Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Commerce · Source
3.3%
of statements use bipartisan language, the lowest of 52 Senate Republicans
3.3% of 1,733 statements use bipartisan language (57 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 13%. Ranks 52nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Moody’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. The policy areas Moody talks about and legislates on agree at 0.77 on a 0–1 scale, the highest of 52 Senate Republicans. 5.0% of Moody’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 17%).
The measures on which Moody sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Bipartisanship
3.3%
Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 52nd of 52
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.77
Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 1st of 52
Policy criticism
5.0%
Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 50th of 52
Raised, 2026
$14.5M
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 4th of 51
From Florida, 2026
42%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 6th of 50 Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+1.00
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Moody, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Moody is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Moody says
Moody stresses bipartisanship less than any other Senate Republican. Bipartisanship in 3.3% of 1,733 statements, against 13% for the average Senate Republican; 52nd of 52.
An AI model reads each of Moody’s 1,733 statements in the 119th Congress (1,548 posts on X, 101 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches, 4 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Moody
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,361 statements
79%
70%
11th of 52
Credit claiming597 statements
34%
36%
32nd of 52
Policy criticism87 statements
5%
17%
50th of 52
Bipartisanship57 statements
3%
13%
52nd of 52
Personal attacks29 statements
2%
2%
23rd of 52
Show the data
| Row | Moody | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 34% | 36% |
| Policy criticism | 5% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
1,733
statements classified
1,548 posts on X, 101 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,548 |
| press releases | 101 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 80 |
| newsletters | 4 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Moody; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Moody does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Moody used extreme labels in 2.3% of statements, below the peer average. 39 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.
- “radical”31
- “communist”8
- “woke”3
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats3
- Biden administration2
- Biden handlers2
- Democratic Party2
- radicals2
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 81.8% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 54 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 81.5% | 1.8% | 42.6% | 1.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 83 | 1.2% | 6.0% | 83.1% | 1.2% | 26.5% | 2.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 87 | 3.5% | 6.9% | 74.7% | 0.0% | 47.1% | 2.3% |
| May ’25 | 66 | 3.0% | 9.1% | 87.9% | 1.5% | 43.9% | 1.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 54 | 1.8% | 1.8% | 77.8% | 0.0% | 24.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 60 | 3.3% | 3.3% | 81.7% | 1.7% | 31.7% | 1.7% |
| Aug ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 80.5% | 2.4% | 31.7% | 2.4% |
| Sep ’25 | 65 | 1.5% | 1.5% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 26.2% | 3.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 90 | 5.6% | 10.0% | 85.6% | 6.7% | 22.2% | 6.7% |
| Nov ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 78.3% | 4.3% | 30.4% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 72 | 1.4% | 8.3% | 77.8% | 11.1% | 36.1% | 4.2% |
| Jan ’26 | 76 | 1.3% | 2.6% | 67.1% | 4.0% | 36.8% | 4.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 70 | 1.4% | 5.7% | 75.7% | 2.9% | 28.6% | 1.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 69 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 78.3% | 8.7% | 17.4% | 2.9% |
| Apr ’26 | 82 | 1.2% | 3.7% | 68.3% | 1.2% | 20.7% | 1.2% |
| May ’26 | 78 | 3.9% | 3.9% | 73.1% | 1.3% | 37.2% | 3.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 106 | 0.9% | 5.7% | 74.5% | 2.8% | 41.5% | 0.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 119 | 2.5% | 5.9% | 75.6% | 6.7% | 47.1% | 4.2% |
| Aug ’26 | 106 | 2.8% | 5.7% | 74.5% | 1.9% | 36.8% | 1.9% |
| Sep ’26 | 135 | 0.0% | 4.4% | 85.9% | 4.4% | 48.9% | 1.5% |
| Oct ’26 | 152 | 0.0% | 0.7% | 83.5% | 2.6% | 25.7% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Moody’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
VIDEO: Senator Moody Works to Protect Floridians Online WASHINGTON, D.C.— Senator Ashley Moody is working to protect Floridians online, including taking action to guard children from online predators as well as targeting cyber scammers looking to steal from seniors. In recognition of National Cyber…
Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Science, Technology, Communications; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Families · Source
Extreme label
Senator Moody: Democrats are the Party of No, Continue to Block Legislation to Protect Ratepayers and Ban Stock Trading in Congress WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, Senator Ashley Moody released the following statement after Senate Democrats blocked The Stop Insider Trading Act, which she cosponsored, and…
Sep 30, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Energy; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democratic base · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: FauciSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Commerce · Education · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: FauciSource
Press releases
Senator Moody Votes to Hold Fauci in Contempt of Congress for Failing to Answer Questions while under Subpoena WASHINGTON, D.C.— Senator Ashley Moody voted in support of a resolution to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for failing to sufficiently testify while under subpoena before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. “Dr. Fauci lied to the American people,…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Education · Commerce · Transportation and Public Works · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Anthony FauciSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Anthony FauciSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: FauciSource
All 1,733 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: 1,548 posts on X, 101 press releases, 80 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Moody talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.77 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 1st of 52).
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 Moody talks about. The bills Moody sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Moody talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Moody
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement397 statements
29%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security292 statements
21%
25%
Government Operations and Politics274 statements
20%
19%
Health157 statements
12%
15%
Immigration149 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Moody | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 29% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 25% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 19% |
| Health | 12% | 15% |
| Immigration | 11% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Moody’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 29% | 11% | 18% | 8% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 25% | 8% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 19% | 11% | 11% |
| Health | 12% | 15% | 11% | 11% |
| Immigration | 11% | 10% | 5% | 4% |
0.77
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 1st of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Moody legislates on exactly the areas Moody 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 Moody sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Moody sits at +1.00 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 60% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.96 to +1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,980 donors and 896 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”.
+1.00
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.96 to +1.04. From 3,980 donors and 896 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Moody, 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 Moody’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 Moody sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Moody |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 59% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 79% |
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 Moody 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 Moody.
Money
Moody raised $14.5M in the 2026 cycle, 4.5 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 30% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 42% of itemized individual money came from Florida.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.
$14.5M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 3,990 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$4.8M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)14 squares$2.1M
- PACs and other committees17 squares$2.4M
- Party committees$62.0K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)36 squares$5.2M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $4.8M | 32.8% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $2.1M | 14.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $2.4M | 16.6% |
| Party committees | $62.0K | 0.4% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $5.2M | 35.9% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2026 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | $14.5M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 42% came from Florida.
- Florida$1.8M
- Virginia$358.4K
- New York$262.6K
- California$253.7K
- Texas$178.8K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Moody
Median
2026
30%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Moody | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 30% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Florida | $1.8M |
| Virginia | $358.4K |
| New York | $262.6K |
| California | $253.7K |
| Texas | $178.8K |
| Colorado | $150.4K |
| District of Columbia | $135.5K |
| Georgia | $119.2K |
| Illinois | $90.9K |
| Michigan | $68.5K |
| Pennsylvania | $65.7K |
| Maryland | $61.9K |
| Connecticut | $56.9K |
| Arizona | $50.9K |
| New Jersey | $50.0K |
| Washington | $43.8K |
| Massachusetts | $38.8K |
| Wisconsin | $38.6K |
| North Carolina | $32.9K |
| Tennessee | $29.8K |
| Arkansas | $27.3K |
| Ohio | $26.8K |
| Nevada | $26.0K |
| South Carolina | $25.8K |
| Iowa | $20.5K |
| Utah | $18.5K |
| Indiana | $17.9K |
| Missouri | $16.5K |
| Kansas | $15.9K |
| Louisiana | $15.1K |
| Idaho | $14.5K |
| Kentucky | $13.8K |
| New Mexico | $11.6K |
| Montana | $11.6K |
| Mississippi | $11.4K |
| New Hampshire | $11.2K |
| Alabama | $10.9K |
| Oregon | $9,981 |
| Minnesota | $8,274 |
| South Dakota | $5,103 |
| Oklahoma | $4,795 |
| Nebraska | $4,408 |
| Maine | $3,763 |
| Rhode Island | $3,000 |
| West Virginia | $2,408 |
| Wyoming | $1,972 |
| Hawaii | $1,935 |
| Alaska | $1,845 |
| Delaware | $1,568 |
| Vermont | $1,250 |
| North Dakota | $905 |
3,990
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
42%
from Florida
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Florida. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.9% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.3% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 5.4% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 5.0% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 6.6% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 8.2% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 40% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 32% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.3% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Moody’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Moody’s own score is +1.00.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1.4M 2,476 donors
- CEO$266.0K 72 donors
- CONSULTANT$190.9K 82 donors
- ATTORNEY$154.6K 91 donors
- EXECUTIVE$149.9K 44 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NRSC$62.0K
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$11.6K
- REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)$10.1K
- ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RDV CORPORATION$46.2K 7 donors
- COINBASE$38.5K 3 donors
- NEXTERA ENERGY$25.1K 17 donors
- BGR GROUP$23.0K 8 donors
- THOLOS GOVERNMENT RELATIONS$18.5K 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Moody voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 907 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Moody voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 16 times.
907 roll calls Moody could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Moody voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
16
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.5%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 31st of 53. 907 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Moody, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Moody
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.7%
97.1%
17th of 53
Party unity
99.5%
98.4%
31st of 53
Show the data
| Row | Moody | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.7% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.5% | 98.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Moody most often
- Bill HagertyR870 shared votes99%
- John BarrassoR892 shared votes98%
- Bernie MorenoR891 shared votes98%
- Jim BanksR885 shared votes98%
- Eric SchmittR885 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Moody least often
- Ed MarkeyD889 shared votes3.6%
- Elizabeth WarrenD882 shared votes3.9%
- Bernie SandersI834 shared votes4.0%
- Christopher MurphyD874 shared votes4.1%
- Chris Van HollenD882 shared votes4.5%
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
Legislation
Moody sponsored 63 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 227 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 41st of 51).
The bills Moody 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 63 | 62 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 227 | 218 | 55 | 4 | 3 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Moody sponsored, ochre blocks bills Moody cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
11%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 41st of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Moody, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Rick Scott103
- Marsha Blackburn67
- Ted Cruz47
- Ted Budd43
- John Cornyn39
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 Moody’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5609 | HCBS Anti-Fraud Reporting Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Health | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5610 | Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Commerce | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5612 | GME Transparency Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Health | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5615 | VEST Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5622 | Prosecuting Poison Pill Dealers Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 111 times in 90 days. Moody’s official site had 10 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Moody posted on Oct 22, 2026.
The lab crawls Moody’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 Moody posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 10
pages crawled
111changes 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.
Social accounts
Images Moody posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A white sports-news graphic with a red OutKick Sports label, a large headline, and a smaller explanatory paragraph. It reports that the Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries skipped the national anthem before their third straight WNBA Finals game.View post 
A man wearing a sheriff's uniform shirt and a woman in a brown blazer pose together outside a glass-fronted sheriff's office. Text and a sheriff's badge emblem are visible on the glass and the man's shirt.View post 
A woman presents to a seated group in a conference room. A wall-mounted display shows a leadership-themed poster and diagram; there are tables, name cards, drinks, and other meeting materials. Text is visible on the display and cards.View post 
A woman in a dark suit talks with a naval officer in a white uniform beside a large ship. Metal stairs, railings, and equipment are visible around them. No prominent text is visible.View post 
Two women stand together smiling in an office or government chamber. One wears a dark blazer and light-colored trousers, while the other wears a military flight suit. Flags, desks, windows, and framed decorations are visible in the background. There is text on the flight suit and patches.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.
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 Moody is most unusual among Senate 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
- M001244
- Bioguide
- M001244
- FEC candidate ids
- S6FL00640
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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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