Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 7th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001216FEC H2FL07156

Portrait of Cory Mills, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
68%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Republicans

68% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 2nd of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $899.2K 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. 0% of the 30 bills Mills sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans. 51% of Mills’s statements claim credit, in the top tenth of House Republicans (average 37%).

The measures on which Mills 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

68%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 2nd of 220

Out of committee

0%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 211th of 216

Credit claiming

51%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 19th of 221

Attendance

93.3%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 194th of 221 · 674 roll calls

CSIP ideology

+1.29

More conservative than 85% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

From Florida, 2026

29%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 182nd of 216 House Republicans

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Mills says

Mills attacks opponents personally less than 61% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 1,234 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 137th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Mills’s 1,234 statements in the 119th Congress (947 posts on X, 236 newsletters, 36 press releases, 15 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%
Mills
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion929 statements
75%
68%
50th of 221
Credit claiming632 statements
51%
37%
19th of 221
Policy criticism177 statements
14%
15%
109th of 221
Bipartisanship51 statements
4%
9%
177th of 221
Personal attacks8 statements
1%
2%
137th of 221
Show the data
Mills's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMillsPeers
Policy discussion75%68%
Credit claiming51%37%
Policy criticism14%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,234

statements classified

947 posts on X, 236 newsletters, 36 press releases, 15 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 947 (76.7%)posts on X 947newsletters: 236 (19.1%)press releases: 36 (2.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 15 (1.2%)
Show the data
Mills's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X947
newsletters236
press releases36
Congressional Record speeches15
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Mills used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 36 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”16
  2. “far left”7
  3. “communist”5
  4. “woke”5
  5. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats4
  2. Left2
  3. agendas1
  4. Biden Administration1
  5. Biden policies1
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: 662025-02: 482025-03: 832025-04: 652025-05: 522025-06: 572025-07: 502025-08: 142025-09: 362025-10: 672025-11: 582025-12: 842026-01: 752026-02: 842026-03: 1142026-04: 722026-05: 692026-06: 622026-07: 632026-08: 122026-09: 32026-10: 0peak 114 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 3.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.5% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.1% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.4% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 114Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 37.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 16.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 19.7% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-02: 27.1% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.5% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.7% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-05: 9.6% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-06: 12.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-07: 4.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-08: 7.1% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-09: 19.4% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-11: 27.6% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.7% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.5% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-03: 12.3% of 114Policy criticism, 2026-04: 8.3% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.7% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-06: 9.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.5% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-08: 16.7% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 91.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 91.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 77.3% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-02: 87.5% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.5% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.2% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.0% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-06: 80.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-07: 66.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-08: 50.0% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-09: 52.8% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-11: 75.9% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-12: 78.6% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.7% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-02: 73.8% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-03: 74.6% of 114Policy discussion, 2026-04: 70.8% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.7% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.0% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-07: 84.1% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 17.2% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 4.5% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.2% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 3.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 4.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 2.8% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.0% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 17.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 1.2% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 1.2% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.4% of 114Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.2% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 4.8% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 1.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 71.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 66.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 48.5% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-02: 56.3% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-03: 51.8% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-04: 36.9% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-05: 44.2% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-06: 42.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-07: 46.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-08: 14.3% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-09: 27.8% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-10: 32.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-11: 50.0% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-12: 70.2% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-01: 62.7% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-02: 65.5% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-03: 42.1% of 114Credit claiming, 2026-04: 47.2% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-05: 52.2% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-06: 71.0% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-07: 66.7% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-08: 66.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 11.9% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-02: 10.4% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-04: 6.2% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.5% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.6% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-10: 11.9% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-11: 6.9% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.8% of 114Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Mills, 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 ’25661.5%19.7%77.3%4.5%48.5%1.5%
Feb ’25482.1%27.1%87.5%6.3%56.3%10.4%
Mar ’25832.4%14.5%73.5%2.4%51.8%6.0%
Apr ’25650.0%7.7%69.2%9.2%36.9%6.2%
May ’25521.9%9.6%75.0%3.9%44.2%0.0%
Jun ’25570.0%12.3%80.7%5.3%42.1%3.5%
Jul ’25502.0%4.0%66.0%4.0%46.0%0.0%
Aug ’25140.0%7.1%50.0%0.0%14.3%0.0%
Sep ’25360.0%19.4%52.8%2.8%27.8%5.6%
Oct ’25673.0%37.3%76.1%3.0%32.8%11.9%
Nov ’25580.0%27.6%75.9%17.2%50.0%6.9%
Dec ’25840.0%16.7%78.6%1.2%70.2%0.0%
Jan ’26750.0%5.3%82.7%1.3%62.7%4.0%
Feb ’26840.0%15.5%73.8%1.2%65.5%0.0%
Mar ’261140.0%12.3%74.6%4.4%42.1%1.8%
Apr ’26720.0%8.3%70.8%0.0%47.2%0.0%
May ’26690.0%8.7%79.7%7.2%52.2%0.0%
Jun ’26620.0%9.7%71.0%4.8%71.0%0.0%
Jul ’26630.0%9.5%84.1%1.6%66.7%0.0%
Aug ’26120.0%16.7%91.7%0.0%66.7%0.0%
Sep ’263— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’260— (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; 1 of them have no statements.

In Mills’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Fighting for Life. Protecting Mothers. Putting Families First. [Rep. Cory Mills newsletter banner image] Dear Friends, Every child is a gift, every mother deserves protection, and every taxpayer deserves to know their hard-earned dollars are being used responsibly. Strong families are the foundat…

Jul 31, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health; Crime and Law Enforcement; Taxation

Personal attacks

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

Oct 10, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Obama · Source

Extreme label

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

Mar 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Taxation; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical agenda, left-wing organizations · 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 · target: ObamaSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Health · target: SchumerSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Agriculture and Food · target: DemocratsSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I don't need a written speech or a prepared document to say how common sense this is. For far too long, people have basically turned politics into a career which was never its intent. It was meant to serve we the people. There is something that is mutually exclusive: You cannot serve yourself and personal enrichment and serve the public at the same time. We know for a fact that even within the National D…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and PoliticsSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Commerce · Energy · target: protesterSource

All 1,234 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: 947 posts on X, 236 newsletters, 36 press releases, 15 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Mills talks about most: 45% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 59th 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 Mills talks about. The bills Mills sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Mills talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%50%
Mills
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security420 statements
45%
24%
Government Operations and Politics230 statements
25%
19%
Economics and Public Finance189 statements
20%
19%
International Affairs152 statements
16%
9%
Health146 statements
16%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Mills talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMillsPeers
Armed Forces and National Security45%24%
Government Operations and Politics25%19%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%
International Affairs16%9%
Health16%15%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Mills’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 50%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 45% (House Republicans 24%)45%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 21% (House Republicans 8%)21%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 19%)25%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 19% (House Republicans 12%)19%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 9%)16%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 6%)12%HealthHealth, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 15%)16%Health, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 11%)7%
Show the data
Mills'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 Security45%24%21%8%
Government Operations and Politics25%19%19%12%
Economics and Public Finance20%19%4%2%
International Affairs16%9%12%6%
Health16%15%7%11%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 59th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Mills sits at +1.29 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 85% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.27 to +1.31, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,561 donors and 1,851 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”.

+1.29

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.27 to +1.31. From 1,561 donors and 1,851 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Mills +1.3House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Mills, 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 Mills’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 Mills sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Mills +1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Mills's CSIP score of +1.29 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Mills
House Republicans221+1.085%
All House439+0.392%
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 Mills 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 Mills.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Mills raised $899.2K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 68% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 29% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$899.2K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 558 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): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $231.1K (25.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $487.7K (54.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)PACs and other committees: $55.5K (6.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.9K (13.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)26 squares$231.1K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)54 squares$487.7K
  • PACs and other committees6 squares$55.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)14 squares$124.9K
Show the data
Sources of Mills's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$231.1K25.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$487.7K54.2%
PACs and other committees$55.5K6.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$124.9K13.9%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $2.6M$2.6M20222024 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M20242026 cycle: $899.2K$899.2K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Mills's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$2.6M
2024 cycle$1.6M
2026 cycle$899.2K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 29% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$71.2K
  2. Texas$22.0K
  3. California$19.2K
  4. Virginia$17.0K
  5. District of Columbia$13.0K

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%
Mills
Median
2026
68%
9%
2024
52%
9%
2022
44%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMillsMedian
2026 cycle68%9%
2024 cycle52%9%
2022 cycle44%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $596AKMaine: $966MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $636NHWashington: $5,876WAIdaho: $433IDMontana: $137MTNorth Dakota: $602NDMinnesota: $3,463MNIllinois: $9,475ILWisconsin: $950WIMichigan: $5,585MINew York: $11.7KNYRhode Island: $863RIMassachusetts: $1,769MAOregon: $981ORNevada: $2,297NVWyoming: $341WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $137IAIndiana: $2,931INOhio: $3,122OHPennsylvania: $6,882PANew Jersey: $3,118NJConnecticut: $558CTCalifornia: $19.2KCAUtah: $300UTColorado: $1,747CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,083MOKentucky: $2,562KYWest Virginia: $150WVVirginia: $17.0KVAMaryland: $5,648MDDelaware: $38DEArizona: $2,835AZNew Mexico: $745NMKansas: $1,077KSArkansas: $290ARTennessee: $1,656TNNorth Carolina: $4,406NCSouth Carolina: $7,509SCDistrict of Columbia: $13.0KDCOklahoma: $1,507OKLouisiana: $2,195LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $2,034ALGeorgia: $3,765GAHawaii: $551HITexas: $22.0KTXFlorida: $71.2KFL
Show the data
Mills's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$71.2K
Texas$22.0K
California$19.2K
Virginia$17.0K
District of Columbia$13.0K
New York$11.7K
Illinois$9,475
South Carolina$7,509
Pennsylvania$6,882
Washington$5,876
Maryland$5,648
Michigan$5,585
North Carolina$4,406
Georgia$3,765
Minnesota$3,463
Ohio$3,122
New Jersey$3,118
Indiana$2,931
Arizona$2,835
Kentucky$2,562
Nevada$2,297
Louisiana$2,195
Alabama$2,034
Massachusetts$1,769
Colorado$1,747
Tennessee$1,656
Oklahoma$1,507
Missouri$1,083
Kansas$1,077
Oregon$981
Maine$966
Wisconsin$950
Rhode Island$863
New Mexico$745
New Hampshire$636
North Dakota$602
Alaska$596
Connecticut$558
Hawaii$551
Idaho$433
Wyoming$341
Utah$300
Arkansas$290
West Virginia$150
Montana$137
Iowa$137
Delaware$38
VermontNo data
South DakotaNo data
NebraskaNo data
MississippiNo data
558

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

29%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.2%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 25%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 45%45%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 20%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Mills's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.75: 25% between +0.75 and +1.00, 45% between +1.00 and +1.25, 20% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.2%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0025%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2545%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5020%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Mills’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Mills’s own score is +1.29.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$139.7K 415 donors
  2. CONSULTANT$11.2K 5 donors
  3. CEO$6,156 5 donors
  4. LAWYER$5,750 3 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$4,475 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,$10.0K
  2. ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS PAC$5,000
  3. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$5,000
  4. LEAN FORWARD AMERICA$3,500
  5. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.$1,750 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Mills voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed 6.7% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mills voted against the majority of House Republicans 41 times.

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

41

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 85th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Mills
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.3%
96.3%
194th of 221
Party unity
98.6%
97.1%
85th of 221
Show the data
Mills's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMillsPeers
Attendance93.3%96.3%
Party unity98.6%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
Did not vote—PassedD 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
Did not vote—PassedD 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
Did not vote—PassedD 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
Did not vote—PassedD 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
Did not vote—PassedD 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 Mills most often

  1. Mark E. GreenR166 shared votes98%
  2. Clay FullerR168 shared votes98%
  3. Kat CammackR621 shared votes97%
  4. Byron DonaldsR589 shared votes97%
  5. Andrew Ogles IVR576 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Mills least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD349 shared votes19%
  2. Rashida TlaibD614 shared votes20%
  3. Frederica WilsonD448 shared votes20%
  4. Gregorio CasarD533 shared votes20%
  5. Jan SchakowskyD590 shared votes20%
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

Mills sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 184 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 211th of 216).

The bills Mills 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: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored184 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 184184Cosponsored, In committee: 184184Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1111Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Mills sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3030000
Cosponsored1841841111
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 211th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Anna Luna15
  2. Eugene Vindman15
  3. Donald Davis14
  4. Jennifer Kiggans14
  5. W. Steube14
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 Mills’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. 10478Aid and Attendance Assistance for Veterans ActCosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 17, 2026
H.Res. 1552Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 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 16, 2026
H.R. 10279To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9995 Southeast Federal Highway in Hobe Sound, Florida, as the "Special Operations Chief Petty Officer Aaron Carson Vaughn Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 3, 2026
H.Res. 1497Commemorating the 13 United States servicemembers killed at Abbey Gate during and as a result of President Biden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.CosponsorAug 27, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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. Aug 27, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 33 times in 90 days. Mills’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Mills posted on Sep 11, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    mills.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    26

    pages crawled

    33

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    millsforflorida.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    21

    pages crawled

    86

    changes in 90 days

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 Mills posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A black-and-white commemorative poster shows firefighters raising an American flag amid the wreckage of the September 11 attacks. There is text at the top and bottom of the image.
    A black-and-white commemorative poster shows firefighters raising an American flag amid the wreckage of the September 11 attacks. There is text at the top and bottom of the image.View post
  • A political promotional graphic over a beach and ocean background announces a federal approval related to hurricane and storm damage reduction for Volusia County beaches. It includes a prominent checkmark emblem and branding for a congressman. Text is present.
    A political promotional graphic over a beach and ocean background announces a federal approval related to hurricane and storm damage reduction for Volusia County beaches. It includes a prominent checkmark emblem and branding for a congressman. Text is present.View post
  • A political flyer featuring a portrait of a bearded man in a suit and red tie beside a large QR code. The design includes an American flag, a capitol building, stars, and red, white, and blue graphics. Text is present.
    A political flyer featuring a portrait of a bearded man in a suit and red tie beside a large QR code. The design includes an American flag, a capitol building, stars, and red, white, and blue graphics. Text is present.View post
  • A political funding infographic from a U.S. congressman announces federal project funding for Florida’s 7th District. It features a map of the district, county funding lists, and a beach background with palm fronds. Text appears throughout.
    A political funding infographic from a U.S. congressman announces federal project funding for Florida’s 7th District. It features a map of the district, county funding lists, and a beach background with palm fronds. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A political funding infographic featuring Congressman Cory Mills, with a map of Florida’s 7th District and callouts describing funded local projects. The design uses a beach and palm-tree background. There is text throughout the image.
    A political funding infographic featuring Congressman Cory Mills, with a map of Florida’s 7th District and callouts describing funded local projects. The design uses a beach and palm-tree background. There is text throughout the image.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 Mills 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
M001216
Bioguide
M001216
FEC candidate ids
H2FL07156

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