Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Utah’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide O000086FEC H0UT04076

Portrait of Burgess Owens, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$735.7K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

The median for House Republicans is $2.2M. Ranks 200th of 220, where 1st raised the most. 534 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Owens’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Republicans. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 41% of Owens’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Republicans (median 9.4%). 6.3% of Owens’s statements use an extreme label, 2.1 times the House Republican average of 3.0%.

The measures on which Owens 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.

Raised, 2026

$735.7K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 200th of 220

Small donations, 2026

41%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 27th of 220

Extreme labels

6.3%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 26th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.69

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 51st of 221

Bipartisanship

4.7%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 161st of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.97

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Owens says

Owens attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 1,308 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 117th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Owens’s 1,308 statements in the 119th Congress (1,179 posts on X, 57 press releases, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 34 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Owens
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion920 statements
70%
68%
99th of 221
Credit claiming534 statements
41%
37%
85th of 221
Policy criticism239 statements
18%
15%
61st of 221
Bipartisanship61 statements
5%
9%
161st of 221
Personal attacks14 statements
1%
2%
117th of 221
Show the data
Owens's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowOwensPeers
Policy discussion70%68%
Credit claiming41%37%
Policy criticism18%15%
Bipartisanship5%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
1,308

statements classified

1,179 posts on X, 57 press releases, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 34 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,179 (90.1%)posts on X 1,179press releases: 57 (4.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 38 (2.9%)newsletters: 34 (2.6%)
Show the data
Owens's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,179
press releases57
Congressional Record speeches38
newsletters34
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Owens used extreme labels in 6.3% of statements, 2.1 times the peer average. 83 statements, most often aimed at gender ideology; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”43
  2. “woke”8
  3. “far left”7
  4. “communist”6
  5. “extreme”5

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. gender ideology5
  2. ideologies3
  3. the left3
  4. Democrats2
  5. left-wing groups2
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: 1062025-02: 992025-03: 1172025-04: 1142025-05: 762025-06: 952025-07: 822025-08: 522025-09: 892025-10: 472025-11: 642025-12: 532026-01: 182026-02: 352026-03: 272026-04: 222026-05: 422026-06: 432026-07: 502026-08: 312026-09: 212026-10: 25peak 117 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 9.5% · Sep ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.9% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.0% of 99Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.1% of 117Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.9% of 114Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 89Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-08: 3.2% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-09: 9.5% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Policy criticismpeak 51.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.4% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-02: 27.3% of 99Policy criticism, 2025-03: 26.5% of 117Policy criticism, 2025-04: 13.2% of 114Policy criticism, 2025-05: 9.2% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-06: 21.1% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-07: 4.9% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-08: 11.5% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-09: 21.3% of 89Policy criticism, 2025-10: 51.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.3% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-12: 18.9% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.1% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-03: 18.5% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-05: 11.9% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-07: 14.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.5% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Policy discussionpeak 86.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 56.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.8% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-02: 77.8% of 99Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.5% of 117Policy discussion, 2025-04: 77.2% of 114Policy discussion, 2025-05: 77.6% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-06: 85.3% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-07: 67.1% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-08: 67.3% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.0% of 89Policy discussion, 2025-10: 72.3% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-11: 71.9% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-12: 86.8% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-01: 77.8% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-02: 42.9% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-03: 63.0% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-04: 45.5% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-05: 54.8% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-06: 58.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-07: 58.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-08: 48.4% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-09: 57.1% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-10: 56.0% of 25Bipartisanshippeak 12.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 2.8% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.0% of 99Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.6% of 117Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.9% of 114Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.3% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.2% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 2.4% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.8% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 3.4% of 89Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 4.7% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.9% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.4% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 9.5% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 2.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Credit claimingpeak 56.6% · Dec ’25 · latest 12.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 51.9% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-02: 43.4% of 99Credit claiming, 2025-03: 35.9% of 117Credit claiming, 2025-04: 48.3% of 114Credit claiming, 2025-05: 55.3% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-06: 48.4% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-07: 48.8% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-08: 38.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-09: 49.4% of 89Credit claiming, 2025-10: 21.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-11: 40.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-12: 56.6% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-01: 33.3% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-02: 22.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-03: 29.6% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-04: 22.7% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.3% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-06: 39.5% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-07: 32.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-08: 6.5% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-09: 9.5% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-10: 12.0% of 25Extreme labelspeak 33.3% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.7% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-02: 6.1% of 99Extreme labels, 2025-03: 8.6% of 117Extreme labels, 2025-04: 11.4% of 114Extreme labels, 2025-05: 6.6% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-06: 7.4% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.4% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.5% of 89Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-11: 6.3% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.8% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.9% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-05: 33.3% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-07: 4.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-08: 6.5% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-09: 4.8% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 25Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Owens, 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 ’251061.9%26.4%69.8%2.8%51.9%5.7%
Feb ’25992.0%27.3%77.8%2.0%43.4%6.1%
Mar ’251175.1%26.5%73.5%8.6%35.9%8.6%
Apr ’251140.9%13.2%77.2%7.9%48.3%11.4%
May ’25760.0%9.2%77.6%1.3%55.3%6.6%
Jun ’25950.0%21.1%85.3%4.2%48.4%7.4%
Jul ’25820.0%4.9%67.1%2.4%48.8%2.4%
Aug ’25520.0%11.5%67.3%5.8%38.5%3.9%
Sep ’25890.0%21.3%73.0%3.4%49.4%4.5%
Oct ’25470.0%51.1%72.3%0.0%21.3%2.1%
Nov ’25640.0%20.3%71.9%4.7%40.6%6.3%
Dec ’25530.0%18.9%86.8%11.3%56.6%3.8%
Jan ’26180.0%0.0%77.8%5.6%33.3%0.0%
Feb ’26350.0%17.1%42.9%2.9%22.9%2.9%
Mar ’26270.0%18.5%63.0%7.4%29.6%0.0%
Apr ’26220.0%0.0%45.5%0.0%22.7%0.0%
May ’26420.0%11.9%54.8%9.5%33.3%33.3%
Jun ’26430.0%23.3%58.1%2.3%39.5%2.3%
Jul ’26500.0%14.0%58.0%12.0%32.0%4.0%
Aug ’26313.2%0.0%48.4%0.0%6.5%6.5%
Sep ’26219.5%9.5%57.1%0.0%9.5%4.8%
Oct ’26250.0%0.0%56.0%0.0%12.0%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 Owens’s words

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

Bipartisanship

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

Jul 27, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 25, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; target: men · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 2, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “radical” aimed at The Left · 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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: menSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: former postal workerSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Education · target: House DemocratsSource

  5. 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: The LeftSource

All 1,308 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: 1,179 posts on X, 57 press releases, 38 Congressional Record speeches, 34 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Education is what Owens talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 5.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 51st 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 Owens talks about. The bills Owens sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Owens talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%47%
Owens
Peers
Education392 statements
43%
8%
Government Operations and Politics141 statements
15%
19%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues109 statements
12%
6%
Economics and Public Finance98 statements
11%
19%
Labor and Employment97 statements
11%
6%
Show the data
Policy areas Owens talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowOwensPeers
Education43%8%
Government Operations and Politics15%19%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues12%6%
Economics and Public Finance11%19%
Labor and Employment11%6%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Owens’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 47%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEducationEducation, talks about: 43% (House Republicans 8%)43%Education, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 3%)17%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 19%)15%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 12%)6%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 6%)12%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 2%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 19%)11%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%Labor and EmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 11% (House Republicans 6%)11%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 11% (House Republicans 2%)11%
Show the data
Owens's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Education43%8%17%3%
Government Operations and Politics15%19%6%12%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues12%6%4%2%
Economics and Public Finance11%19%0%2%
Labor and Employment11%6%11%2%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 51st of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Owens sits at +0.97 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 55% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.96 to +0.99, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,792 donors and 2,876 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 +0.96 to +0.99. From 5,792 donors and 2,876 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Owens, 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 Owens’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 Owens sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Owens +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Owens's CSIP score of +0.97 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Owens
House Republicans221+1.045%
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 Owens 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 Owens.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Owens raised $735.7K in the 2026 cycle, 34% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 41% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 38% of itemized individual money came from Utah.

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
$735.7K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 534 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): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $303.1K (41.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $208.8K (28.4%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)PACs and other committees: $152.5K (20.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.1K (9.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$303.1K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)28 squares$208.8K
  • PACs and other committees21 squares$152.5K
  • The candidate’s own money and loans$210
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)10 squares$71.1K
Show the data
Sources of Owens's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$303.1K41.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$208.8K28.4%
PACs and other committees$152.5K20.7%
The candidate’s own money and loans$2100.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$71.1K9.7%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $5.0M$5.0M20202022 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20222024 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20242026 cycle: $735.7K$735.7K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Owens's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.0M
2022 cycle$3.7M
2024 cycle$1.5M
2026 cycle$735.7K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 38% came from Utah.

  1. Utah$124.0K
  2. Texas$42.9K
  3. Florida$35.7K
  4. California$29.1K
  5. Virginia$24.7K

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%
Owens
Median
2026
41%
9%
2024
29%
9%
2022
39%
9%
2020
48%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowOwensMedian
2026 cycle41%9%
2024 cycle29%9%
2022 cycle39%9%
2020 cycle48%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $300MEVermont: $610VTNew Hampshire: $139NHWashington: $2,036WAIdaho: $450IDMontana: $125MTNorth Dakota: $350NDMinnesota: $1,800MNIllinois: $3,485ILWisconsin: $50WIMichigan: $10.1KMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: $100RIMassachusetts: $535MAOregon: $1,194ORNevada: $4,045NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $400IAIndiana: $2,330INOhio: $2,694OHPennsylvania: $3,864PANew Jersey: $2,058NJConnecticut: $103CTCalifornia: $29.1KCAUtah: $124.0KUTColorado: $3,054CONebraska: $150NEMissouri: $5,279MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: $806WVVirginia: $24.7KVAMaryland: $3,565MDDelaware: $125DEArizona: $4,642AZNew Mexico: $305NMKansas: $1,580KSArkansas: $135ARTennessee: $2,305TNNorth Carolina: $3,119NCSouth Carolina: $1,688SCDistrict of Columbia: $1,500DCOklahoma: $1,050OKLouisiana: $1,076LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $1,175ALGeorgia: $417GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $42.9KTXFlorida: $35.7KFL
Show the data
Owens's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Utah$124.0K
Texas$42.9K
Florida$35.7K
California$29.1K
Virginia$24.7K
Michigan$10.1K
Missouri$5,279
Arizona$4,642
Nevada$4,045
Pennsylvania$3,864
Maryland$3,565
Illinois$3,485
North Carolina$3,119
Colorado$3,054
Ohio$2,694
Indiana$2,330
Tennessee$2,305
New Jersey$2,058
Washington$2,036
Minnesota$1,800
South Carolina$1,688
Kansas$1,580
District of Columbia$1,500
Oregon$1,194
Alabama$1,175
Louisiana$1,076
Oklahoma$1,050
West Virginia$806
Vermont$610
Massachusetts$535
Idaho$450
Georgia$417
Iowa$400
North Dakota$350
New Mexico$305
Maine$300
Nebraska$150
New Hampshire$139
Arkansas$135
Montana$125
Delaware$125
Connecticut$103
Rhode Island$100
Wisconsin$50
AlaskaNo data
New YorkNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
KentuckyNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
534

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

38%

from Utah

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 64%64%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 25%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Owens's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.25 to +1.75: 9.5% between +0.50 and +0.75, 64% between +0.75 and +1.00, 25% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0064%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2525%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$116.2K 340 donors
  2. CEO$29.0K 12 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$22.4K 8 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$13.9K 11 donors
  5. LOBBYIST$7,300 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$5,000
  3. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$5,000
  4. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$5,000
  5. BUILD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (BUILDPAC)$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Owens voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.4% of party-line votes and missed 2.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Owens voted against the majority of House Republicans 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 143rd of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Owens
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.7%
96.3%
127th of 221
Party unity
97.4%
97.1%
143rd of 221
Show the data
Owens's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowOwensPeers
Attendance97.7%96.3%
Party unity97.4%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 Owens most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR510 shared votes99%
  2. Matt Van EppsR354 shared votes99%
  3. Robert LattaR659 shared votes99%
  4. Cliff BentzR658 shared votes99%
  5. J. HillR651 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Owens least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD381 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD645 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD630 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD561 shared votes26%
  5. Grace MengD611 shared votes26%
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

Owens sponsored 28 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 284 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 93rd of 216).

The bills Owens 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

Sponsored28 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2828Sponsored, In committee: 2828Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored284 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 284284Cosponsored, In committee: 284284Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3939Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Owens sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2828100
Cosponsored2842843933
How to read the blocks

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

14%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 93rd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Blake Moore39
  2. Celeste Maloy33
  3. Mike Kennedy31
  4. Claudia Tenney25
  5. Randy Weber Sr.22
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 Owens’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. 10412To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the State opt-in requirement for the qualified elementary and secondary education scholarship credit.CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10413To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the qualified elementary and secondary education scholarships credit limit for married taxpayers filing a joint return.CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10247Future of America’s Workforce ActCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 3, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026
H.Res. 1497Commemorating the 13 United States servicemembers killed at Abbey Gate during and as a result of President Biden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.CosponsorAug 27, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Aug 27, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 5 times in 90 days. Owens’s official site had 4 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Owens posted on Oct 21, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    owens.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    5

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    burgess4utah.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    1

    pages crawled

    0

    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 Owens posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Two adults pose together inside a school hallway in front of a large welcome sign. Colorful student artwork is displayed on the wall, and several children’s backpacks hang on hooks. There is text on the sign.
    Two adults pose together inside a school hallway in front of a large welcome sign. Colorful student artwork is displayed on the wall, and several children’s backpacks hang on hooks. There is text on the sign.View post
  • A man stands at a lectern and smiles toward a woman wearing a black outfit with red roses. An audience of adults and schoolchildren sits behind them, with an American flag beside the stage. The lectern and a name badge contain text.
    A man stands at a lectern and smiles toward a woman wearing a black outfit with red roses. An audience of adults and schoolchildren sits behind them, with an American flag beside the stage. The lectern and a name badge contain text.View post
  • A group of adults and students gather in a classroom, with several people standing at the front and others seated at desks facing them. Posters and other text are visible on the walls.
    A group of adults and students gather in a classroom, with several people standing at the front and others seated at desks facing them. Posters and other text are visible on the walls.View post
  • A large group of students and several adults pose for a photograph on the marble stairs of an ornate government building. There is text visible above the group.
    A large group of students and several adults pose for a photograph on the marble stairs of an ornate government building. There is text visible above the group.View post
  • A group of six adults pose together beside a soccer field, with mountains and a clear sky in the background. Some are giving thumbs-up gestures. Logos are visible on one person's jersey, but there is no prominent text.
    A group of six adults pose together beside a soccer field, with mountains and a clear sky in the background. Some are giving thumbs-up gestures. Logos are visible on one person's jersey, but there is no prominent text.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 Owens 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
O000086
Bioguide
O000086
FEC candidate ids
H0UT04076

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