Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Colorado’s 7th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide P000620FEC H8CO07045

Portrait of Brittany Pettersen, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
15%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

Attendance 85%; the average among House Democrats is 96.9%. Ranks 215th of 217, where 1st has the highest attendance. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance is the share of the roll calls Pettersen could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among House Democrats. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 11% of Pettersen’s statements contain a personal attack, 1.7 times the House Democrat average of 6.6%. 24% of Pettersen’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Democrats (median 13%).

The measures on which Pettersen 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.

Attendance

85%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 215th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Personal attacks

11%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 39th of 216

Small donations, 2026

24%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 42nd of 214

Bipartisanship

11%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 64th of 216

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.66

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 151st of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.90

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 Pettersen, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Pettersen is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Pettersen says

Pettersen attacks opponents personally more than 81% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 11% of 1,932 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 39th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Pettersen’s 1,932 statements in the 119th Congress (1,329 posts on X, 321 Congressional Record speeches, 147 press releases, 135 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Pettersen
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,428 statements
74%
73%
109th of 216
Policy criticism521 statements
27%
28%
131st of 216
Credit claiming483 statements
25%
23%
74th of 216
Bipartisanship215 statements
11%
10%
64th of 216
Personal attacks214 statements
11%
7%
39th of 216
Show the data
Pettersen's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowPettersenPeers
Policy discussion74%73%
Policy criticism27%28%
Credit claiming25%23%
Bipartisanship11%10%
Personal attacks11%7%
1,932

statements classified

1,329 posts on X, 321 Congressional Record speeches, 147 press releases, 135 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,329 (68.8%)posts on X 1,329Congressional Record speeches: 321 (16.6%)press releases: 147 (7.6%)newsletters: 135 (7.0%)
Show the data
Pettersen's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,329
Congressional Record speeches321
press releases147
newsletters135
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Pettersen used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 37 statements, most often aimed at administration; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”12
  2. “MAGA”6
  3. “radical”6
  4. “fascist”5
  5. “far right”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. administration4
  2. Republicans4
  3. Supreme Court3
  4. Donald Trump2
  5. ICE2
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: 722025-02: 772025-03: 792025-04: 1292025-05: 822025-06: 812025-07: 682025-08: 902025-09: 1062025-10: 852025-11: 452025-12: 802026-01: 962026-02: 812026-03: 892026-04: 1122026-05: 812026-06: 972026-07: 912026-08: 722026-09: 1502026-10: 69peak 150 · Sep ’26Personal attackspeak 27.1% · Jan ’26 · latest 8.7%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-02: 5.2% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.3% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.1% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.4% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.5% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-07: 16.2% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-08: 11.1% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-09: 8.5% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-10: 9.4% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-11: 15.6% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-12: 16.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-01: 27.1% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-02: 23.5% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-03: 21.3% of 89Personal attacks, 2026-04: 19.6% of 112Personal attacks, 2026-05: 12.3% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-06: 12.4% of 97Personal attacks, 2026-07: 12.1% of 91Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.7% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-09: 4.7% of 150Personal attacks, 2026-10: 8.7% of 69Policy criticismpeak 42.7% · Mar ’26 · latest 15.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 22.2% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-02: 23.4% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-03: 31.6% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-04: 24.0% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-05: 23.2% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-06: 22.2% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-07: 38.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-08: 38.9% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-09: 33.0% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-10: 37.6% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-11: 40.0% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-12: 18.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.3% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-02: 39.5% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-03: 42.7% of 89Policy criticism, 2026-04: 19.6% of 112Policy criticism, 2026-05: 38.3% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-06: 40.2% of 97Policy criticism, 2026-07: 28.6% of 91Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.3% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.7% of 150Policy criticism, 2026-10: 15.9% of 69Policy discussionpeak 93.8% · Apr ’26 · latest 88.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 61.1% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-02: 67.5% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-03: 70.9% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-04: 40.3% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-05: 46.3% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-06: 58.0% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-07: 85.3% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-08: 81.1% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.1% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-10: 74.1% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-11: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.5% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-01: 86.5% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-02: 80.3% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-03: 73.0% of 89Policy discussion, 2026-04: 93.8% of 112Policy discussion, 2026-05: 80.3% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-06: 77.3% of 97Policy discussion, 2026-07: 90.1% of 91Policy discussion, 2026-08: 87.5% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.7% of 150Policy discussion, 2026-10: 88.4% of 69Bipartisanshippeak 33.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 10.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 33.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 11.7% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.7% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 13.2% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.2% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.9% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.9% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 17.0% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 7.1% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.3% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.0% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 11.5% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 14.8% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.9% of 89Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.4% of 112Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.1% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 15.5% of 97Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.1% of 91Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 9.7% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 9.3% of 150Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.1% of 69Credit claimingpeak 50.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 27.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 50.0% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-02: 37.7% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-03: 27.9% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-04: 13.2% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-05: 9.8% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-06: 14.8% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-07: 30.9% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-08: 31.1% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-09: 27.4% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-10: 18.8% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-11: 22.2% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.3% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-01: 24.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.9% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.1% of 89Credit claiming, 2026-04: 25.0% of 112Credit claiming, 2026-05: 27.2% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-06: 28.9% of 97Credit claiming, 2026-07: 31.9% of 91Credit claiming, 2026-08: 18.1% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-09: 14.7% of 150Credit claiming, 2026-10: 27.5% of 69Extreme labelspeak 11.1% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.3% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.9% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.1% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.9% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.5% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-11: 11.1% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-01: 5.2% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.4% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.1% of 89Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 112Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.7% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 91Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.3% of 150Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 69Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Pettersen, 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 ’25720.0%22.2%61.1%33.3%50.0%0.0%
Feb ’25775.2%23.4%67.5%11.7%37.7%1.3%
Mar ’25796.3%31.6%70.9%12.7%27.9%1.3%
Apr ’251293.1%24.0%40.3%13.2%13.2%0.0%
May ’25822.4%23.2%46.3%1.2%9.8%0.0%
Jun ’25812.5%22.2%58.0%4.9%14.8%1.2%
Jul ’256816.2%38.2%85.3%7.3%30.9%2.9%
Aug ’259011.1%38.9%81.1%8.9%31.1%1.1%
Sep ’251068.5%33.0%65.1%17.0%27.4%0.9%
Oct ’25859.4%37.6%74.1%7.1%18.8%3.5%
Nov ’254515.6%40.0%77.8%13.3%22.2%11.1%
Dec ’258016.3%18.8%77.5%10.0%26.3%1.3%
Jan ’269627.1%7.3%86.5%11.5%24.0%5.2%
Feb ’268123.5%39.5%80.3%14.8%30.9%7.4%
Mar ’268921.3%42.7%73.0%7.9%28.1%1.1%
Apr ’2611219.6%19.6%93.8%5.4%25.0%0.0%
May ’268112.3%38.3%80.3%11.1%27.2%3.7%
Jun ’269712.4%40.2%77.3%15.5%28.9%4.1%
Jul ’269112.1%28.6%90.1%12.1%31.9%0.0%
Aug ’26729.7%15.3%87.5%9.7%18.1%0.0%
Sep ’261504.7%10.7%76.7%9.3%14.7%1.3%
Oct ’26698.7%15.9%88.4%10.1%27.5%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 Pettersen’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Congresswoman Pettersen Convenes Immigration Roundtable on ICE Oversight and Priorities for Next Congress, Unveils Bills Restricting ICE Access to Disaster Survivors’ Personal Data Congresswoman Pettersen at today’s immigration roundtable with representatives from Casa de Paz, Hispanic Contractors…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Immigration; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; Families · Source

Personal attacks

Fighting Back Series–Locking Arms with Coloradans News and Updates From Rep. Brittany Pettersen Enews Sign Up<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8458-1866275> | Visit My Website<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8459-1866275> | View Online<https://pett…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education; Immigration; Law; Emergency Management; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; Water Resources Development; target: Donald Trump

Extreme label

Fighting Back Series– Public lands, data centers, and more News and Updates From Rep. Brittany Pettersen Enews Sign Up<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8066-1866275> | Visit My Website<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8067-1866275> | View Online<htt…

Sep 4, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Environmental Protection; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Energy; Water Resources Development; Health; Immigration; Law; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Transportation and Public Works; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “MAGA, radical” aimed at Supreme Court; target: Trump

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. Newsletters

    Fighting Back Series–Locking Arms with Coloradans News and Updates From Rep. Brittany Pettersen Enews Sign Up<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8458-1866275> | Visit My Website<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8459-1866275> | View Online<https://pettersen.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=JB2PRUETFCSAI> [Rep. Brittany Pettersen]<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Commerce · Crime and Law Enforcement · Education · Immigration · Law · Emergency Management · Families · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Health · Water Resources Development · target: Donald Trump

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump, Kash PatelSource

  3. Newsletters

    Fighting Back Series–Higher Costs, Higher Stakes News and Updates From Rep. Brittany Pettersen Enews Sign Up<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8347-1866275> | Visit My Website<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8348-1866275> | View Online<https://pettersen.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=XAJKN5CKY3G26> [Rep. Brittany Pettersen]<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/r…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · Law · target: Kimberly Guilfoyle

  4. Newsletters

    Fighting Back Series–We Will Not Be Intimidated News and Updates From Rep. Brittany Pettersen Enews Sign Up<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8313-1866275> | Visit My Website<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=8314-1866275> | View Online<https://pettersen.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=GWTDWC4C6NF24> [Rep. Brittany Pettersen]<https://pettersen.house.gov/components/re…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · Law · Public Lands and Natural Resources · target: Donald Trump

  5. Posts on X

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

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

All 1,932 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: 1,329 posts on X, 321 Congressional Record speeches, 147 press releases, 135 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Pettersen talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 151st 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 Pettersen talks about. The bills Pettersen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Pettersen talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Pettersen
Peers
Health432 statements
30%
26%
Government Operations and Politics315 statements
22%
20%
Economics and Public Finance294 statements
21%
20%
Immigration202 statements
14%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security197 statements
14%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Pettersen talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowPettersenPeers
Health30%26%
Government Operations and Politics22%20%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%
Immigration14%11%
Armed Forces and National Security14%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Pettersen’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.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 30% (House Democrats 26%)30%Health, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 16%)17%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 20%)22%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 11%)14%Immigration, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 4%)3%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 7%)6%
Show the data
Pettersen's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health30%26%17%16%
Government Operations and Politics22%20%10%11%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%0%1%
Immigration14%11%3%4%
Armed Forces and National Security14%16%6%7%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 151st of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Pettersen sits at −0.90 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 61% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.92 to −0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,782 donors and 2,327 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”.

−0.90

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.92 to −0.87. From 2,782 donors and 2,327 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Pettersen −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Pettersen, 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 Pettersen’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 Pettersen sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Pettersen −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Pettersen's CSIP score of −0.90 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Pettersen
House Democrats217−1.061%
All House439+0.330%
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 Pettersen 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 Pettersen.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Pettersen raised $2.3M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 24% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 50% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.

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
$2.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 733 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): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $786.4K (34.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $250.3K (11.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (52.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $33.3K (1.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)35 squares$786.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$250.3K
  • PACs and other committees53 squares$1.2M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$33.3K
Show the data
Sources of Pettersen's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$786.4K34.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$250.3K11.1%
PACs and other committees$1.2M52.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$33.3K1.5%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20222024 cycle: $2.5M$2.5M20242026 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Pettersen's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$2.9M
2024 cycle$2.5M
2026 cycle$2.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from Colorado.

  1. Colorado$321.4K
  2. New York$82.8K
  3. California$50.1K
  4. District of Columbia$29.5K
  5. Florida$29.1K

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%
Pettersen
Median
2026
24%
13%
2024
17%
13%
2022
16%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowPettersenMedian
2026 cycle24%13%
2024 cycle17%13%
2022 cycle16%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: $8,000WAIdaho: $5,000IDMontana: $500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $550MNIllinois: $6,424ILWisconsin: $500WIMichigan: $4,500MINew York: $82.8KNYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $1,615MAOregon: $2,000ORNevada: $500NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $1,000SDIowa: $2,000IAIndiana: $2,500INOhio: $3,250OHPennsylvania: $2,195PANew Jersey: $5,000NJConnecticut: $3,400CTCalifornia: $50.1KCAUtah: $2,500UTColorado: $321.4KCONebraska: $500NEMissouri: $2,000MOKentucky: $500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $8,331VAMaryland: $20.7KMDDelaware: $500DEArizona: $5,500AZNew Mexico: $1,050NMKansas: $2,500KSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: $2,500TNNorth Carolina: $2,000NCSouth Carolina: $3,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $29.5KDCOklahoma: $500OKLouisiana: $1,500LAMississippi: $1,000MSAlabama: $1,000ALGeorgia: $4,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $16.4KTXFlorida: $29.1KFL
Show the data
Pettersen's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Colorado$321.4K
New York$82.8K
California$50.1K
District of Columbia$29.5K
Florida$29.1K
Maryland$20.7K
Texas$16.4K
Virginia$8,331
Washington$8,000
Illinois$6,424
Arizona$5,500
Idaho$5,000
New Jersey$5,000
Michigan$4,500
Georgia$4,500
Connecticut$3,400
Ohio$3,250
South Carolina$3,000
Indiana$2,500
Utah$2,500
Kansas$2,500
Tennessee$2,500
Pennsylvania$2,195
Oregon$2,000
Iowa$2,000
Missouri$2,000
North Carolina$2,000
Massachusetts$1,615
Louisiana$1,500
New Mexico$1,050
Vermont$1,000
New Hampshire$1,000
Rhode Island$1,000
South Dakota$1,000
Mississippi$1,000
Alabama$1,000
Minnesota$550
Montana$500
Wisconsin$500
Nevada$500
Nebraska$500
Kentucky$500
Delaware$500
Arkansas$500
Oklahoma$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
North DakotaNo data
WyomingNo data
West VirginiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
733

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

50%

from Colorado

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.1%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 15%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 57%57%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 5.8%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 8.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.6%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Pettersen's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 15% between −1.25 and −1.00, 57% between −1.00 and −0.75, 5.8% between −0.75 and −0.50, 6.5% between −0.50 and −0.25, 8.6% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.1%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0015%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7557%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.505.8%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.008.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.6%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Pettersen’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Pettersen’s own score is −0.90.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$156.2K 259 donors
  2. REAL ESTATE BROKER$48.5K 90 donors
  3. RETIRED$46.3K 44 donors
  4. CEO$29.4K 23 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$24.9K 26 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. BALL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. BLACKROCK FUNDS SERVICES GROUP LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BLACKROCK PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$10.0K 4 donors
  2. APOLLO$6,500 3 donors
  3. THEGROUP$4,750 3 donors
  4. GOWEST CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION$4,000 3 donors
  5. DENVER HEALTH$1,785 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Pettersen voted with the majority of House Democrats on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 15% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Pettersen voted against the majority of House Democrats 19 times.

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

19

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 97.8%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 123rd of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Pettersen
Peers
Rank
Attendance
85%
96.9%
215th of 217
Party unity
97.8%
96.4%
123rd of 217
Show the data
Pettersen's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowPettersenPeers
Attendance85%96.9%
Party unity97.8%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 Pettersen most often

  1. Christian MenefeeD248 shared votes98%
  2. Ro KhannaD564 shared votes98%
  3. Analilia MejiaD185 shared votes98%
  4. Joe NeguseD570 shared votes98%
  5. Jasmine CrockettD538 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Pettersen least often

  1. Chip RoyR535 shared votes14%
  2. Eric BurlisonR542 shared votes15%
  3. Ralph NormanR506 shared votes16%
  4. Josh BrecheenR540 shared votes16%
  5. Andy BiggsR509 shared votes16%
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

Pettersen sponsored 48 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 445 others. 2.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 125th of 207).

The bills Pettersen 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

Sponsored48 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4848Sponsored, In committee: 4848Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored445 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 445445Cosponsored, In committee: 445445Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2929Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Pettersen sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4848100
Cosponsored4454452966
How to read the blocks

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

2.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 125th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Joe Neguse48
  2. Eleanor Norton31
  3. Brian Fitzpatrick29
  4. Michael Lawler23
  5. Jason Crow22
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 Pettersen’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. 10893Emergency Assistance Privacy Protection Act of 2026SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10894Disaster Data Protection ActSponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026
H.Res. 1610Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' 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. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 53 times in 90 days. Pettersen’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Pettersen posted on Oct 25, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Pettersen posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A woman speaks at a lectern in front of a large blue anniversary display. The scene appears to be an indoor event, with stage lighting and brick walls. There is text on the display.
    A woman speaks at a lectern in front of a large blue anniversary display. The scene appears to be an indoor event, with stage lighting and brick walls. There is text on the display.View post
  • Three people pose together indoors: two women standing and a young boy beside them. One woman holds a sheet of paper. A promotional banner, brick wall, and table are visible in the background. The image contains text.
    Three people pose together indoors: two women standing and a young boy beside them. One woman holds a sheet of paper. A promotional banner, brick wall, and table are visible in the background. The image contains text.View post
  • A group of seven adults pose together for a photo in a meeting room. Several people wear name badges, and other attendees and tables are visible in the background. There is some text in the scene.
    A group of seven adults pose together for a photo in a meeting room. Several people wear name badges, and other attendees and tables are visible in the background. There is some text in the scene.View post
  • A group of eight adults pose for a photograph in a room with a blue wall, two flags, and an official-looking seal. There is text on the seal and flags.
    A group of eight adults pose for a photograph in a room with a blue wall, two flags, and an official-looking seal. There is text on the seal and flags.View post
  • A group of seven adults pose for a photo in a modern indoor lobby. Several wear business attire and visitor or staff lanyards. Decorative bird sculptures are mounted on a wood-paneled wall behind them. There is no visible text.
    A group of seven adults pose for a photo in a modern indoor lobby. Several wear business attire and visitor or staff lanyards. Decorative bird sculptures are mounted on a wood-paneled wall behind them. There is no visible 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 Pettersen 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
P000620
Bioguide
P000620
FEC candidate ids
H8CO07045

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