Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Rhode Island’s 2nd district

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

Bioguide M001223FEC H2RI02184

Portrait of Seth Magaziner, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.72
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top quarter of House Democrats

Agreement 0.72 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Democrats is 0.67. Ranks 34th of 216, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Magaziner’s statements matches the mix in the bills Magaziner sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Democrats.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 29% of Magaziner’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 23%). Magaziner voted against the majority of House Democrats 25 times; party unity 95.4%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%).

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

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.72

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 34th of 216

Credit claiming

29%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 41st of 216

Party unity

95.4%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 169th of 217 · 25 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Small donations, 2026

7.0%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 153rd of 214

From Rhode Island, 2026

73%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 68th of 214 House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.87

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Magaziner says

Magaziner attacks opponents personally less than 67% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.7% of 2,541 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 146th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Magaziner’s 2,541 statements in the 119th Congress (2,084 posts on X, 202 press releases, 130 newsletters, 125 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Magaziner
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,952 statements
77%
73%
76th of 216
Policy criticism823 statements
32%
28%
70th of 216
Credit claiming746 statements
29%
23%
41st of 216
Bipartisanship221 statements
9%
10%
107th of 216
Personal attacks95 statements
4%
7%
146th of 216
Show the data
Magaziner's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMagazinerPeers
Policy discussion77%73%
Policy criticism32%28%
Credit claiming29%23%
Bipartisanship9%10%
Personal attacks4%7%
2,541

statements classified

2,084 posts on X, 202 press releases, 130 newsletters, 125 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,084 (82.0%)posts on X 2,084press releases: 202 (7.9%)newsletters: 130 (5.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 125 (4.9%)
Show the data
Magaziner's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,084
press releases202
newsletters130
Congressional Record speeches125
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Magaziner used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, below the peer average. 31 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”25
  2. “MAGA”3
  3. “far right”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump2
  2. policies2
  3. politicians2
  4. Trump2
  5. Trump administration2
What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 742025-02: 1222025-03: 1362025-04: 1642025-05: 1472025-06: 1362025-07: 1282025-08: 1012025-09: 1542025-10: 1522025-11: 1222025-12: 832026-01: 992026-02: 982026-03: 1092026-04: 1152026-05: 1132026-06: 1052026-07: 1132026-08: 1002026-09: 912026-10: 79peak 164 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 13.9% · Feb ’25 · latest 1.3%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 6.8% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-02: 13.9% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.6% of 136Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.9% of 164Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.0% of 147Personal attacks, 2025-06: 5.1% of 136Personal attacks, 2025-07: 7.0% of 128Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.3% of 154Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 152Personal attacks, 2025-11: 1.6% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.8% of 109Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.7% of 115Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.4% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-06: 3.8% of 105Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.8% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-08: 3.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.2% of 91Personal attacks, 2026-10: 1.3% of 79Policy criticismpeak 53.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 15.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 24.3% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-02: 40.2% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-03: 33.8% of 136Policy criticism, 2025-04: 32.9% of 164Policy criticism, 2025-05: 42.9% of 147Policy criticism, 2025-06: 44.1% of 136Policy criticism, 2025-07: 40.6% of 128Policy criticism, 2025-08: 29.7% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-09: 44.8% of 154Policy criticism, 2025-10: 53.3% of 152Policy criticism, 2025-11: 50.8% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-12: 26.5% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-01: 26.3% of 99Policy criticism, 2026-02: 24.5% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-03: 26.6% of 109Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.9% of 115Policy criticism, 2026-05: 24.8% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.8% of 105Policy criticism, 2026-07: 16.8% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-08: 13.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2026-09: 18.7% of 91Policy criticism, 2026-10: 15.2% of 79Policy discussionpeak 90.1% · Sep ’26 · latest 73.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-02: 77.9% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-03: 78.7% of 136Policy discussion, 2025-04: 74.4% of 164Policy discussion, 2025-05: 72.8% of 147Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.4% of 136Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.6% of 128Policy discussion, 2025-08: 81.2% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-09: 76.0% of 154Policy discussion, 2025-10: 84.9% of 152Policy discussion, 2025-11: 85.3% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.1% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-01: 86.9% of 99Policy discussion, 2026-02: 62.2% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-03: 71.6% of 109Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.9% of 115Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.7% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-06: 62.9% of 105Policy discussion, 2026-07: 69.9% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-08: 75.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.1% of 91Policy discussion, 2026-10: 73.4% of 79Bipartisanshippeak 18.9% · Jan ’25 · latest 3.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.9% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.1% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.5% of 136Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 10.4% of 164Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 15.7% of 147Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.3% of 136Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.6% of 128Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 6.9% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 14.9% of 154Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.9% of 152Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 4.9% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.6% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 12.1% of 99Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.0% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.5% of 109Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 13.0% of 115Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 9.7% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.6% of 105Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.5% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.4% of 91Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.8% of 79Credit claimingpeak 46.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 17.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 46.0% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.4% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-03: 36.0% of 136Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.8% of 164Credit claiming, 2025-05: 23.1% of 147Credit claiming, 2025-06: 25.7% of 136Credit claiming, 2025-07: 26.6% of 128Credit claiming, 2025-08: 35.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-09: 30.5% of 154Credit claiming, 2025-10: 14.5% of 152Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.5% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-12: 20.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-01: 29.3% of 99Credit claiming, 2026-02: 34.7% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-03: 44.0% of 109Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.8% of 115Credit claiming, 2026-05: 38.0% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-06: 28.6% of 105Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.0% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-08: 35.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2026-09: 30.8% of 91Credit claiming, 2026-10: 17.7% of 79Extreme labelspeak 5.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.5% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.2% of 136Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.8% of 164Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.4% of 147Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.2% of 136Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.1% of 128Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 154Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 152Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 109Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.9% of 115Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.8% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 105Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.9% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 91Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 79Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Magaziner, 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 ’25746.8%24.3%75.7%18.9%46.0%5.4%
Feb ’2512213.9%40.2%77.9%4.1%25.4%2.5%
Mar ’251366.6%33.8%78.7%12.5%36.0%2.2%
Apr ’251644.9%32.9%74.4%10.4%26.8%1.8%
May ’251472.0%42.9%72.8%15.7%23.1%1.4%
Jun ’251365.1%44.1%79.4%10.3%25.7%2.2%
Jul ’251287.0%40.6%76.6%8.6%26.6%3.1%
Aug ’251013.0%29.7%81.2%6.9%35.6%4.0%
Sep ’251541.3%44.8%76.0%14.9%30.5%0.0%
Oct ’251520.0%53.3%84.9%5.9%14.5%0.0%
Nov ’251221.6%50.8%85.3%4.9%29.5%0.0%
Dec ’25831.2%26.5%71.1%9.6%20.5%0.0%
Jan ’26993.0%26.3%86.9%12.1%29.3%0.0%
Feb ’26984.1%24.5%62.2%2.0%34.7%1.0%
Mar ’261092.8%26.6%71.6%5.5%44.0%0.0%
Apr ’261151.7%20.9%80.9%13.0%34.8%0.9%
May ’261134.4%24.8%79.7%9.7%38.0%1.8%
Jun ’261053.8%23.8%62.9%8.6%28.6%0.0%
Jul ’261131.8%16.8%69.9%3.5%23.0%0.9%
Aug ’261003.0%13.0%75.0%1.0%35.0%0.0%
Sep ’26912.2%18.7%90.1%4.4%30.8%0.0%
Oct ’26791.3%15.2%73.4%3.8%17.7%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Magaziner’s words

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

Credit claiming

Rooting Out Corruption in Washington [Rep. Seth Magaziner newsletter banner image] Dear political, The reason our government fails to lower costs and deliver for working people is because of the corruption that is all too common in Washington. As long as billionaires and big corporations can inf…

Oct 26, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Law

Personal attacks

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

Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at politicians · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

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

  2. Posts on X

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

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

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and PoliticsSource

  5. Newsletters

    Weekly Update from Rep. Magaziner [Rep. Seth Magaziner newsletter banner image] Dear political, This week, I continued traveling across the District to hear from Rhode Islanders. I celebrated the completion of upgrades to the library in Peace Dale that I delivered federal funding for, spent a great day traveling around Burrillville, and talked with Rhode Islanders about what needs to be done to tackle the high cos…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Education · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Donald Trump

All 2,541 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: 2,084 posts on X, 202 press releases, 130 newsletters, 125 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Magaziner talks about most: 28% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 34th of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Magaziner talks about. The bills Magaziner sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Magaziner talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Magaziner
Peers
Health542 statements
28%
26%
Government Operations and Politics416 statements
21%
20%
Economics and Public Finance401 statements
21%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security293 statements
15%
16%
Labor and Employment243 statements
12%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Magaziner talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMagazinerPeers
Health28%26%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%
Labor and Employment12%7%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Magaziner’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 26%)28%Health, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 16%)13%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 11%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 7%)7%Labor and EmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 7%)12%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 5%)8%
Show the data
Magaziner's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health28%26%13%16%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%12%11%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%0%1%
Armed Forces and National Security15%16%7%7%
Labor and Employment12%7%8%5%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 34th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Magaziner sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 66% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.89 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,108 donors and 1,771 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”.

−0.87

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.89 to −0.84. From 2,108 donors and 1,771 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Magaziner −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Magaziner, 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 Magaziner’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 Magaziner sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Magaziner −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Magaziner's CSIP score of −0.87 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Magaziner
House Democrats217−1.065%
All House439+0.332%
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 Magaziner 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 Magaziner.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Magaziner raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 7.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 73% of itemized individual money came from Rhode Island.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 523 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $834.9K (51.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $62.8K (3.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $62.8K (3.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $62.8K (3.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $62.8K (3.9%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $619.0K (38.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $95.9K (5.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$834.9K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)4 squares$62.8K
  • PACs and other committees38 squares$619.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$95.9K
Show the data
Sources of Magaziner's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$834.9K51.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$62.8K3.9%
PACs and other committees$619.0K38.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$95.9K5.9%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20222024 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20242026 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Magaziner's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$3.9M
2024 cycle$2.0M
2026 cycle$1.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 73% came from Rhode Island.

  1. Rhode Island$508.3K
  2. Massachusetts$59.8K
  3. Florida$47.3K
  4. New York$26.4K
  5. California$9,500

Small donations

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

0%60%
Magaziner
Median
2026
7%
13%
2024
5%
13%
2022
6%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMagazinerMedian
2026 cycle7%13%
2024 cycle5%13%
2022 cycle6%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $500MEVermont: $900VTNew Hampshire: $2,000NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $26.4KNYRhode Island: $508.3KRIMassachusetts: $59.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: $6,971CTCalifornia: $9,500CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $6,500CONebraska: $3,500NEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $8,750VAMaryland: $3,950MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: $3,500NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $3,650NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $7,250DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $2,100TXFlorida: $47.3KFL
Show the data
Magaziner's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Rhode Island$508.3K
Massachusetts$59.8K
Florida$47.3K
New York$26.4K
California$9,500
Virginia$8,750
District of Columbia$7,250
Connecticut$6,971
Colorado$6,500
Maryland$3,950
North Carolina$3,650
Nebraska$3,500
New Mexico$3,500
Texas$2,100
New Hampshire$2,000
Vermont$900
Maine$500
AlaskaNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
UtahNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
523

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

73%

from Rhode Island

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 10%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 85%85%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.8%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Magaziner's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +0.75: 10% between −1.25 and −1.00, 85% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0010%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7585%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.8%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Magaziner’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Magaziner’s own score is −0.87.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$214.1K 163 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$55.8K 53 donors
  3. RETIRED$31.2K 37 donors
  4. PARTNER$22.4K 5 donors
  5. CEO$21.7K 13 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ABUNDANCE PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC$10.0K
  4. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  5. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BROWN UNIVERSITY$4,500 4 donors
  2. CHISHOLM CHISHOLM & KILPATRICK$4,000 3 donors
  3. SAVAGE LAW PARTNERS LLP$4,000 3 donors
  4. HINCKLEY ALLEN$1,100 3 donors
  5. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND$1,070 6 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Magaziner voted with the majority of House Democrats on 95.4% of party-line votes and missed 2.8% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Magaziner voted against the majority of House Democrats 25 times.

674 roll calls Magaziner could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Magaziner voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

25

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 95.4%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 169th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Magaziner
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.1%
96.9%
146th of 217
Party unity
95.4%
96.4%
169th of 217
Show the data
Magaziner's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMagazinerPeers
Attendance97.1%96.9%
Party unity95.4%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst 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 Magaziner most often

  1. Eric SwalwellD290 shared votes98%
  2. William KeatingD633 shared votes97%
  3. Stephen LynchD625 shared votes97%
  4. Mike QuigleyD627 shared votes97%
  5. Steve CohenD621 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Magaziner least often

  1. Chip RoyR619 shared votes18%
  2. Ralph NormanR579 shared votes19%
  3. Keith SelfR641 shared votes19%
  4. Eric BurlisonR626 shared votes20%
  5. Andy BiggsR591 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

Magaziner sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 561 others. 3.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 103rd of 207).

The bills Magaziner 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

Sponsored29 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2929Sponsored, In committee: 2929Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored561 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 561561Cosponsored, In committee: 561561Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2222Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Magaziner sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2929100
Cosponsored5615612221
How to read the blocks

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

3.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 103rd of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton82
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick49
  3. Shri Thanedar40
  4. André Carson34
  5. Dan Goldman31
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 Magaziner’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. 10887Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2026SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10888To direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out a National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science program, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10841Securing Elections From AI Deception ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.Con.Res. 120Supporting the designation of the week of September 21 through September 25, 2026, as "National Falls Prevention Awareness Week" to raise awareness and encourage the prevention of falls among older adults.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 54 times in 90 days. Magaziner’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Magaziner posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    magaziner.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    27

    pages crawled

    54

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    sethmagaziner.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    16

    pages crawled

    18

    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 Magaziner posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political early-voting information poster on a cream background, with a ballot box illustration, voting reminders, and a dark blue footer featuring a representative's branding. Text is present.
    A political early-voting information poster on a cream background, with a ballot box illustration, voting reminders, and a dark blue footer featuring a representative's branding. Text is present.View post
  • A group of six people pose indoors in front of flags, holding banners for U.S. military academies. There is text on the banners.
    A group of six people pose indoors in front of flags, holding banners for U.S. military academies. There is text on the banners.View post
  • A group of five people pose for a photo in front of a branded backdrop, with colorful geometric wall art and balloons in the background. Text is visible on the backdrop and clothing.
    A group of five people pose for a photo in front of a branded backdrop, with colorful geometric wall art and balloons in the background. Text is visible on the backdrop and clothing.View post
  • A group of people sits in rows at an indoor event while a man speaks at a podium. A table in the foreground holds trays of doughnuts and other refreshments. Balloons and colorful wall artwork decorate the venue. There is text on a backdrop and podium.
    A group of people sits in rows at an indoor event while a man speaks at a podium. A table in the foreground holds trays of doughnuts and other refreshments. Balloons and colorful wall artwork decorate the venue. There is text on a backdrop and podium.View post
  • A man in a suit speaks at a microphone to an audience seated in rows of chairs. A branded backdrop and balloons are behind him, with a colorful geometric mural on the wall. Text and logos are visible.
    A man in a suit speaks at a microphone to an audience seated in rows of chairs. A branded backdrop and balloons are behind him, with a colorful geometric mural on the wall. Text and logos are visible.View post
About the descriptions

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

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

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

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Magaziner is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
M001223
Bioguide
M001223
FEC candidate ids
H2RI02184

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