Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Illinois’s 5th district

Serving since Apr 7, 2009119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide Q000023FEC H0IL05096

Portrait of Mike Quigley, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
15%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top tenth of House Democrats

15% of 13 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Democrats is 4.9%. Ranks 13th of 207, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Quigley sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Democrats. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. The policy areas Quigley talks about and legislates on agree at 0.74 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of House Democrats. 2.9% of Quigley’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (median 13%).

The measures on which Quigley 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.

Out of committee

15%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 13th of 207

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.74

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 12th of 216

Small donations, 2026

2.9%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 190th of 214

Raised, 2026

$998.1K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 177th of 214

Attendance

95.8%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 173rd of 217 · 674 roll calls

CSIP ideology

−1.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Quigley says

Quigley attacks opponents personally more than 72% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 8.6% of 1,832 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 60th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Quigley’s 1,832 statements in the 119th Congress (1,574 posts on X, 103 press releases, 98 newsletters, 57 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%
Quigley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,323 statements
72%
73%
133rd of 216
Policy criticism566 statements
31%
28%
87th of 216
Credit claiming377 statements
21%
23%
121st of 216
Personal attacks158 statements
9%
7%
60th of 216
Bipartisanship148 statements
8%
10%
118th of 216
Show the data
Quigley's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowQuigleyPeers
Policy discussion72%73%
Policy criticism31%28%
Credit claiming21%23%
Personal attacks9%7%
Bipartisanship8%10%
1,832

statements classified

1,574 posts on X, 103 press releases, 98 newsletters, 57 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,574 (85.9%)posts on X 1,574press releases: 103 (5.6%)newsletters: 98 (5.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 57 (3.1%)
Show the data
Quigley's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,574
press releases103
newsletters98
Congressional Record speeches57
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Quigley used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, close to the peer average. 31 statements, most often aimed at ICE; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”10
  2. “far right”4
  3. “radical”3
  4. “MAGA”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. ICE3
  2. Trump3
  3. Republicans2
  4. Air Force1
  5. Ayatollah's son1
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: 692025-02: 452025-03: 952025-04: 832025-05: 832025-06: 842025-07: 952025-08: 902025-09: 942025-10: 1262025-11: 852025-12: 752026-01: 772026-02: 992026-03: 982026-04: 952026-05: 902026-06: 912026-07: 722026-08: 562026-09: 652026-10: 65peak 126 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 20.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 7.7%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 13.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-02: 20.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-03: 14.7% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-04: 12.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-05: 6.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-06: 9.5% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.4% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-08: 7.8% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-09: 6.4% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.2% of 126Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.7% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-12: 5.3% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-01: 18.2% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-02: 10.1% of 99Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-04: 13.7% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-05: 6.7% of 90Personal attacks, 2026-06: 8.8% of 91Personal attacks, 2026-07: 6.9% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.4% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-09: 3.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.7% of 65Policy criticismpeak 51.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 4.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 47.8% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-02: 33.3% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-03: 40.0% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.9% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-05: 19.3% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-06: 25.0% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-07: 44.2% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-08: 26.7% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-09: 22.3% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-10: 34.9% of 126Policy criticism, 2025-11: 51.8% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-01: 19.5% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-02: 36.4% of 99Policy criticism, 2026-03: 41.8% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.0% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-05: 41.1% of 90Policy criticism, 2026-06: 39.6% of 91Policy criticism, 2026-07: 36.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-08: 28.6% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.6% of 65Policy discussionpeak 89.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 75.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 85.5% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-02: 71.1% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-03: 76.8% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-04: 60.2% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.5% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-06: 75.0% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-07: 67.4% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-08: 57.8% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-09: 58.5% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-10: 63.5% of 126Policy discussion, 2025-11: 78.8% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.7% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.4% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-02: 58.6% of 99Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.5% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.0% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-05: 74.4% of 90Policy discussion, 2026-06: 74.7% of 91Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.2% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-08: 89.3% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-09: 84.6% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-10: 75.4% of 65Bipartisanshippeak 13.8% · Sep ’25 · latest 12.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 10.1% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.3% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.0% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 7.1% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.3% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.3% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 13.8% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.0% of 126Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.1% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.1% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.0% of 99Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 11.6% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 13.3% of 90Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 12.1% of 91Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 11.1% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 8.9% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.7% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.3% of 65Credit claimingpeak 30.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 20.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 30.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-02: 28.9% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-03: 13.7% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-04: 18.1% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-05: 18.1% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-06: 16.7% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-07: 9.5% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.0% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-09: 18.1% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-10: 8.7% of 126Credit claiming, 2025-11: 16.5% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-12: 20.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-01: 23.4% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-02: 14.1% of 99Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.6% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-04: 28.4% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-05: 30.0% of 90Credit claiming, 2026-06: 29.7% of 91Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.4% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-08: 21.4% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-09: 27.7% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-10: 20.0% of 65Extreme labelspeak 7.2% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 7.2% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.4% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-04: 6.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-08: 2.2% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.1% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.6% of 126Extreme labels, 2025-11: 5.9% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.3% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.0% of 99Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 90Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.1% of 91Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.4% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 65Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Quigley, 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 ’256913.0%47.8%85.5%10.1%30.4%7.2%
Feb ’254520.0%33.3%71.1%4.4%28.9%4.4%
Mar ’259514.7%40.0%76.8%6.3%13.7%2.1%
Apr ’258312.0%16.9%60.2%6.0%18.1%6.0%
May ’25836.0%19.3%67.5%8.4%18.1%1.2%
Jun ’25849.5%25.0%75.0%7.1%16.7%0.0%
Jul ’25958.4%44.2%67.4%5.3%9.5%1.1%
Aug ’25907.8%26.7%57.8%3.3%20.0%2.2%
Sep ’25946.4%22.3%58.5%13.8%18.1%1.1%
Oct ’251263.2%34.9%63.5%4.0%8.7%1.6%
Nov ’25854.7%51.8%78.8%7.1%16.5%5.9%
Dec ’25755.3%21.3%74.7%5.3%20.0%1.3%
Jan ’267718.2%19.5%84.4%9.1%23.4%0.0%
Feb ’269910.1%36.4%58.6%3.0%14.1%1.0%
Mar ’26984.1%41.8%72.5%9.2%27.6%0.0%
Apr ’269513.7%20.0%80.0%11.6%28.4%1.1%
May ’26906.7%41.1%74.4%13.3%30.0%0.0%
Jun ’26918.8%39.6%74.7%12.1%29.7%1.1%
Jul ’26726.9%36.1%79.2%11.1%26.4%1.4%
Aug ’26565.4%28.6%89.3%8.9%21.4%0.0%
Sep ’26653.1%13.9%84.6%7.7%27.7%0.0%
Oct ’26657.7%4.6%75.4%12.3%20.0%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 Quigley’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Catching Up with Quigley: Week in Review Here are three things I did to fight for democracy this week. [Representative Mike Quigley] <https://quigleyforms.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=470531-72434189> Dear Friend, Here are three things I did to fight for democracy this week. 1. Visite…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Crime and Law Enforcement; International Affairs; Immigration

Personal attacks

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

Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; target: Joe Biden · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 10, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at smithsonian leaders · 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: Joe BidenSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Todd BlancheSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Trump, NixonSource

  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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

All 1,832 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: 1,574 posts on X, 103 press releases, 98 newsletters, 57 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Quigley talks about most: 19% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.74 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 12th 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 Quigley talks about. The bills Quigley sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Quigley talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Quigley
Peers
Health256 statements
19%
26%
Armed Forces and National Security223 statements
17%
16%
Immigration220 statements
17%
11%
International Affairs200 statements
15%
8%
Government Operations and Politics192 statements
15%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Quigley talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowQuigleyPeers
Health19%26%
Armed Forces and National Security17%16%
Immigration17%11%
International Affairs15%8%
Government Operations and Politics15%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Quigley’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: 19% (House Democrats 26%)19%Health, legislates on: 15% (House Democrats 16%)15%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 16%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 7%)7%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 11%)17%Immigration, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 4%)8%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 8%)15%International Affairs, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 8%)11%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 20%)15%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%
Show the data
Quigley's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health19%26%15%16%
Armed Forces and National Security17%16%7%7%
Immigration17%11%8%4%
International Affairs15%8%11%8%
Government Operations and Politics15%20%9%11%
0.74

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 12th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Quigley sits at −1.03 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 54% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.05 to −1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,239 donors and 7,366 roll calls.

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

−1.03

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.05 to −1.01. From 1,239 donors and 7,366 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Quigley, 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 Quigley’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 Quigley sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Quigley −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Quigley's CSIP score of −1.03 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Quigley
House Democrats217−1.046%
All House439+0.323%
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 Quigley 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 Quigley.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Quigley raised $998.1K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 2.9% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 72% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.

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
$998.1K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 168 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): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $258.8K (25.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $7,823 (0.8%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)PACs and other committees: $582.8K (58.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $148.7K (14.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)26 squares$258.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$7,823
  • PACs and other committees58 squares$582.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)15 squares$148.7K
Show the data
Sources of Quigley's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$258.8K25.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$7,8230.8%
PACs and other committees$582.8K58.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$148.7K14.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20242026 cycle: $998.1K$998.1K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Quigley's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.2M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$1.1M
2026 cycle$998.1K

Top donor states, 2026

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

  1. Illinois$167.8K
  2. District of Columbia$25.3K
  3. Texas$7,500
  4. Maryland$7,000
  5. Virginia$6,000

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%
Quigley
Median
2026
3%
13%
2024
4%
13%
2022
3%
13%
2020
5%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowQuigleyMedian
2026 cycle3%13%
2024 cycle4%13%
2022 cycle3%13%
2020 cycle5%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $250MNIllinois: $167.8KILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $300MINew York: $3,500NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $500NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,000INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $250PANew Jersey: $1,000NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $1,750CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $6,000VAMaryland: $7,000MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $3,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $25.3KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $7,500TXFlorida: $5,900FL
Show the data
Quigley's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Illinois$167.8K
District of Columbia$25.3K
Texas$7,500
Maryland$7,000
Virginia$6,000
Florida$5,900
New York$3,500
Arizona$3,500
California$1,750
Indiana$1,000
New Jersey$1,000
Louisiana$1,000
Nevada$500
Michigan$300
Minnesota$250
Pennsylvania$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
OhioNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
168

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

72%

from Illinois

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 Illinois. 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: 1.2%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 49%49%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 26%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 3.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 7.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 1.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Quigley's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 49% between −1.25 and −1.00, 26% between −1.00 and −0.75, 7.6% between −0.25 and 0.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.251.2%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0049%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7526%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.503.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.007.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.001.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Quigley’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Quigley’s own score is −1.03.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$31.5K 25 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$24.2K 17 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$17.5K 16 donors
  4. CHAIRMAN$12.8K 3 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$11.5K 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
  3. EMPLOYEES OF NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION PAC$10.0K
  4. HERZOG PAC$10.0K
  5. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. INVARIANT$3,500 3 donors
  2. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$2,000 3 donors
  3. HOGAN LOVELLS$1,750 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Quigley voted with the majority of House Democrats on 97.3% of party-line votes and missed 4.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Quigley voted against the majority of House Democrats 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 97.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 135th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Quigley
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.8%
96.9%
173rd of 217
Party unity
97.3%
96.4%
135th of 217
Show the data
Quigley's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowQuigleyPeers
Attendance95.8%96.9%
Party unity97.3%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Quigley most often

  1. Kelly MorrisonD643 shared votes98%
  2. Bill FosterD641 shared votes98%
  3. Salud CarbajalD640 shared votes98%
  4. Gabe AmoD645 shared votes98%
  5. Madeleine DeanD637 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Quigley least often

  1. Chip RoyR607 shared votes16%
  2. Eric BurlisonR616 shared votes18%
  3. Andy BiggsR583 shared votes18%
  4. Ralph NormanR579 shared votes19%
  5. Josh BrecheenR615 shared votes19%
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

Quigley sponsored 13 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 551 others. 15% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 13th of 207).

The bills Quigley 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

Sponsored13 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1313Sponsored, In committee: 1313Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored551 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 551551Cosponsored, In committee: 551551Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1515Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Quigley sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1313110
Cosponsored5515511511
How to read the blocks

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

15%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 13th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton80
  2. Rashida Tlaib42
  3. Steve Cohen35
  4. Jan Schakowsky35
  5. Raja Krishnamoorthi33
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 Quigley’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. 10772Frontline Innovation ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 9, 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.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10686Community Disaster Protection ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10698ICE Shootings Transparency ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 47 times in 90 days. Quigley’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Quigley posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Quigley’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 Quigley 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 Quigley posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A red promotional graphic for the Congressional App Challenge, with blue fireworks and large white lettering announcing a submission deadline. Smaller text appears along the bottom.
    A red promotional graphic for the Congressional App Challenge, with blue fireworks and large white lettering announcing a submission deadline. Smaller text appears along the bottom.View post
  • A group of five adults pose together for a photo in a bright indoor gallery or public space. Artwork and display areas, windows, ceiling lights, and a cane are visible. There is some text in the background.
    A group of five adults pose together for a photo in a bright indoor gallery or public space. Artwork and display areas, windows, ceiling lights, and a cane are visible. There is some text in the background.View post
  • A person stands with their back to the camera, looking at a large wall display of colorful posters in a gallery or museum. Large lettering appears beneath the posters, and a small information placard is mounted on the wall nearby.
    A person stands with their back to the camera, looking at a large wall display of colorful posters in a gallery or museum. Large lettering appears beneath the posters, and a small information placard is mounted on the wall nearby.View post
  • A group of people pose for a photo outdoors at a sunny gathering. A tall man wears a bright yellow crown, sunglasses, colorful bead necklaces, and a fur coat. Other adults and a young child stand beside him, with people, vehicles, and basketball hoops in the background. Some text is visible on the crown and clothing.
    A group of people pose for a photo outdoors at a sunny gathering. A tall man wears a bright yellow crown, sunglasses, colorful bead necklaces, and a fur coat. Other adults and a young child stand beside him, with people, vehicles, and basketball hoops in the background. Some text is visible on the crown and clothing.View post
  • A group of people pose at an outdoor autumn gathering. Two adults wear red-and-white striped aprons and paper hats; one holds a baby wrapped in a colorful blanket. Another man crouches beside a small brown dog. Hay bales, decorations, trees, and people are visible in the background. Some clothing and objects have text.
    A group of people pose at an outdoor autumn gathering. Two adults wear red-and-white striped aprons and paper hats; one holds a baby wrapped in a colorful blanket. Another man crouches beside a small brown dog. Hay bales, decorations, trees, and people are visible in the background. Some clothing and objects have 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 Quigley 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
Q000023
Bioguide
Q000023
FEC candidate ids
H0IL05096

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