Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, North Carolina’s 6th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001240FEC H4NC06177

Portrait of Addison McDowell, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.74
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of House Republicans

Agreement 0.74 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 9th of 221, where 1st is the closest match.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 80% of McDowell’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from North Carolina, in the top tenth of House Republicans. 6.9% of McDowell’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 15%).

The measures on which McDowell 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.

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.74

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 9th of 221

From North Carolina, 2026

80%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 17th of 216 House Republicans

Policy criticism

6.9%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 202nd of 221

Out of committee

5.0%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 191st of 216

Bipartisanship

3.6%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 188th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.97

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What McDowell says

McDowell stresses bipartisanship less than 84% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.6% of 1,019 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 188th of 221.

An AI model reads each of McDowell’s 1,019 statements in the 119th Congress (874 posts on X, 87 newsletters, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 20 press releases) 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%
McDowell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion712 statements
70%
68%
102nd of 221
Credit claiming305 statements
30%
37%
168th of 221
Policy criticism70 statements
7%
15%
202nd of 221
Bipartisanship37 statements
4%
9%
188th of 221
Personal attacks25 statements
2%
2%
61st of 221
Show the data
McDowell's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowMcDowellPeers
Policy discussion70%68%
Credit claiming30%37%
Policy criticism7%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks2%2%
1,019

statements classified

874 posts on X, 87 newsletters, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 20 press releases.

posts on X: 874 (85.8%)posts on X 874newsletters: 87 (8.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 38 (3.7%)press releases: 20 (2.0%)
Show the data
McDowell's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X874
newsletters87
Congressional Record speeches38
press releases20
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

McDowell used extreme labels in 5.4% of statements, 1.8 times the peer average. 55 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “woke”27
  2. “radical”21
  3. “far left”9
  4. “communist”4
  5. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats15
  2. far-left2
  3. gender ideology2
  4. left2
  5. politicians2
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: 02025-02: 62025-03: 52025-04: 62025-05: 62025-06: 72025-07: 542025-08: 752025-09: 1032025-10: 702025-11: 452025-12: 422026-01: 482026-02: 772026-03: 632026-04: 422026-05: 452026-06: 812026-07: 782026-08: 632026-09: 682026-10: 35peak 103 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 11.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.3% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.9% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-10: 11.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-11: 6.7% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.8% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.3% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-04: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.3% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 35Policy criticismpeak 13.2% · Sep ’26 · latest 2.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-07: 3.7% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-08: 2.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-09: 1.9% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-10: 2.9% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-11: 8.9% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-12: 4.8% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.2% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-02: 7.8% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-03: 11.1% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-04: 7.1% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-05: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-06: 3.7% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-07: 1.3% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.8% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.9% of 35Policy discussionpeak 82.9% · Oct ’26 · latest 82.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.3% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-08: 68.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-09: 67.0% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-10: 75.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-11: 73.3% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.8% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-01: 77.1% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-02: 49.4% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-03: 63.5% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-04: 66.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-05: 80.0% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-06: 55.6% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.9% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-08: 76.2% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-09: 77.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-10: 82.9% of 35Bipartisanshippeak 8.8% · Sep ’26 · latest 8.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 1.0% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 1.4% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.7% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 2.4% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.1% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.2% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 3.2% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.4% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 1.2% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 8.8% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 8.6% of 35Credit claimingpeak 40.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 28.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-07: 37.0% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-08: 40.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-09: 21.4% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-10: 24.3% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.9% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-12: 35.7% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-01: 35.4% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-02: 27.3% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-03: 19.1% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-04: 30.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.1% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-06: 22.2% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-07: 29.5% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.2% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.3% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-10: 28.6% of 35Extreme labelspeak 21.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 2.9%Extreme labels, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-05: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.7% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-09: 5.8% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-10: 21.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-11: 8.9% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.8% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.3% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-04: 7.1% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.2% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.9% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.9% of 35Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for McDowell, 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 ’250— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’256— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Mar ’255— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Apr ’256— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
May ’256— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jun ’257— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’25541.8%3.7%59.3%0.0%37.0%3.7%
Aug ’25751.3%2.7%68.0%0.0%40.0%4.0%
Sep ’251032.9%1.9%67.0%1.0%21.4%5.8%
Oct ’257011.4%2.9%75.7%1.4%24.3%21.4%
Nov ’25456.7%8.9%73.3%6.7%28.9%8.9%
Dec ’25424.8%4.8%73.8%2.4%35.7%4.8%
Jan ’26480.0%4.2%77.1%2.1%35.4%2.1%
Feb ’26770.0%7.8%49.4%5.2%27.3%1.3%
Mar ’26636.3%11.1%63.5%3.2%19.1%6.3%
Apr ’26422.4%7.1%66.7%2.4%30.9%7.1%
May ’26450.0%6.7%80.0%4.4%31.1%0.0%
Jun ’26810.0%3.7%55.6%1.2%22.2%1.2%
Jul ’26781.3%1.3%76.9%5.1%29.5%2.6%
Aug ’26630.0%4.8%76.2%0.0%22.2%3.2%
Sep ’26680.0%13.2%77.9%8.8%35.3%2.9%
Oct ’26350.0%2.9%82.9%8.6%28.6%2.9%
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%. 6 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.

In McDowell’s words

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

Policy criticism

The McDowell Weekly [Rep. Addison McDowell's header image] It’s starting to feel like fall across the Triad. Overnight temperatures are dropping, school routines are settling in, and before we know it, the holidays will be here. It's a busy time for folks across our communities, and with everyone’…

Oct 9, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Education; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Finance and Financial Sector; Health; Taxation

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Education · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “radical” aimed at Biden · 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 · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · target: Chuck SchumerSource

  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 · target: Eric Swalwell, Tony GonzalesSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing about the need for bipartisanship, but I would just remind my colleagues across the aisle that just yesterday we voted for the fourth time to open the Department of Homeland Security. That was a bipartisan vote where some of their colleagues decided to join us. This is the second government shutdown that these Democrats have caused on the American people, this one for 42 days. That is how…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · Immigration · extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at DemocratsSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, from the massive fraud uncovered in Minnesota to schemes across this country, criminal networks are targeting American programs and treating taxpayers like an ATM. These are hard-earned American tax dollars. These are the earned benefits of our seniors. These are young families' grocery budgets. My colleague across the aisle has said that we don't have money for these programs. We don't have money for th…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · extreme label “far left” aimed at prosecutorsSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Christopher Meriwether Demm as he prepares to retire later this month. A true legend of his craft, morning talk radio will never be the same. Chris Demm of the ``2 Guys Named Chris'' show has been a fixture on radios across my district for the better part of three decades. To the loyal P1s who listened to him every day, he is more than just a morning show host. He is a trusted source for…

    personal attacksSource

All 1,019 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: 874 posts on X, 87 newsletters, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 20 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Crime and Law Enforcement is what McDowell talks about most: 31% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.74 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 9th 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 McDowell talks about. The bills McDowell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What McDowell talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
McDowell
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement222 statements
31%
12%
Armed Forces and National Security213 statements
30%
24%
Health170 statements
24%
15%
Immigration149 statements
21%
13%
Government Operations and Politics143 statements
20%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas McDowell talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowMcDowellPeers
Crime and Law Enforcement31%12%
Armed Forces and National Security30%24%
Health24%15%
Immigration21%13%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onCrime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 31% (House Republicans 12%)31%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 14% (House Republicans 9%)14%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 24%)30%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 8%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 15%)24%Health, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 11%)10%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 13%)21%Immigration, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 5%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 19%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%
Show the data
McDowell's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Crime and Law Enforcement31%12%14%9%
Armed Forces and National Security30%24%8%8%
Health24%15%10%11%
Immigration21%13%10%5%
Government Operations and Politics20%19%9%12%
0.74

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 9th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

McDowell sits at +0.97 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 56% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.93 to +1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 491 donors and 666 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”.

+0.97

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.93 to +1.00. From 491 donors and 666 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is McDowell, 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 McDowell’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 McDowell sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0McDowell +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
McDowell's CSIP score of +0.97 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of McDowell
House Republicans221+1.043%
All House439+0.372%
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 McDowell 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 McDowell.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

McDowell raised $1.5M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 2.8% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 80% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.

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
$1.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 276 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): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $639.7K (43.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $18.2K (1.2%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)PACs and other committees: $670.8K (46.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $127.6K (8.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)44 squares$639.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$18.2K
  • PACs and other committees46 squares$670.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)9 squares$127.6K
Show the data
Sources of McDowell's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$639.7K43.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$18.2K1.2%
PACs and other committees$670.8K46.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$127.6K8.8%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $933.3K$933.3K20242026 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
McDowell's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$933.3K
2026 cycle$1.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 80% came from North Carolina.

  1. North Carolina$440.5K
  2. New York$28.0K
  3. Virginia$21.3K
  4. District of Columbia$15.5K
  5. Georgia$8,000

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%
McDowell
Median
2026
3%
9%
2024
3%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowMcDowellMedian
2026 cycle3%9%
2024 cycle3%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $250WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,500MNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $28.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $1,000OHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $3,250CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,520MOKentucky: $3,500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $21.3KVAMaryland: $6,000MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $45ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $440.5KNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $15.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $8,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $8,000TXFlorida: $7,500FL
Show the data
McDowell's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
North Carolina$440.5K
New York$28.0K
Virginia$21.3K
District of Columbia$15.5K
Georgia$8,000
Texas$8,000
Florida$7,500
Maryland$6,000
Massachusetts$3,500
Kentucky$3,500
California$3,250
Missouri$1,520
Minnesota$1,500
Ohio$1,000
Washington$250
Arkansas$45
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
276

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

80%

from North Carolina

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 6.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 67%67%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 21%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of McDowell's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 6.6% between +0.50 and +0.75, 67% between +0.75 and +1.00, 21% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.756.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0067%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2521%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of McDowell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; McDowell’s own score is +0.97.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$61.4K 28 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$39.1K 19 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$38.3K 27 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$35.5K 15 donors
  5. CEO$29.9K 14 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. CRH AMERICAS, INC. PAC$10.0K
  3. ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS PAC$10.0K
  4. ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. MAJORITY COMMITTEE PAC--MC PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALG SENIOR$14.3K 3 donors
  2. VETERANS GUARDIAN$5,300 3 donors
  3. EQV STRATEGIC$4,500 3 donors
  4. CAPITOL COUNSEL$2,000 3 donors
  5. ATRIUM HEALTH$1,010 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

McDowell voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.5% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, McDowell voted against the majority of House Republicans 19 times.

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

19

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 93rd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
McDowell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
96.3%
64th of 221
Party unity
98.5%
97.1%
93rd of 221
Show the data
McDowell's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowMcDowellPeers
Attendance98.8%96.3%
Party unity98.5%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as McDowell most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR513 shared votes99%
  2. Matt Van EppsR358 shared votes98%
  3. Troy BaldersonR657 shared votes98%
  4. Brian JackR666 shared votes98%
  5. Randy FeenstraR657 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as McDowell least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD650 shared votes22%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD385 shared votes23%
  3. Delia RamirezD633 shared votes24%
  4. Gregorio CasarD567 shared votes24%
  5. Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes24%
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

McDowell sponsored 20 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 293 others. 5.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 191st of 216).

The bills McDowell 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

Sponsored20 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2020Sponsored, In committee: 2020Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored293 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 293293Cosponsored, In committee: 293293Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3939Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills McDowell sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2020100
Cosponsored2932933921
How to read the blocks

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

5.0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 191st of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Pat Harrigan31
  2. Barry Moore27
  3. Tim Moore27
  4. Buddy Carter21
  5. Donald Davis21
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 McDowell’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. 10745Yaeli Martinez Child Protection ActCosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeFamiliesReferred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, 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 5, 2026
H.R. 10669LANDs ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10556VA Hiring Integrity Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1581Supporting the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week during the period of October 23 through October 31, 2026.SponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 51 times in 90 days. McDowell’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images McDowell posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images McDowell posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A graphic honoring deployed military members. A sailor in uniform is shown from behind saluting in front of a large American flag. There is a small flag icon and text near the top, and a congressional office logo near the bottom.
    A graphic honoring deployed military members. A sailor in uniform is shown from behind saluting in front of a large American flag. There is a small flag icon and text near the top, and a congressional office logo near the bottom.View post
  • A red, white, and blue promotional poster advertising a congressional app challenge for students, with a Capitol dome and a stylized ribbon near the top, framed by a decorative border. The poster includes a deadline banner, eligibility information, a website, and a representative's logo.
    A red, white, and blue promotional poster advertising a congressional app challenge for students, with a Capitol dome and a stylized ribbon near the top, framed by a decorative border. The poster includes a deadline banner, eligibility information, a website, and a representative's logo.View post
  • A red and pink awareness poster with a large red ribbon in the background, framed by a thin dark border. It promotes Red Ribbon Week and includes a drug-free message and a congressional office logo.
    A red and pink awareness poster with a large red ribbon in the background, framed by a thin dark border. It promotes Red Ribbon Week and includes a drug-free message and a congressional office logo.View post
  • A political promotional graphic over an aerial view of a city, with a red banner highlighting a dollar amount and a statement about funds recovered for constituents. A campaign-style logo and small icons appear near the top.
    A political promotional graphic over an aerial view of a city, with a red banner highlighting a dollar amount and a statement about funds recovered for constituents. A campaign-style logo and small icons appear near the top.View post
  • A woman stands behind an informational booth in a bright, glass-walled indoor space. The table displays pamphlets, signs, and a large government seal. There is text on the signs, pamphlets, and tablecloth.
    A woman stands behind an informational booth in a bright, glass-walled indoor space. The table displays pamphlets, signs, and a large government seal. There is text on the signs, pamphlets, and tablecloth.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 McDowell 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
M001240
Bioguide
M001240
FEC candidate ids
H4NC06177

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