Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New York’s 19th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000622FEC H8NY22177

Portrait of Josh Riley, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.4%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

0.4% of 1,099 statements contain a personal attack (5 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 211th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Riley’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, newsletters and press releases 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 House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 12% of Riley’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 28%). Riley voted against the majority of House Democrats 55 times; party unity 89%, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.4%).

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

Personal attacks

0.4%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 211th of 216

Policy criticism

12%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 206th of 216

Party unity

89%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 204th of 217 · 55 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Policy discussion

83%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 15th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.61

More conservative than 89% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Raised, 2026

$6.0M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 22nd of 214

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Riley says

Riley attacks opponents personally less than 97% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 1,099 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 211th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Riley’s 1,099 statements in the 119th Congress (997 posts on X, 57 newsletters, 27 press releases, 18 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Riley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion909 statements
83%
73%
15th of 216
Credit claiming338 statements
31%
23%
36th of 216
Bipartisanship136 statements
12%
10%
48th of 216
Policy criticism128 statements
12%
28%
206th of 216
Personal attacks5 statements
0%
7%
211th of 216
Show the data
Riley's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowRileyPeers
Policy discussion83%73%
Credit claiming31%23%
Bipartisanship12%10%
Policy criticism12%28%
Personal attacks0%7%
1,099

statements classified

997 posts on X, 57 newsletters, 27 press releases, 18 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 997 (90.7%)posts on X 997newsletters: 57 (5.2%)press releases: 27 (2.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 18 (1.6%)
Show the data
Riley's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X997
newsletters57
press releases27
Congressional Record speeches18
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Riley used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, below the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at Washington extremists; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”11
  2. “communist”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Washington extremists6
  2. politicians3
  3. Anti-abortion extremists1
  4. budget cuts1
  5. judges1
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: 232025-02: 422025-03: 502025-04: 462025-05: 612025-06: 722025-07: 752025-08: 392025-09: 592025-10: 492025-11: 372025-12: 412026-01: 432026-02: 322026-03: 522026-04: 552026-05: 682026-06: 672026-07: 572026-08: 362026-09: 532026-10: 42peak 75 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 2.2% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.4% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.7% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 42Policy criticismpeak 22.8% · Jul ’26 · latest 14.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-02: 9.5% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-03: 8.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.4% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-05: 8.2% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-06: 5.6% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-08: 5.1% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.3% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-10: 6.1% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.5% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-12: 2.4% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-01: 16.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-02: 6.3% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-03: 11.5% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.4% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-05: 14.7% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-08: 8.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-09: 15.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-10: 14.3% of 42Policy discussionpeak 94.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 92.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 52.2% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-02: 83.3% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-03: 74.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.1% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-05: 85.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-06: 77.8% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-07: 80.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-08: 76.9% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-09: 78.0% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-10: 87.8% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-11: 70.3% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.6% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-01: 86.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-02: 84.4% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-03: 88.5% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-04: 89.1% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-05: 88.2% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-06: 94.0% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-07: 86.0% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.9% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-09: 83.0% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-10: 92.9% of 42Bipartisanshippeak 28.1% · Jul ’26 · latest 9.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 16.7% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 13.0% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 13.1% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.7% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 12.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.1% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.4% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.1% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 16.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.4% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 15.4% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.7% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 17.6% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.9% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 28.1% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 11.1% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 9.5% of 42Credit claimingpeak 48.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 38.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-02: 21.4% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-03: 20.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.4% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-05: 24.6% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-06: 31.9% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.1% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-09: 30.5% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.2% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-11: 10.8% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-12: 48.8% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-01: 32.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.5% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-03: 28.8% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-05: 41.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.3% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-07: 45.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-08: 30.6% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-09: 45.3% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-10: 38.1% of 42Extreme labelspeak 10.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.4% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-08: 10.3% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.4% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 42Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Riley, 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 ’25230.0%0.0%52.2%0.0%4.3%4.3%
Feb ’25420.0%9.5%83.3%16.7%21.4%0.0%
Mar ’25502.0%8.0%74.0%8.0%20.0%2.0%
Apr ’25462.2%17.4%76.1%13.0%30.4%0.0%
May ’25610.0%8.2%85.3%13.1%24.6%0.0%
Jun ’25721.4%5.6%77.8%9.7%31.9%1.4%
Jul ’25750.0%13.3%80.0%8.0%25.3%2.7%
Aug ’25390.0%5.1%76.9%12.8%23.1%10.3%
Sep ’25591.7%15.3%78.0%5.1%30.5%3.4%
Oct ’25490.0%6.1%87.8%0.0%12.2%0.0%
Nov ’25370.0%13.5%70.3%5.4%10.8%0.0%
Dec ’25410.0%2.4%75.6%17.1%48.8%0.0%
Jan ’26430.0%16.3%86.1%16.3%32.6%0.0%
Feb ’26320.0%6.3%84.4%9.4%37.5%0.0%
Mar ’26520.0%11.5%88.5%15.4%28.8%0.0%
Apr ’26550.0%16.4%89.1%12.7%34.5%0.0%
May ’26680.0%14.7%88.2%17.6%41.2%0.0%
Jun ’26671.5%13.4%94.0%20.9%37.3%0.0%
Jul ’26570.0%22.8%86.0%28.1%45.6%0.0%
Aug ’26360.0%8.3%88.9%11.1%30.6%0.0%
Sep ’26530.0%15.1%83.0%11.3%45.3%0.0%
Oct ’26420.0%14.3%92.9%9.5%38.1%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 Riley’s words

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

Policy criticism

RILEY DEMANDS HOME HEATING AID BE DELIVERED ON TIME FOR UPSTATE FAMILIES WASHINGTON, DC – Representative Josh Riley (NY-19) is demanding the federal government get heating assistance to Upstate families on time as energy costs rise and colder weather approaches. Riley joined a bipartisan group of 1…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Energy; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jun 4, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Riley Report: Recap of the August Recess Dear Neighbor, Thank you for subscribing to The Riley Report - my newsletter to keep you informed about the work I'm doing on behalf of Upstate New York. From closing the digital divide to cutting red tape for seniors trying to access food benefits, here's a…

Sep 5, 2025 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Commerce; Education; Energy; Environmental Protection; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Labor and Employment; Science, Technology, Communications; Foreign Trade and International Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Washington extremists

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Economics and Public Finance · Taxation · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · target: Albany regulatorsSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: politiciansSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Environmental ProtectionSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Commerce · Labor and Employment · target: politiciansSource

All 1,099 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: 997 posts on X, 57 newsletters, 27 press releases, 18 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Agriculture and Food is what Riley talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 73rd of 216).

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

What Riley talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Riley
Peers
Agriculture and Food209 statements
23%
9%
Health209 statements
23%
26%
Energy204 statements
22%
5%
Commerce167 statements
18%
5%
Labor and Employment119 statements
13%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Riley talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowRileyPeers
Agriculture and Food23%9%
Health23%26%
Energy22%5%
Commerce18%5%
Labor and Employment13%7%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onAgriculture andFoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 9%)23%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 4%)13%HealthHealth, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 18% (House Democrats 16%)18%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 22% (House Democrats 5%)22%Energy, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 2%)6%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 5%)18%Commerce, legislates on: 2% (House Democrats 2%)2%Labor andEmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 7%)13%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%
Show the data
Riley's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Agriculture and Food23%9%13%4%
Health23%26%18%16%
Energy22%5%6%2%
Commerce18%5%2%2%
Labor and Employment13%7%3%5%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 73rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Riley sits at −0.61 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 89% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.63 to −0.59, which understates the uncertainty; from 7,883 donors and 662 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”.

−0.61

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.63 to −0.59. From 7,883 donors and 662 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Riley −0.6House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Riley, 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 Riley’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 Riley sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Riley −0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Riley's CSIP score of −0.61 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Riley
House Democrats217−1.089%
All House439+0.344%
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 Riley 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 Riley.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Riley raised $6.0M in the 2026 cycle, 3.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 13% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 48% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$6.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,202 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.8M (63.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $571.6K (9.5%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)PACs and other committees: $921.7K (15.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $687.6K (11.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)63 squares$3.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$571.6K
  • PACs and other committees15 squares$921.7K
  • Party committees$5,800
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)12 squares$687.6K
Show the data
Sources of Riley's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.8M63.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$571.6K9.5%
PACs and other committees$921.7K15.4%
Party committees$5,8000.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$687.6K11.5%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $4.2M$4.2M20222024 cycle: $9.8M$9.8M20242026 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Riley's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$4.2M
2024 cycle$9.8M
2026 cycle$6.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 48% came from New York.

  1. New York$1.7M
  2. California$474.8K
  3. Massachusetts$273.2K
  4. District of Columbia$202.2K
  5. Maryland$194.2K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Riley
Median
2026
13%
13%
2024
27%
13%
2022
23%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowRileyMedian
2026 cycle13%13%
2024 cycle27%13%
2022 cycle23%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,000AKMaine: $4,783MEVermont: $1,325VTNew Hampshire: $6,526NHWashington: $31.8KWAIdaho: $750IDMontana: $16.8KMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $20.7KMNIllinois: $29.0KILWisconsin: $800WIMichigan: $1,470MINew York: $1.7MNYRhode Island: $6,275RIMassachusetts: $273.2KMAOregon: $3,250ORNevada: $6,250NVWyoming: $2,350WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $1,250IAIndiana: $6,675INOhio: $6,560OHPennsylvania: $37.0KPANew Jersey: $91.9KNJConnecticut: $86.1KCTCalifornia: $474.8KCAUtah: $2,300UTColorado: $20.2KCONebraska: $450NEMissouri: $1,157MOKentucky: $11.4KKYWest Virginia: $250WVVirginia: $71.8KVAMaryland: $194.2KMDDelaware: $1,600DEArizona: $1,178AZNew Mexico: $3,392NMKansas: $60KSArkansas: $3,500ARTennessee: $4,375TNNorth Carolina: $5,723NCSouth Carolina: $2,250SCDistrict of Columbia: $202.2KDCOklahoma: $15.7KOKLouisiana: $250LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $9,900GAHawaii: $1,075HITexas: $42.5KTXFlorida: $123.9KFL
Show the data
Riley's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$1.7M
California$474.8K
Massachusetts$273.2K
District of Columbia$202.2K
Maryland$194.2K
Florida$123.9K
New Jersey$91.9K
Connecticut$86.1K
Virginia$71.8K
Texas$42.5K
Pennsylvania$37.0K
Washington$31.8K
Illinois$29.0K
Minnesota$20.7K
Colorado$20.2K
Montana$16.8K
Oklahoma$15.7K
Kentucky$11.4K
Georgia$9,900
Indiana$6,675
Ohio$6,560
New Hampshire$6,526
Rhode Island$6,275
Nevada$6,250
North Carolina$5,723
Maine$4,783
Tennessee$4,375
Arkansas$3,500
New Mexico$3,392
Oregon$3,250
Wyoming$2,350
Utah$2,300
South Carolina$2,250
Delaware$1,600
Michigan$1,470
Vermont$1,325
Iowa$1,250
Arizona$1,178
Missouri$1,157
Hawaii$1,075
Alaska$1,000
Wisconsin$800
Idaho$750
Nebraska$450
West Virginia$250
Louisiana$250
Kansas$60
North DakotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
2,202

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

48%

from New York

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.1%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 8.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 51%51%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 36%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Riley's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.50: 8.1% between −1.25 and −1.00, 51% between −1.00 and −0.75, 36% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.1%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.008.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7551%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5036%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Riley’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Riley’s own score is −0.61.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$1.1M 930 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$669.4K 296 donors
  3. RETIRED$327.7K 193 donors
  4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER$88.7K 26 donors
  5. INVESTOR$83.9K 21 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$40.2K
  2. ZINC COLLECTIVE PAC$10.5K
  3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP$52.2K 19 donors
  2. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP$51.6K 21 donors
  3. APPLE, INC.$40.0K 5 donors
  4. KING & SPALDING, LLP$30.5K 7 donors
  5. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP$22.5K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Riley voted with the majority of House Democrats on 89% of party-line votes and missed 1.8% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Riley voted against the majority of House Democrats 55 times.

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

55

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 89%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 204th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Riley
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
96.9%
106th of 217
Party unity
89%
96.4%
204th of 217
Show the data
Riley's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowRileyPeers
Attendance98.2%96.9%
Party unity89%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Riley most often

  1. Eric SorensenD657 shared votes97%
  2. Chris PappasD658 shared votes96%
  3. Eugene VindmanD657 shared votes96%
  4. Maggie GoodlanderD656 shared votes96%
  5. Frank MrvanD651 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Riley least often

  1. Chip RoyR623 shared votes22%
  2. Eric BurlisonR632 shared votes24%
  3. Ralph NormanR586 shared votes24%
  4. Josh BrecheenR630 shared votes24%
  5. Keith SelfR648 shared votes25%
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

Riley sponsored 21 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 446 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Riley 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

Sponsored21 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2121Sponsored, In committee: 2121Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored446 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 446446Cosponsored, In committee: 446446Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2727Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Riley sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2121000
Cosponsored4464462710
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Riley sponsored, ochre blocks bills Riley 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 Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler54
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick49
  3. Eugene Vindman44
  4. Claudia Tenney29
  5. John Mannion26
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 Riley’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. 10877To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 establish a credit against the excise tax on beer for brewers that donate spent grain for local agricultural use.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10804Utility Accountability ActSponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10779To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 Route 112 in Medford, New York, as the "Gunnery Sergeant Ruben Santos Post Office Building".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10692Restoring Essential Plan Coverage ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10696Ad-Free Means Ad-Free ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeCommerceReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 60 times in 90 days. Riley’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Riley posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Riley’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 Riley 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 Riley posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political campaign-style poster encouraging people to vote early, with a pale map of New York in the background, five blue stars, and an orange voting sticker graphic. It contains prominent text.
    A political campaign-style poster encouraging people to vote early, with a pale map of New York in the background, five blue stars, and an orange voting sticker graphic. It contains prominent text.View post
  • A political campaign graphic with a dark blue header and an orange-and-white logo, above a map of upstate New York covered with orange location pins. An orange call-to-action button appears near the bottom. Text is present.
    A political campaign graphic with a dark blue header and an orange-and-white logo, above a map of upstate New York covered with orange location pins. An orange call-to-action button appears near the bottom. Text is present.View post
  • A group of adults sits in a circle in a cozy room, discussing a classroom activity. A monitor displays a prompt, and posters with sticky notes are on the wall. Toys and creative materials are spread across the floor.
    A group of adults sits in a circle in a cozy room, discussing a classroom activity. A monitor displays a prompt, and posters with sticky notes are on the wall. Toys and creative materials are spread across the floor.View post
  • A man and a woman stand smiling in a clothing shop, with racks of jackets and a mannequin wearing a brown jacket behind them. An American flag hangs on the exposed brick wall. There are also signs and product packaging with text.
    A man and a woman stand smiling in a clothing shop, with racks of jackets and a mannequin wearing a brown jacket behind them. An American flag hangs on the exposed brick wall. There are also signs and product packaging with text.View post
  • Two people talk inside a clothing and accessories shop. Clothes, bags, and other merchandise are displayed around the room, which has ornate decorative walls and ceiling. A painting hangs on the wall, and there is some text on a hat.
    Two people talk inside a clothing and accessories shop. Clothes, bags, and other merchandise are displayed around the room, which has ornate decorative walls and ceiling. A painting hangs on the wall, and there is some text on a hat.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 Riley is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
R000622
Bioguide
R000622
FEC candidate ids
H8NY22177

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