Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 47th district

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

Bioguide M001241FEC H4CA47085

Portrait of Dave Min, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
13%
of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

13% of 1,149 statements criticize a policy (150 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 201st of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Min’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 15% of Min’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.3 times the House Democrat average of 6.6%. Min voted against the majority of House Democrats 33 times; party unity 94.8%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%).

The measures on which Min 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.

Policy criticism

13%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 201st of 216

Personal attacks

15%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 17th of 216

Attendance

99.7%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 32nd of 217 · 674 roll calls

Party unity

94.8%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 176th of 217 · 33 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Bipartisanship

5.6%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 172nd of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.01

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Min says

Min attacks opponents personally more than 92% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 15% of 1,149 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 17th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Min’s 1,149 statements in the 119th Congress (1,007 posts on X, 56 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Min
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion896 statements
78%
73%
61st of 216
Credit claiming192 statements
17%
23%
162nd of 216
Personal attacks178 statements
15%
7%
17th of 216
Policy criticism150 statements
13%
28%
201st of 216
Bipartisanship64 statements
6%
10%
172nd of 216
Show the data
Min's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMinPeers
Policy discussion78%73%
Credit claiming17%23%
Personal attacks15%7%
Policy criticism13%28%
Bipartisanship6%10%
1,149

statements classified

1,007 posts on X, 56 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,007 (87.6%)posts on X 1,007press releases: 56 (4.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 46 (4.0%)newsletters: 40 (3.5%)
Show the data
Min's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,007
press releases56
Congressional Record speeches46
newsletters40
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Min used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, below the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at Court majority; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”8
  2. “MAGA”5
  3. “radical”5
  4. “fascist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Court majority2
  2. MAGA2
  3. Republicans2
  4. Donald Trump1
  5. House Republicans1
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: 472025-02: 482025-03: 642025-04: 662025-05: 742025-06: 652025-07: 662025-08: 442025-09: 712025-10: 602025-11: 452025-12: 412026-01: 482026-02: 422026-03: 572026-04: 552026-05: 612026-06: 502026-07: 332026-08: 412026-09: 472026-10: 24peak 74 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 29.1% · Apr ’26 · latest 12.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-02: 25.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-03: 18.8% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-04: 7.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-05: 16.2% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-06: 13.9% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-07: 10.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-08: 15.9% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-09: 14.1% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-10: 15.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-11: 22.2% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.9% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-01: 12.5% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-02: 21.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-03: 21.1% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-04: 29.1% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-05: 14.8% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-06: 14.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-07: 24.2% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-08: 17.1% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-09: 8.5% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-10: 12.5% of 24Policy criticismpeak 24.2% · Jul ’26 · latest 4.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 10.6% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-02: 8.3% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-03: 9.4% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-04: 12.1% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-05: 12.2% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-06: 15.4% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-07: 9.1% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-08: 6.8% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-10: 11.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-11: 15.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-02: 11.9% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-03: 22.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-04: 14.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-05: 14.8% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-06: 16.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-07: 24.2% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-09: 14.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.2% of 24Policy discussionpeak 95.8% · Oct ’26 · latest 95.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-02: 85.4% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-03: 68.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-04: 72.7% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.6% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-06: 81.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-07: 77.3% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-08: 79.5% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-09: 84.5% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-10: 83.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-11: 88.9% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-12: 68.3% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.2% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.4% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-03: 82.5% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-04: 74.6% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.0% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-06: 80.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-07: 84.9% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-08: 85.4% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-10: 95.8% of 24Bipartisanshippeak 12.1% · Jul ’26 · latest 4.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.4% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 1.6% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 1.5% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.8% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.1% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.5% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 1.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.3% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.1% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.8% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.3% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.2% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 12.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.3% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 8.5% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.2% of 24Credit claimingpeak 31.8% · Aug ’25 · latest 8.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 8.5% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-02: 18.8% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-03: 4.7% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-04: 12.1% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.7% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.9% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-07: 28.8% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-08: 31.8% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.3% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-10: 1.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-11: 6.7% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.8% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-01: 18.8% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-02: 9.5% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-03: 22.8% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-04: 18.2% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-05: 21.3% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-06: 18.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-07: 24.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.8% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-09: 10.6% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-10: 8.3% of 24Extreme labelspeak 6.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 4.2%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.6% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.4% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.2% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.6% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.6% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-06: 6.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-10: 4.2% of 24Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Min, 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 ’25474.3%10.6%66.0%6.4%8.5%0.0%
Feb ’254825.0%8.3%85.4%0.0%18.8%2.1%
Mar ’256418.8%9.4%68.8%1.6%4.7%0.0%
Apr ’25667.6%12.1%72.7%1.5%12.1%0.0%
May ’257416.2%12.2%67.6%6.8%25.7%1.4%
Jun ’256513.9%15.4%81.5%3.1%13.9%4.6%
Jul ’256610.6%9.1%77.3%9.1%28.8%0.0%
Aug ’254415.9%6.8%79.5%0.0%31.8%0.0%
Sep ’257114.1%15.5%84.5%8.5%11.3%1.4%
Oct ’256015.0%11.7%83.3%1.7%1.7%1.7%
Nov ’254522.2%15.6%88.9%2.2%6.7%2.2%
Dec ’25414.9%12.2%68.3%7.3%26.8%0.0%
Jan ’264812.5%10.4%79.2%2.1%18.8%0.0%
Feb ’264221.4%11.9%71.4%4.8%9.5%0.0%
Mar ’265721.1%22.8%82.5%8.8%22.8%0.0%
Apr ’265529.1%14.5%74.6%7.3%18.2%3.6%
May ’266114.8%14.8%77.0%8.2%21.3%1.6%
Jun ’265014.0%16.0%80.0%12.0%18.0%6.0%
Jul ’263324.2%24.2%84.9%12.1%24.2%0.0%
Aug ’264117.1%12.2%85.4%7.3%26.8%0.0%
Sep ’26478.5%14.9%76.6%8.5%10.6%0.0%
Oct ’262412.5%4.2%95.8%4.2%8.3%4.2%
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 Min’s words

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

Policy criticism

Rep. Min and Sen. Welch Lead Probe into Role of Trump Cabinet Members in Obtaining Pardons of Convicted Felons Sen. Blumenthal and Rep. Scanlon also join investigation Washington, DC. — This week, U.S. Representative Dave Min (D-CA-47), Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Refor…

Oct 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; International Affairs; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Energy; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA allies · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · International Affairs · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Energy · target: 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 · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. 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: Kimberly GuilfoyleSource

  4. Press releases

    STATEMENT: Rep. Min on His Vote for the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Dave Min (CA-47) issued the following statement on his vote for the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026: "I voted in favor of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 because this legislation is an unequivocal condemnation of Vladimir Putin’s illegal war with Ukraine. To b…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource

All 1,149 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: 1,007 posts on X, 56 press releases, 46 Congressional Record speeches, 40 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Min talks about most: 33% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 95th 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 Min talks about. The bills Min sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Min talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%36%
Min
Peers
Government Operations and Politics293 statements
33%
20%
Crime and Law Enforcement190 statements
21%
9%
Economics and Public Finance155 statements
17%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues141 statements
16%
13%
Health138 statements
15%
26%
Show the data
Policy areas Min talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMinPeers
Government Operations and Politics33%20%
Crime and Law Enforcement21%9%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16%13%
Health15%26%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Min’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 36%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 33% (House Democrats 20%)33%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 19% (House Democrats 11%)19%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 9%)21%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 7%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 20%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 13%)16%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%HealthHealth, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 26%)15%Health, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 16%)7%
Show the data
Min's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics33%20%19%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement21%9%13%7%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%0%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16%13%3%5%
Health15%26%7%16%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 95th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Min sits at −1.01 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 52% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.04 to −0.99, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,628 donors and 1,217 roll calls.

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

−1.01

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.04 to −0.99. From 5,628 donors and 1,217 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Min, 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 Min’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 Min sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Min −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Min's CSIP score of −1.01 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Min
House Democrats217−1.048%
All House439+0.324%
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 Min 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 Min.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Min raised $3.7M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 13% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 72% of itemized individual money came from California.

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
$3.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,694 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): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.6M (70.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $394.6K (10.8%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)PACs and other committees: $672.5K (18.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)71 squares$2.6M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$394.6K
  • PACs and other committees18 squares$672.5K
  • Party committees$13.6K
Show the data
Sources of Min's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.6M70.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$394.6K10.8%
PACs and other committees$672.5K18.4%
Party committees$13.6K0.4%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $6.8M$6.8M20242026 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Min's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$6.8M
2026 cycle$3.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 72% came from California.

  1. California$1.6M
  2. New York$176.4K
  3. Massachusetts$72.7K
  4. District of Columbia$72.1K
  5. Florida$35.6K

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%
Min
Median
2026
13%
13%
2024
16%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMinMedian
2026 cycle13%13%
2024 cycle16%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,450AKMaine: $2,500MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $33.6KWAIdaho: $1,000IDMontana: $14.0KMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $6,600MNIllinois: $9,750ILWisconsin: $250WIMichigan: $255MINew York: $176.4KNYRhode Island: $700RIMassachusetts: $72.7KMAOregon: $5,500ORNevada: $6,100NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,500INOhio: $5,563OHPennsylvania: $13.6KPANew Jersey: $27.6KNJConnecticut: $5,750CTCalifornia: $1.6MCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $5,509CONebraska: $7,000NEMissouri: $1,482MOKentucky: $12.6KKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $28.5KVAMaryland: $31.1KMDDelaware: $5,000DEArizona: $2,540AZNew Mexico: $3,800NMKansas: $1,100KSArkansas: $300ARTennessee: $50TNNorth Carolina: $1,243NCSouth Carolina: $1,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $72.1KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $2,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,500GAHawaii: $2,250HITexas: $19.7KTXFlorida: $35.6KFL
Show the data
Min's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.6M
New York$176.4K
Massachusetts$72.7K
District of Columbia$72.1K
Florida$35.6K
Washington$33.6K
Maryland$31.1K
Virginia$28.5K
New Jersey$27.6K
Texas$19.7K
Montana$14.0K
Pennsylvania$13.6K
Kentucky$12.6K
Illinois$9,750
Nebraska$7,000
Minnesota$6,600
Nevada$6,100
Connecticut$5,750
Ohio$5,563
Colorado$5,509
Oregon$5,500
Delaware$5,000
New Mexico$3,800
Arizona$2,540
Maine$2,500
Georgia$2,500
Hawaii$2,250
Mississippi$2,000
Indiana$1,500
Missouri$1,482
Alaska$1,450
North Carolina$1,243
Kansas$1,100
Idaho$1,000
South Carolina$1,000
Rhode Island$700
Arkansas$300
Michigan$255
Wisconsin$250
Tennessee$50
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
North DakotaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
West VirginiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
1,694

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

72%

from California

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 50%50%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 46%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.2%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Min's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 50% between −1.25 and −1.00, 46% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0050%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7546%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.2%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Min’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Min’s own score is −1.01.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$734.9K 701 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$289.2K 218 donors
  3. RETIRED$192.9K 143 donors
  4. CEO$68.4K 35 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$53.2K 32 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE$21.2K 23 donors
  2. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP$17.5K 4 donors
  3. ANDURIL INDUSTRIES$15.5K 3 donors
  4. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP$14.7K 7 donors
  5. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES$9,000 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Min voted with the majority of House Democrats on 94.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Min voted against the majority of House Democrats 33 times.

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

33

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 94.8%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 176th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Min
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.9%
32nd of 217
Party unity
94.8%
96.4%
176th of 217
Show the data
Min's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMinPeers
Attendance99.7%96.9%
Party unity94.8%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 Min most often

  1. Christian MenefeeD255 shared votes96%
  2. Analilia MejiaD188 shared votes96%
  3. Dina TitusD607 shared votes96%
  4. Adelita GrijalvaD387 shared votes96%
  5. Brittany PettersenD569 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Min least often

  1. Chip RoyR633 shared votes19%
  2. Keith SelfR658 shared votes21%
  3. Eric BurlisonR641 shared votes21%
  4. Ralph NormanR596 shared votes21%
  5. Andy BiggsR607 shared votes21%
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

Min sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 417 others. 6.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 58th of 207).

The bills Min 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3131Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored417 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 417417Cosponsored, In committee: 417417Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1717Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Min sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3131100
Cosponsored4174171722
How to read the blocks

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

6.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 58th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton59
  2. Yassamin Ansari35
  3. Raja Krishnamoorthi33
  4. Brian Fitzpatrick33
  5. Rashida Tlaib29
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 Min’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. 10820Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10832IRAN ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 15, 2026
H.R. 10721Stop Orphaned Wells ActCosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10686Community Disaster Protection ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 84 times in 90 days. Min’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Min posted on Oct 17, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    min.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    84

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    davemin.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    39

    pages crawled

    26

    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 Min posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man speaks at an outdoor press conference from behind a podium under a canopy, with several people standing beside him and microphones and recording equipment in front. A vehicle and outdoor surroundings are visible in the background. The podium and microphones display text.
    A man speaks at an outdoor press conference from behind a podium under a canopy, with several people standing beside him and microphones and recording equipment in front. A vehicle and outdoor surroundings are visible in the background. The podium and microphones display text.View post
  • A screenshot of a social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a circular profile image and a long block of text discussing diesel fuel supplies, energy prices, and Iran. There are no other prominent images.
    A screenshot of a social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a circular profile image and a long block of text discussing diesel fuel supplies, energy prices, and Iran. There are no other prominent images.View post
  • A blue political statement graphic with a congressman’s logo at the top and several centered paragraphs of white text discussing the October 7 attack, its anniversary, victims, antisemitism, civilians in Gaza, and hopes for peace.
    A blue political statement graphic with a congressman’s logo at the top and several centered paragraphs of white text discussing the October 7 attack, its anniversary, victims, antisemitism, civilians in Gaza, and hopes for peace.View post
  • A man and a woman stand at a restaurant counter and look over a menu together. The restaurant has large windows, tables, chairs, flowers, and a ceiling fan. There is some text visible in the background and on the menu.
    A man and a woman stand at a restaurant counter and look over a menu together. The restaurant has large windows, tables, chairs, flowers, and a ceiling fan. There is some text visible in the background and on the menu.View post
  • A man in a suit and a woman talk across a counter in a bright café or restaurant. A menu and a notebook are on the counter, with seating and umbrellas visible in the background. There is text on the menu.
    A man in a suit and a woman talk across a counter in a bright café or restaurant. A menu and a notebook are on the counter, with seating and umbrellas visible in the background. There is text on the menu.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 Min 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
M001241
Bioguide
M001241
FEC candidate ids
H4CA47085

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