Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 5th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000609FEC H6FL04105

Portrait of John Rutherford, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.4%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

0.4% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 214th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $901.8K raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 0% of the 9 bills Rutherford sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans. Rutherford missed 9.4% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 96.3%).

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

Small donations, 2026

0.4%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 214th of 220

Out of committee

0%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 211th of 216

Attendance

90.6%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 201st of 221 · 674 roll calls

Raised, 2026

$901.8K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 187th of 220

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.60

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 177th of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.90

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Rutherford says

Rutherford stresses bipartisanship more than 73% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 13% of 486 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 59th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Rutherford’s 486 statements in the 119th Congress (340 posts on X, 75 newsletters, 36 Congressional Record speeches, 35 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Rutherford
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion330 statements
68%
68%
120th of 221
Credit claiming193 statements
40%
37%
94th of 221
Policy criticism64 statements
13%
15%
129th of 221
Bipartisanship61 statements
13%
9%
59th of 221
Personal attacks8 statements
2%
2%
84th of 221
Show the data
Rutherford's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowRutherfordPeers
Policy discussion68%68%
Credit claiming40%37%
Policy criticism13%15%
Bipartisanship13%9%
Personal attacks2%2%
486

statements classified

340 posts on X, 75 newsletters, 36 Congressional Record speeches, 35 press releases.

posts on X: 340 (70.0%)posts on X 340newsletters: 75 (15.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 36 (7.4%)press releases: 35 (7.2%)
Show the data
Rutherford's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X340
newsletters75
Congressional Record speeches36
press releases35
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Rutherford used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, below the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at military policies; peers 3.0%.

  1. “woke”3
  2. “communist”2
  3. “extreme”1
  4. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. military policies2
  2. Donald Trump1
  3. programming1
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: 372025-02: 212025-03: 282025-04: 272025-05: 332025-06: 322025-07: 212025-08: 172025-09: 282025-10: 222025-11: 222025-12: 192026-01: 272026-02: 212026-03: 202026-04: 102026-05: 312026-06: 232026-07: 142026-08: 42026-09: 172026-10: 12peak 37 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 14.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.7% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-03: 14.3% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.5% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2025-12: 10.5% of 19Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 12Policy criticismpeak 29.7% · Jan ’25 · latest 8.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 29.7% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-02: 19.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-03: 21.4% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-04: 14.8% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-05: 3.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-06: 21.9% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-07: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-08: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-09: 3.6% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-10: 27.3% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-11: 22.7% of 22Policy criticism, 2025-12: 0.0% of 19Policy criticism, 2026-01: 3.7% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-02: 9.5% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-03: 5.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2026-05: 9.7% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-06: 17.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-07: 0.0% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.3% of 12Policy discussionpeak 81.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 75.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 78.4% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-02: 76.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-03: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-04: 55.6% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-05: 63.6% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-06: 78.1% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.2% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-08: 58.8% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-09: 50.0% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-10: 77.3% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.7% of 22Policy discussion, 2025-12: 31.6% of 19Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.5% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-02: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-03: 65.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2026-04: 70.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.0% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-06: 47.8% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-07: 78.6% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.5% of 17Policy discussion, 2026-10: 75.0% of 12Bipartisanshippeak 31.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 28.6% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 22.2% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 9.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.1% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 18.2% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 31.8% of 22Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.3% of 19Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.5% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 10.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 30.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 25.8% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 4.3% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.1% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 12Credit claimingpeak 71.4% · Jul ’25 · latest 8.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 54.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-02: 61.9% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-03: 50.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-04: 48.1% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-05: 24.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-07: 71.4% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.5% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-09: 32.1% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-10: 45.5% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-11: 63.6% of 22Credit claiming, 2025-12: 26.3% of 19Credit claiming, 2026-01: 33.3% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-02: 47.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-03: 35.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2026-04: 30.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2026-05: 38.7% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-06: 34.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-07: 57.1% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 5.9% of 17Credit claiming, 2026-10: 8.3% of 12Extreme labelspeak 9.4% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.8% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-03: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-06: 9.4% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 19Extreme labels, 2026-01: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 12Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Rutherford, 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 ’25372.7%29.7%78.4%18.9%54.0%2.7%
Feb ’25210.0%19.1%76.2%28.6%61.9%4.8%
Mar ’252814.3%21.4%71.4%21.4%50.0%7.1%
Apr ’25270.0%14.8%55.6%22.2%48.1%0.0%
May ’25330.0%3.0%63.6%9.1%24.2%0.0%
Jun ’25320.0%21.9%78.1%3.1%28.1%9.4%
Jul ’25210.0%23.8%76.2%0.0%71.4%0.0%
Aug ’25170.0%5.9%58.8%0.0%23.5%0.0%
Sep ’25280.0%3.6%50.0%7.1%32.1%0.0%
Oct ’25224.5%27.3%77.3%18.2%45.5%0.0%
Nov ’25220.0%22.7%72.7%31.8%63.6%0.0%
Dec ’251910.5%0.0%31.6%5.3%26.3%0.0%
Jan ’26270.0%3.7%81.5%3.7%33.3%3.7%
Feb ’26210.0%9.5%66.7%9.5%47.6%0.0%
Mar ’26200.0%5.0%65.0%10.0%35.0%0.0%
Apr ’26100.0%0.0%70.0%30.0%30.0%0.0%
May ’26310.0%9.7%71.0%25.8%38.7%0.0%
Jun ’26230.0%17.4%47.8%4.3%34.8%4.3%
Jul ’26140.0%0.0%78.6%7.1%57.1%0.0%
Aug ’264— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26170.0%5.9%76.5%0.0%5.9%0.0%
Oct ’26120.0%8.3%75.0%0.0%8.3%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%. One month is hatched here.

In Rutherford’s words

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

Personal attacks

Rutherford Roundup for December 12 | Friday, December 12, 2025 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with…

Dec 12, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Education; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development; target: Democrat lawmakers

Bipartisanship

Rutherford Introduces U.S. Secret Service Police Act Honoring Fallen Officer Coffelt WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Monday, U.S. Congressmen John H. Rutherford (FL-05), Jared Moskowitz (FL-23), Michael Guest (MS-03), and Ed Case (HI-01) introduced the bipartisan Officer Leslie Coffelt U.S. Secret Service Pol…

Jul 2, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Extreme label

Rutherford Roundup for June 12 | Friday, June 12, 2026 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with you abo…

Jun 12, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration; Education; Crime and Law Enforcement; Armed Forces and National Security; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Newsletters

    Rutherford Roundup for December 12 | Friday, December 12, 2025 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with you about the important issues we cover daily. Ensuring a Ready and Lethal Fighting Force As our country faces growing…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Education · Environmental Protection · Water Resources Development · target: Democrat lawmakers

  2. Newsletters

    Rutherford Roundup for December 5 | Friday, December 5, 2025 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with you about the important issues we cover daily. Cutting Expensive Red TapeAffordability is a top issue for folks across th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Commerce · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Alejandro Mayorkas

  3. Newsletters

    Rutherford Roundup for October 10 | Friday, October 10, 2025 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with you about the important issues we cover daily. Senator Schumer's ShutdownToday marks the TENTH day of Senator Schumer's S…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · target: Chuck Schumer

  4. Newsletters

    Rutherford Roundup for March 14 2024-0e202 Friday, March 14, 2025 Welcome to another edition of the Rutherford Roundup with updates about our work across Northeast Florida and in the US House of Representatives. It is my honor to serve you, and my office is always available to share information with you about the important issues we cover daily. Passing the Full-Year Continuing Resolution This week, in a political s…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: House DemocratsSource

All 486 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: 340 posts on X, 75 newsletters, 36 Congressional Record speeches, 35 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Rutherford talks about most: 40% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 177th of 221).

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

What Rutherford talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%44%
Rutherford
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security132 statements
40%
24%
Crime and Law Enforcement85 statements
26%
12%
Economics and Public Finance64 statements
19%
19%
Government Operations and Politics53 statements
16%
19%
Health47 statements
14%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Rutherford talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowRutherfordPeers
Armed Forces and National Security40%24%
Crime and Law Enforcement26%12%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
Health14%15%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 40% (House Republicans 24%)40%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 12%)26%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 19% (House Republicans 9%)19%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 12%)7%HealthHealth, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 15%)14%Health, legislates on: 19% (House Republicans 11%)19%
Show the data
Rutherford's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security40%24%7%8%
Crime and Law Enforcement26%12%19%9%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%7%12%
Health14%15%19%11%
0.60

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 177th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Rutherford sits at +0.90 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 65% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.89 to +0.92, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,042 donors and 4,827 roll calls.

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

+0.90

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.89 to +0.92. From 1,042 donors and 4,827 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Rutherford +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Rutherford, 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 Rutherford’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 Rutherford sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Rutherford +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Rutherford's CSIP score of +0.90 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Rutherford
House Republicans221+1.035%
All House439+0.367%
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 Rutherford 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 Rutherford.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Rutherford raised $901.8K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 44% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$901.8K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 146 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $329.8K (36.6%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)PACs and other committees: $569.5K (63.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)37 squares$329.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,184
  • PACs and other committees63 squares$569.5K
Show the data
Sources of Rutherford's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$329.8K36.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,1840.1%
PACs and other committees$569.5K63.2%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $955.5K$955.5K20202022 cycle: $738.0K$738.0K20222024 cycle: $831.2K$831.2K20242026 cycle: $901.8K$901.8K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Rutherford's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$955.5K
2022 cycle$738.0K
2024 cycle$831.2K
2026 cycle$901.8K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 44% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$116.3K
  2. Virginia$53.5K
  3. District of Columbia$24.0K
  4. California$22.3K
  5. Maryland$13.5K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Rutherford
Median
2026
0%
9%
2024
1%
9%
2022
1%
9%
2020
4%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowRutherfordMedian
2026 cycle0%9%
2024 cycle1%9%
2022 cycle1%9%
2020 cycle4%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $500NYRhode Island: $500RIMassachusetts: $500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $1,000OHPennsylvania: $1,000PANew Jersey: $12.9KNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $22.3KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $53.5KVAMaryland: $13.5KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $7,000NCSouth Carolina: $2,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $24.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $4,000ALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $5,000TXFlorida: $116.3KFL
Show the data
Rutherford's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$116.3K
Virginia$53.5K
District of Columbia$24.0K
California$22.3K
Maryland$13.5K
New Jersey$12.9K
North Carolina$7,000
Texas$5,000
Alabama$4,000
South Carolina$2,000
New Hampshire$1,000
Ohio$1,000
Pennsylvania$1,000
New York$500
Rhode Island$500
Massachusetts$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
146

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

44%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 2.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 7.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 7.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 15%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 58%58%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 5.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Rutherford's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 7.1% between 0.00 and +0.25, 7.7% between +0.25 and +0.50, 15% between +0.50 and +0.75, 58% between +0.75 and +1.00, 5.2% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.752.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.257.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.507.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7515%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0058%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.255.2%
How to read the columns

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONSULTANT$41.6K 22 donors
  2. CEO$37.6K 12 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$22.4K 10 donors
  4. RETIRED$15.5K 7 donors
  5. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS$10.0K 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. BAE SYSTEMS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BAE SYSTEMS USA PAC)$10.0K
  5. CSX CORPORATION GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EASTLAND PARTNERS$10.5K 3 donors
  2. STRATEGIC MARKETING INNOVATIONS$9,500 4 donors
  3. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$8,000 10 donors
  4. BURR & FORMAN$5,750 6 donors
  5. CASSIDY AND ASSOCIATES$5,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Rutherford voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.1% of party-line votes and missed 9.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rutherford voted against the majority of House Republicans 9 times.

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

9

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 116th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Rutherford
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90.6%
96.3%
201st of 221
Party unity
98.1%
97.1%
116th of 221
Show the data
Rutherford's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowRutherfordPeers
Attendance90.6%96.3%
Party unity98.1%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rutherford most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR471 shared votes100%
  2. Rudy YakymR611 shared votes99%
  3. Doug LamalfaR294 shared votes99%
  4. Nathaniel MoranR601 shared votes99%
  5. Tony GonzalesR367 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rutherford least often

  1. Delia RamirezD582 shared votes25%
  2. Rashida TlaibD598 shared votes26%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD349 shared votes26%
  4. Gregorio CasarD529 shared votes26%
  5. Frederica WilsonD423 shared votes26%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Rutherford sponsored 9 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 335 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 211th of 216).

The bills Rutherford 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

Sponsored9 billsSponsored, Introduced: 99Sponsored, In committee: 99Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored335 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 335335Cosponsored, In committee: 335335Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4040Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Rutherford sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored99000
Cosponsored3353354054
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 211th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Don Bacon29
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick26
  3. Gus Bilirakis23
  4. C. Franklin23
  5. Daniel Webster23
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 Rutherford’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. 10789Protecting Florida's Offshore Military Readiness ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10712First Responder Behavioral Health Access ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing 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 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10473Justice for Ukrainian Children ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 16, 2026
H.Res. 1552Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 37 times in 90 days. Rutherford’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Rutherford posted on Oct 13, 2026.

The lab crawls Rutherford’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 Rutherford 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 Rutherford posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • An aerial view of several U.S. Navy ships traveling across a deep-blue ocean, leaving wakes behind them. Large celebratory text and a small political office logo appear in the lower-right area.
    An aerial view of several U.S. Navy ships traveling across a deep-blue ocean, leaving wakes behind them. Large celebratory text and a small political office logo appear in the lower-right area.View post
  • A graphic celebrating a national farmers’ observance, overlaid on a photograph of a tractor in a cultivated field. A small campaign-style nameplate appears near the bottom.
    A graphic celebrating a national farmers’ observance, overlaid on a photograph of a tractor in a cultivated field. A small campaign-style nameplate appears near the bottom.View post
  • A historical painting depicts a group of armed men gathered on a shoreline, with several carrying banners. More people and boats are visible in the background. There is text on the image.
    A historical painting depicts a group of armed men gathered on a shoreline, with several carrying banners. More people and boats are visible in the background. There is text on the image.View post
  • A group of five adults pose for a photograph in a wood-paneled office. Framed pictures and documents hang on the walls; some contain text.
    A group of five adults pose for a photograph in a wood-paneled office. Framed pictures and documents hang on the walls; some contain text.View post
  • Five adults pose together indoors in front of a wooden door, surrounded by framed pictures and documents. The person on the left holds a folder with a logo. Text is visible on the folder and framed materials.
    Five adults pose together indoors in front of a wooden door, surrounded by framed pictures and documents. The person on the left holds a folder with a logo. Text is visible on the folder and framed materials.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 Rutherford is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
R000609
Bioguide
R000609
FEC candidate ids
H6FL04105

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