 0.00, 7.8% between 0.00 and +0.25, 15% between +0.25 and +0.50, 45% between +0.50 and +0.75, 22% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5015%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7545%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0022%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Moore’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Moore’s own score is +0.69.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$84.6K 37 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$65.8K 22 donors
  3. CEO$61.7K 23 donors
  4. CHAIRMAN$53.8K 9 donors
  5. PARTNER$39.6K 19 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  2. TTM TECHNOLOGIES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  3. REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE GROUP/TUESDAY GROUP PAC$12.0K
  4. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SUNRUN$18.8K 26 donors
  2. HEALTHEQUITY$18.2K 6 donors
  3. GOLDENWEST CREDIT UNION$14.5K 3 donors
  4. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$11.5K 5 donors
  5. BANK OF UTAH$8,550 7 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Moore voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Moore voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 139th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Moore
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.3%
21st of 221
Party unity
97.4%
97.1%
139th of 221
Show the data
Moore's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMoorePeers
Attendance99.7%96.3%
Party unity97.4%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 Moore most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes99%
  2. Neal DunnR549 shared votes99%
  3. Mike KellyR661 shared votes99%
  4. Steve WomackR602 shared votes99%
  5. J. HillR664 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Moore least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD656 shared votes25%
  2. Delia RamirezD640 shared votes26%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD387 shared votes26%
  4. Gregorio CasarD574 shared votes27%
  5. Frederica WilsonD479 shared votes27%
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

Moore sponsored 43 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 247 others. 16% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 82nd of 216).

The bills Moore 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

Sponsored43 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4343Sponsored, In committee: 4343Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored247 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 247247Cosponsored, In committee: 247247Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2424Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Moore sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4343611
Cosponsored2472472443
How to read the blocks

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

16%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 82nd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Burgess Owens39
  2. Claudia Tenney30
  3. Celeste Maloy29
  4. Mike Kennedy28
  5. Brian Fitzpatrick26
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 Moore’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10582Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10356Empowering Moms ActCosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeUnassignedOrdered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 13. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10327Cost Estimates Improvement ActCosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinanceReferred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 10, 2026
H.R. 10334EFIN Verification Act of 2026CosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeTaxationOrdered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 0. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 41 times in 90 days. Moore’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Moore posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Moore’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 Moore 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 Moore posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A university mascot and people in military-style clothing pose beside a large custom off-road vehicle with an oversized tire and a cannon-like barrel. Several seated passengers wear headphones and gesture toward the camera. A crowd, trees, buildings, and signs are visible in the background. Text appears on clothing, signs, and the vehicle.
    A university mascot and people in military-style clothing pose beside a large custom off-road vehicle with an oversized tire and a cannon-like barrel. Several seated passengers wear headphones and gesture toward the camera. A crowd, trees, buildings, and signs are visible in the background. Text appears on clothing, signs, and the vehicle.View post
  • A crowd watches as people ride a small wheeled vehicle that is producing a large cloud of smoke. A bear mascot and a person in military fatigues stand nearby. Signs and banners are visible.
    A crowd watches as people ride a small wheeled vehicle that is producing a large cloud of smoke. A bear mascot and a person in military fatigues stand nearby. Signs and banners are visible.View post
  • A group of people pose for a photograph inside a business or community center, with an American flag and a display banner behind them. There is visible signage and other text in the windows.
    A group of people pose for a photograph inside a business or community center, with an American flag and a display banner behind them. There is visible signage and other text in the windows.View post
  • A sunny outdoor farmers market is set up beside a street. People browse and talk at a red-canopied stand displaying fruit, vegetables, and other goods, with a civic building and an American flag in the background. There is text on the canopy and signs.
    A sunny outdoor farmers market is set up beside a street. People browse and talk at a red-canopied stand displaying fruit, vegetables, and other goods, with a civic building and an American flag in the background. There is text on the canopy and signs.View post
  • A group of uniformed military officers with medals stands in a meeting room facing two people in the foreground. Framed pictures and a poster hang on the wall, and a table with chairs and a bottle is in front of them. Text is visible on the poster.
    A group of uniformed military officers with medals stands in a meeting room facing two people in the foreground. Framed pictures and a poster hang on the wall, and a table with chairs and a bottle is in front of them. Text is visible on the poster.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 Moore 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
M001213
Bioguide
M001213
FEC candidate ids
H0UT01205

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