Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Idaho

Serving since Jan 6, 2009119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000584FEC S8ID00092

Portrait of James Risch, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans

0.2% of 1,414 statements contain a personal attack (3 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 44th of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Risch’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 6.4% of Risch’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 13%). 14% of Risch’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Idaho, in the bottom half of Senate Republicans.

The measures on which Risch sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Party unity

100%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 4th of 53 · 3 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Personal attacks

0.2%

Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 44th of 52

Bipartisanship

6.4%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 43rd of 52

From Idaho, 2026

14%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 37th of 50 Senate Republicans

Policy discussion

76%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 16th of 52

CSIP ideology

+0.98

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Risch says

Risch attacks opponents personally less than 82% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,414 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 44th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Risch’s 1,414 statements in the 119th Congress (806 posts on X, 390 Congressional Record speeches, 140 press releases, 78 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Risch
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,073 statements
76%
70%
16th of 52
Credit claiming529 statements
37%
36%
25th of 52
Policy criticism196 statements
14%
17%
36th of 52
Bipartisanship90 statements
6%
13%
43rd of 52
Personal attacks3 statements
0%
2%
44th of 52
Show the data
Risch's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowRischPeers
Policy discussion76%70%
Credit claiming37%36%
Policy criticism14%17%
Bipartisanship6%13%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,414

statements classified

806 posts on X, 390 Congressional Record speeches, 140 press releases, 78 newsletters.

posts on X: 806 (57.0%)posts on X 806Congressional Record speeches: 390 (27.6%)Congressional Record speeches 390press releases: 140 (9.9%)newsletters: 78 (5.5%)
Show the data
Risch's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X806
Congressional Record speeches390
press releases140
newsletters78
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Risch used extreme labels in 2.7% of statements, close to the peer average. 38 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”18
  2. “far left”11
  3. “woke”6
  4. “communist”3
  5. “extreme”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats7
  2. far Left2
  3. China1
  4. dam breach1
  5. DEI policies1
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: 842025-02: 812025-03: 852025-04: 812025-05: 622025-06: 682025-07: 972025-08: 362025-09: 712025-10: 682025-11: 562025-12: 882026-01: 642026-02: 632026-03: 612026-04: 602026-05: 482026-06: 812026-07: 432026-08: 352026-09: 622026-10: 20peak 97 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 1.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.2% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.2% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.5% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 88Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Policy criticismpeak 34.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 10.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 34.5% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-02: 21.0% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-03: 15.3% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.3% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-05: 8.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-06: 19.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-07: 16.5% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-08: 8.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-10: 27.9% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-11: 12.5% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-12: 1.1% of 88Policy criticism, 2026-01: 9.4% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.7% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-03: 18.0% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-04: 6.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-06: 6.2% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.7% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-08: 2.9% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-09: 6.5% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.0% of 20Policy discussionpeak 91.4% · Aug ’26 · latest 75.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 72.6% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-02: 74.1% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-03: 74.1% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.1% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-07: 69.1% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-08: 61.1% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-09: 83.1% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-10: 75.0% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.9% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-12: 86.4% of 88Policy discussion, 2026-01: 87.5% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-02: 85.7% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-03: 78.7% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-05: 83.3% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.6% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-07: 72.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-10: 75.0% of 20Bipartisanshippeak 18.0% · Mar ’26 · latest 5.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.5% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 8.6% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.2% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.9% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.4% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.0% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.6% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.2% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.4% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.4% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.8% of 88Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.7% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.0% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 14.6% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 3.7% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 4.7% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 5.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.2% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 5.0% of 20Credit claimingpeak 55.6% · Feb ’26 · latest 20.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 46.4% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-02: 49.4% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-03: 35.3% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.6% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-05: 37.1% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-06: 29.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-07: 48.4% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-08: 38.9% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.0% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-10: 38.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-11: 25.0% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-12: 30.7% of 88Credit claiming, 2026-01: 39.1% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-02: 55.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-03: 41.0% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-04: 36.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.4% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.0% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-07: 44.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-08: 40.0% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-09: 11.3% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-10: 20.0% of 20Extreme labelspeak 14.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.4% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.5% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.2% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.9% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.2% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.9% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-07: 6.2% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.8% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-10: 14.7% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.3% of 88Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.2% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.3% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Risch, 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 ’25841.2%34.5%72.6%9.5%46.4%2.4%
Feb ’25810.0%21.0%74.1%8.6%49.4%2.5%
Mar ’25851.2%15.3%74.1%8.2%35.3%1.2%
Apr ’25810.0%17.3%69.1%9.9%29.6%4.9%
May ’25620.0%8.1%67.7%0.0%37.1%3.2%
Jun ’25680.0%19.1%69.1%4.4%29.4%2.9%
Jul ’25970.0%16.5%69.1%1.0%48.4%6.2%
Aug ’25360.0%8.3%61.1%5.6%38.9%0.0%
Sep ’25710.0%15.5%83.1%4.2%38.0%2.8%
Oct ’25681.5%27.9%75.0%4.4%38.2%14.7%
Nov ’25560.0%12.5%58.9%5.4%25.0%0.0%
Dec ’25880.0%1.1%86.4%6.8%30.7%2.3%
Jan ’26640.0%9.4%87.5%4.7%39.1%0.0%
Feb ’26630.0%12.7%85.7%7.9%55.6%3.2%
Mar ’26610.0%18.0%78.7%18.0%41.0%3.3%
Apr ’26600.0%6.7%76.7%5.0%36.7%0.0%
May ’26480.0%10.4%83.3%14.6%35.4%2.1%
Jun ’26810.0%6.2%71.6%3.7%37.0%0.0%
Jul ’26430.0%4.7%72.1%4.7%44.2%0.0%
Aug ’26350.0%2.9%91.4%5.7%40.0%0.0%
Sep ’26620.0%6.5%90.3%3.2%11.3%0.0%
Oct ’26200.0%10.0%75.0%5.0%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 Risch’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Risch, Crapo, Wyden, Merkley Introduce Three-Year Reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools Program WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jim Risch, Mike Crapo (both R-Idaho), Ron Wyden, and Jeff Merkley (both D-Ore.) introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-D…

Oct 14, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Transportation and Public Works · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. President, we are here today to talk about a resolution put forth by the Democrats that is very, very not well- taken. We are all aware in this body that on September 4, President Trump notified Congress of his initial strike against narcoterrorists who were bringing deadly and illegal drugs int…

Oct 8, 2025 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Immigration · Source

Extreme label

Mr. President, today, I come to the floor, once again, after numerous--and I have lost count of how many of these the Democrats have tried--to set the legal record on the war powers straight and in plain terms. The first thing we need to do is look at what the Democrats are trying to do here. They w…

May 12, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at Shia clerics · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, we are here today to talk about a resolution put forth by the Democrats that is very, very not well- taken. We are all aware in this body that on September 4, President Trump notified Congress of his initial strike against narcoterrorists who were bringing deadly and illegal drugs into this country--the first of four such strikes. Now, my colleague just referred to the fact that the President can-- if…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · ImmigrationSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, I respect my friend, but I vehemently disagree that this resolution is going to cause Vladimir Putin to end this war. My good friend says that Vladimir Putin could end this war. He does not have the ability to end this war. This war is going to end when there is an agreement by the four entities involved: Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and our European allies. When those four reach an agreement, t…

    personal attacksSource

  3. Press releases

    WASHINGTON - US Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and Representatives Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher released the following statements regarding the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) grizzly bear announcement. “Grizzly bears are overrunning communities in Idaho, and USFWS’s announcement is yet another example that the Biden administration doesn’t care,” said Risch. “Several populations have met recovery targets,…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Environmental Protection · target: Biden administrationSource

All 1,414 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: 806 posts on X, 390 Congressional Record speeches, 140 press releases, 78 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Risch talks about most: 46% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 26th of 52).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Risch talks about. The bills Risch sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Risch talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%50%
Risch
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security491 statements
46%
25%
International Affairs265 statements
25%
11%
Government Operations and Politics190 statements
18%
19%
Commerce148 statements
14%
10%
Energy144 statements
13%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Risch talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowRischPeers
Armed Forces and National Security46%25%
International Affairs25%11%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Commerce14%10%
Energy13%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Risch’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 50%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 46% (Senate Republicans 25%)46%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (Senate Republicans 8%)5%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 25% (Senate Republicans 11%)25%International Affairs, legislates on: 17% (Senate Republicans 8%)17%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 11%)8%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 10%)14%Commerce, legislates on: 4% (Senate Republicans 3%)4%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 10%)13%Energy, legislates on: 6% (Senate Republicans 2%)6%
Show the data
Risch's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security46%25%5%8%
International Affairs25%11%17%8%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%8%11%
Commerce14%10%4%3%
Energy13%10%6%2%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 26th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Risch sits at +0.98 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 56% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.97 to +1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,676 donors and 4,832 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”.

+0.98

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.97 to +1.00. From 2,676 donors and 4,832 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Risch +1.0Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Risch, 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 Risch’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 Risch sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Risch +1.0All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Risch's CSIP score of +0.98 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Risch
Senate Republicans51+1.055%
All Senate98+0.477%
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 Risch 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 Risch.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Risch raised $3.9M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 7.8% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 14% of itemized individual money came from Idaho.

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
$3.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,109 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (56.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $186.4K (4.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $186.4K (4.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $186.4K (4.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $186.4K (4.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $186.4K (4.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.2M (29.4%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.6%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $310.8K (7.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)56 squares$2.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)5 squares$186.4K
  • PACs and other committees29 squares$1.2M
  • Party committees2 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)8 squares$310.8K
Show the data
Sources of Risch's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.2M56.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$186.4K4.7%
PACs and other committees$1.2M29.4%
Party committees$62.0K1.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$310.8K7.9%
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20202022 cycle: $441.3K$441.3K20222024 cycle: $632.2K$632.2K20242026 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Risch's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.9M
2022 cycle$441.3K
2024 cycle$632.2K
2026 cycle$3.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 14% came from Idaho.

  1. New York$326.1K
  2. Idaho$243.5K
  3. Florida$195.9K
  4. California$168.6K
  5. New Jersey$99.2K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.

0%60%
Risch
Median
2026
8%
17%
2024
14%
17%
2022
20%
17%
2020
24%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowRischMedian
2026 cycle8%17%
2024 cycle14%17%
2022 cycle20%17%
2020 cycle24%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $2,000VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $13.3KWAIdaho: $243.5KIDMontana: $1,500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $578MNIllinois: $65.2KILWisconsin: $1,247WIMichigan: $34.9KMINew York: $326.1KNYRhode Island: $1,033RIMassachusetts: $15.5KMAOregon: $8,291ORNevada: $10.0KNVWyoming: $4,000WYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $10.5KINOhio: $25.2KOHPennsylvania: $28.3KPANew Jersey: $99.2KNJConnecticut: $12.6KCTCalifornia: $168.6KCAUtah: $9,964UTColorado: $61.0KCONebraska: $25NEMissouri: $79.1KMOKentucky: $8,816KYWest Virginia: $4,000WVVirginia: $95.2KVAMaryland: $32.8KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $6,400AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $9,580KSArkansas: $10.1KARTennessee: $9,242TNNorth Carolina: $13.8KNCSouth Carolina: $1,535SCDistrict of Columbia: $72.6KDCOklahoma: $500OKLouisiana: $553LAMississippi: $200MSAlabama: $10.1KALGeorgia: $7,815GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $97.3KTXFlorida: $195.9KFL
Show the data
Risch's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$326.1K
Idaho$243.5K
Florida$195.9K
California$168.6K
New Jersey$99.2K
Texas$97.3K
Virginia$95.2K
Missouri$79.1K
District of Columbia$72.6K
Illinois$65.2K
Colorado$61.0K
Michigan$34.9K
Maryland$32.8K
Pennsylvania$28.3K
Ohio$25.2K
Massachusetts$15.5K
North Carolina$13.8K
Washington$13.3K
Connecticut$12.6K
Indiana$10.5K
Arkansas$10.1K
Alabama$10.1K
Nevada$10.0K
Utah$9,964
Kansas$9,580
Tennessee$9,242
Kentucky$8,816
Oregon$8,291
Georgia$7,815
Arizona$6,400
Wyoming$4,000
West Virginia$4,000
Vermont$2,000
South Carolina$1,535
Montana$1,500
Wisconsin$1,247
Rhode Island$1,033
Delaware$1,000
Minnesota$578
Louisiana$553
South Dakota$500
Oklahoma$500
Mississippi$200
Nebraska$25
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
New HampshireNo data
North DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
New MexicoNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,109

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

14%

from Idaho

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 5.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 9.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 8.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 13%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 10%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 42%42%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 8.2%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Risch's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.50: 5.5% between −0.50 and −0.25, 9.6% between −0.25 and 0.00, 8.3% between 0.00 and +0.25, 13% between +0.25 and +0.50, 10% between +0.50 and +0.75, 42% between +0.75 and +1.00, 8.2% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.255.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.009.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.258.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5013%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7510%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0042%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.258.2%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Risch’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Risch’s own score is +0.98.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$325.1K 225 donors
  2. CEO$165.2K 58 donors
  3. PHYSICIAN$97.3K 57 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$94.6K 33 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$92.0K 50 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. NORPAC$18.0K
  3. DAKOTA PAC$15.0K
  4. AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. ALABAMA FIRST PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BGR GROUP$15.0K 11 donors
  2. WILMERHALE$12.5K 7 donors
  3. AIFS$6,582 3 donors
  4. HARBINGER STRATEGIES$3,500 3 donors
  5. IDACORP, INC.$3,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Risch voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 2.8% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Risch voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 3 times.

915 roll calls Risch could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Risch voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

3

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 100%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 4th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Risch
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.1%
97.1%
33rd of 53
Party unity
100%
98.4%
4th of 53
Show the data
Risch's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowRischPeers
Attendance97.1%97.1%
Party unity100%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Risch most often

  1. Mike CrapoR878 shared votes100%
  2. Steve DainesR864 shared votes100%
  3. Bernie MorenoR884 shared votes100%
  4. Jim JusticeR851 shared votes100%
  5. James LankfordR883 shared votes100%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Risch least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD882 shared votes2.8%
  2. Bernie SandersI829 shared votes2.9%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD875 shared votes3.1%
  4. Christopher MurphyD866 shared votes3.7%
  5. Chris Van HollenD876 shared votes4.3%
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

Risch sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 330 others. 26% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 17th of 51).

The bills Risch 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

Sponsored61 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6161Sponsored, In committee: 6161Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored330 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 330330Cosponsored, In committee: 325325Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7676Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Risch sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6161400
Cosponsored3303257666
How to read the blocks

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

26%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 17th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Mike Crapo165
  2. Steve Daines94
  3. Cynthia Lummis75
  4. Rick Scott75
  5. Marsha Blackburn72
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 Risch’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
S. 5608Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 942A resolution recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Forensic Science Week.CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberCrime and Law EnforcementSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5271) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 29 times in 90 days. Risch’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Risch posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Risch’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 Risch 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 Risch posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of students and adults pose together outside a brick building. Some people wear matching school uniforms. There is text on a small sign and a notice near the entrance.
    A group of students and adults pose together outside a brick building. Some people wear matching school uniforms. There is text on a small sign and a notice near the entrance.View post
  • Several students in matching uniforms sit around a conference table talking with an older man. Plates of fruit and pastries, water, napkins, and other tableware are on the table. A brick wall, photographs, and an open door with a sign are in the background.
    Several students in matching uniforms sit around a conference table talking with an older man. Plates of fruit and pastries, water, napkins, and other tableware are on the table. A brick wall, photographs, and an open door with a sign are in the background.View post
  • Two older men wearing University of Idaho apparel and lanyards pose for a photo inside a crowded indoor football stadium. A football field, spectators, and a large scoreboard are visible behind them. Text appears on clothing, badges, and stadium signage.
    Two older men wearing University of Idaho apparel and lanyards pose for a photo inside a crowded indoor football stadium. A football field, spectators, and a large scoreboard are visible behind them. Text appears on clothing, badges, and stadium signage.View post
  • A campaign-style service spotlight graphic featuring a smiling woman with crossed arms, framed against a brick wall. The design has a dark blue background, yellow and white decorative banners, and a senator's campaign logo. Text appears throughout.
    A campaign-style service spotlight graphic featuring a smiling woman with crossed arms, framed against a brick wall. The design has a dark blue background, yellow and white decorative banners, and a senator's campaign logo. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A blue-toned poster showing four navy-blue and yellow fighter jets flying in formation against the sky. Large white text appears above and below the aircraft, with a boxed name and small graphic near the bottom.
    A blue-toned poster showing four navy-blue and yellow fighter jets flying in formation against the sky. Large white text appears above and below the aircraft, with a boxed name and small graphic near the bottom.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 Risch is most unusual among Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
R000584
Bioguide
R000584
FEC candidate ids
S8ID00092

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top