Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Housing and Community Development · Source
86%
of statements discuss policy, in the top 5% of House Democrats
86% of 3,316 statements discuss policy (2,837 statements); the average for House Democrats is 73%. Ranks 5th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Panetta’s posts on X, press releases, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. 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. 42% of Panetta’s statements claim credit, 1.9 times the House Democrat average of 23%. Panetta voted against the majority of House Democrats 44 times; party unity 90.6%, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.4%).
The measures on which Panetta 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 discussion
86%
House Democrats average 73% · ranks 5th of 216
Credit claiming
42%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 9th of 216
Attendance
100%
House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 10th of 217 · 674 roll calls
Party unity
90.6%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 198th of 217 · 44 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Bipartisanship
19%
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 18th of 216
CSIP ideology
−0.69
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 Panetta, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Panetta is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Panetta says
Panetta attacks opponents personally less than 88% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.2% of 3,316 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 192nd of 216.
An AI model reads each of Panetta’s 3,316 statements in the 119th Congress (2,966 posts on X, 225 press releases, 77 newsletters, 48 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Panetta
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,837 statements
86%
73%
5th of 216
Credit claiming1,404 statements
42%
23%
9th of 216
Policy criticism1,115 statements
34%
28%
59th of 216
Bipartisanship623 statements
19%
10%
18th of 216
Personal attacks39 statements
1%
7%
192nd of 216
Show the data
| Row | Panetta | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 86% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 42% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 34% | 28% |
| Bipartisanship | 19% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 7% |
3,316
statements classified
2,966 posts on X, 225 press releases, 77 newsletters, 48 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2,966 |
| press releases | 225 |
| newsletters | 77 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 48 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Panetta; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Panetta does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Panetta used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 20% of the peer average. 13 statements, most often aimed at Administration; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”9
- “MAGA”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Administration1
- budget cuts1
- California1
- CMS action1
- Department of Homeland Security1
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 | 174 | 1.1% | 24.7% | 78.2% | 23.0% | 45.4% | 0.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 190 | 1.6% | 54.2% | 93.2% | 18.4% | 47.9% | 2.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 206 | 2.4% | 47.1% | 85.9% | 17.0% | 30.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 225 | 0.9% | 37.8% | 84.4% | 14.2% | 48.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 171 | 0.0% | 42.7% | 90.6% | 21.1% | 42.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 153 | 0.0% | 38.6% | 86.9% | 18.9% | 37.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 179 | 1.1% | 44.7% | 82.1% | 11.7% | 39.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 143 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 88.1% | 16.8% | 59.4% | 0.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 133 | 2.3% | 37.6% | 85.0% | 18.1% | 46.6% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 177 | 0.6% | 35.0% | 81.4% | 23.2% | 32.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 124 | 2.4% | 37.9% | 89.5% | 31.4% | 54.0% | 0.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 111 | 0.0% | 23.4% | 87.4% | 24.3% | 47.8% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 126 | 1.6% | 22.2% | 92.1% | 18.3% | 47.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 128 | 0.0% | 24.2% | 84.4% | 19.5% | 59.4% | 0.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 149 | 0.7% | 24.8% | 75.8% | 10.1% | 43.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 178 | 1.7% | 28.6% | 82.0% | 21.3% | 41.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 168 | 3.0% | 31.6% | 84.5% | 19.1% | 42.3% | 1.2% |
| Jun ’26 | 115 | 3.5% | 34.8% | 79.1% | 27.8% | 34.8% | 1.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 119 | 0.8% | 28.6% | 82.3% | 17.6% | 27.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 124 | 0.8% | 20.2% | 92.7% | 12.9% | 33.9% | 0.8% |
| Sep ’26 | 130 | 0.8% | 27.7% | 93.8% | 19.2% | 39.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 93 | 0.0% | 23.7% | 86.0% | 14.0% | 29.0% | 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 Panetta’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Rep. Panetta Continues Legal Push Challenging Administration’s Efforts to Restart Sable Offshore Pipeline Washington, D.C. – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) joined Rep. Salud Carbajal (CA-24) and 18 other members of Congress in filing an amicus brief in California v. Wright, pendi…
Sep 14, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Environmental Protection; Armed Forces and National Security; Law; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
Reps. Panetta and Huffman, Sens. Schiff and Padilla Lead California Lawmakers in Opposing Targeted Attack on California’s Ability to Protect Coastline Monterey, CA – United States Representatives Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) and Jared Huffman (CA-02) and U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-C…
Aug 25, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Environmental Protection; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Agriculture and Food; Science, Technology, Communications; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at California · 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.
Press releases
Rep. Panetta Continues Legal Push Challenging Administration’s Efforts to Restart Sable Offshore Pipeline Washington, D.C. – United States Representative Jimmy Panetta (CA-19) joined Rep. Salud Carbajal (CA-24) and 18 other members of Congress in filing an amicus brief in California v. Wright, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in support of California’s challenge to the Trump…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Environmental Protection · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource
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: Hasan PikerSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PresidentSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · bipartisanship · target: Joe BidenSource
Newsletters
Shutting Down the Slush Fund | Dear Community Member, The $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" for people who claim to be victims of federal overreach, including those who attacked police officers and the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, created during the recent settlement by the Department of Justice with President Donald Trump, is off the table, for now. After significant bipartisan Congressional pressure, fe…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Taxation · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Donald Trump
All 3,316 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 2,966 posts on X, 225 press releases, 77 newsletters, 48 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Health is what Panetta talks about most: 18% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 103rd 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 Panetta talks about. The bills Panetta sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Panetta talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Panetta
Peers
Health503 statements
18%
26%
Economics and Public Finance471 statements
17%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security440 statements
16%
16%
Government Operations and Politics414 statements
15%
20%
Agriculture and Food315 statements
11%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Panetta | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 18% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 20% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 16% | 16% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 20% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Panetta’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 18% | 26% | 12% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 20% | 1% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 16% | 16% | 9% | 7% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 20% | 6% | 11% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 9% | 8% | 4% |
0.68
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 103rd of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Panetta legislates on exactly the areas Panetta 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 Panetta sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Panetta sits at −0.69 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 84% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.70 to −0.67, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,225 donors and 5,054 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”.
−0.69
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.70 to −0.67. From 3,225 donors and 5,054 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Panetta, 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 Panetta’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 Panetta sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Panetta |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 84% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 41% |
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 Panetta 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 Panetta.
Money
Panetta raised $3.6M in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 6.5% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 53% 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.
$3.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 943 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)42 squares$1.5M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$106.7K
- PACs and other committees54 squares$1.9M
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$49.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.5M | 42.2% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $106.7K | 2.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $1.9M | 53.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $49.3K | 1.4% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $2.0M |
| 2022 cycle | $2.6M |
| 2024 cycle | $3.4M |
| 2026 cycle | $3.6M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 53% came from California.
- California$622.5K
- New York$114.4K
- Florida$84.0K
- Texas$48.5K
- District of Columbia$39.2K
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%
Panetta
Median
2026
7%
13%
2024
7%
13%
2022
12%
13%
2020
9%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Panetta | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 7% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 7% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 12% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 9% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $622.5K |
| New York | $114.4K |
| Florida | $84.0K |
| Texas | $48.5K |
| District of Columbia | $39.2K |
| Massachusetts | $38.8K |
| Virginia | $33.3K |
| Maryland | $23.6K |
| New Jersey | $20.5K |
| Illinois | $19.0K |
| Colorado | $16.5K |
| Connecticut | $15.5K |
| Arizona | $15.0K |
| Minnesota | $11.1K |
| Pennsylvania | $10.5K |
| Utah | $9,600 |
| Washington | $8,750 |
| Michigan | $7,800 |
| Indiana | $7,000 |
| Kentucky | $7,000 |
| South Carolina | $5,000 |
| Nevada | $3,500 |
| Alabama | $3,393 |
| Arkansas | $3,250 |
| Iowa | $2,000 |
| Ohio | $2,000 |
| Missouri | $2,000 |
| Louisiana | $1,400 |
| Georgia | $1,250 |
| Maine | $1,000 |
| Wisconsin | $1,000 |
| Oregon | $1,000 |
| West Virginia | $1,000 |
| Delaware | $1,000 |
| Tennessee | $1,000 |
| Mississippi | $1,000 |
| Kansas | $500 |
| Idaho | $75 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
943
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
53%
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
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.0% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 3.6% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 21% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 36% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 5.2% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 12% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 12% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 5.3% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 2.7% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 1.6% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Panetta’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Panetta’s own score is −0.69.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$320.6K 290 donors
- CEO$86.4K 60 donors
- ATTORNEY$57.4K 45 donors
- PARTNER$52.3K 26 donors
- OWNER$42.0K 28 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- ACROSS THE AISLE PAC$10.0K
- AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
- AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- HEALTHEQUITY$14.2K 3 donors
- NFP$10.8K 7 donors
- APOLLO$10.5K 3 donors
- BLOOM ENERGY$10.5K 8 donors
- APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$10.0K 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Panetta voted with the majority of House Democrats on 90.6% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Panetta voted against the majority of House Democrats 44 times.
674 roll calls Panetta 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 Panetta voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
44
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 90.6%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 198th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Panetta, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Panetta
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.9%
10th of 217
Party unity
90.6%
96.4%
198th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Panetta | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 90.6% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Panetta most often
- Chris PappasD670 shared votes96%
- Greg StantonD659 shared votes96%
- Eric SorensenD669 shared votes96%
- Darren SotoD673 shared votes96%
- Derek TranD669 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Panetta least often
- Chip RoyR635 shared votes21%
- Keith SelfR660 shared votes23%
- Ralph NormanR598 shared votes23%
- Eric BurlisonR643 shared votes23%
- Andy BiggsR609 shared votes23%
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
Panetta sponsored 55 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 648 others. 5.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 71st of 207).
The bills Panetta 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 | 55 | 55 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 648 | 648 | 38 | 6 | 6 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Panetta sponsored, ochre blocks bills Panetta cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.5%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 71st of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Panetta, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Brian Fitzpatrick75
- Eugene Vindman67
- Thomas Suozzi54
- Brad Schneider47
- Donald Davis44
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 Panetta’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.Res. 1635 | Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10828 | To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, 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.Res. 1618 | Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza. | Cosponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1611 | Expressing support for the designation of October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Energy | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.R. 10686 | Community Disaster Protection Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management | Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 41 times in 90 days. Panetta’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Panetta posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Panetta’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 Panetta posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 34
pages crawled
41changes in 90 days
- 4
pages crawled
1changes 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
- XRepJimmyPanetta
- FacebookRepJimmyPanetta
- Instagramrepjimmypanetta
- Emailca19jp.outreach@mail.house.gov
Images Panetta posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
An auditorium with rows of seats and a small audience facing a stage. Two men sit near the front, while a large blank projection screen, a table, a chair, a podium, a banner, and an American flag are on or beside the stage. A smaller screen shows two people, and there is visible text on the banner.View post 
A man holding a microphone stands near seated audience members in an auditorium, beside another seated man. A stage with a podium, projection screens, campaign banners, and an American flag is behind them. There is text on the banners and screens.View post 
Three people pose together for a photograph indoors, with an American flag behind them. No text is visible.View post 
Three people sit around a wooden conference table in an office, appearing to discuss paperwork. One person wears a face mask. There is text on papers and a drink bottle.View post 
A graphic announcing a constituent casework success, with a large refund amount circled in yellow, a phone number, and a U.S. representative’s name and district. Text is prominent on a light background.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 Panetta 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
- P000613
- Bioguide
- P000613
- FEC candidate ids
- H6CA20152
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