Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, New York

Serving since Jan 6, 1999119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide S000148FEC H0NY16010, S8NY00082

Portrait of Chuck Schumer, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.57
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), the lowest of 45 Senate Democrats

Agreement 0.57 on a 0–1 scale; the average for Senate Democrats is 0.66. Ranks 45th of 45, where 1st is the closest match.

How closely the mix of policy areas in Schumer’s statements matches the mix in the bills Schumer sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among Senate Democrats.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. 6.7% of Schumer’s statements use an extreme label, 2.9 times the Senate Democrat average of 2.4%. 21% of Schumer’s statements contain a personal attack, 1.9 times the Senate Democrat average of 11%.

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

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.57

Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 45th of 45

Extreme labels

6.7%

Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 1st of 45

Personal attacks

21%

Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 4th of 45

Policy discussion

65%

Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 42nd of 45

Credit claiming

15%

Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 42nd of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.10

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Schumer says

Schumer attacks opponents personally more than 91% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 21% of 4,289 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 4th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Schumer’s 4,289 statements in the 119th Congress (3,096 posts on X, 937 Congressional Record speeches, 256 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Schumer
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,795 statements
65%
78%
42nd of 45
Policy criticism1,703 statements
40%
37%
15th of 45
Personal attacks911 statements
21%
11%
4th of 45
Credit claiming642 statements
15%
26%
42nd of 45
Bipartisanship455 statements
11%
18%
38th of 45
Show the data
Schumer's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowSchumerPeers
Policy discussion65%78%
Policy criticism40%37%
Personal attacks21%11%
Credit claiming15%26%
Bipartisanship11%18%
4,289

statements classified

3,096 posts on X, 937 Congressional Record speeches, 256 press releases.

posts on X: 3,096 (72.2%)posts on X 3,096Congressional Record speeches: 937 (21.8%)Congressional Record speeches 937press releases: 256 (6.0%)
Show the data
Schumer's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X3,096
Congressional Record speeches937
press releases256
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Schumer used extreme labels in 6.7% of statements, 2.9 times the peer average. 288 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 2.4%.

  1. “MAGA”113
  2. “radical”78
  3. “extreme”48
  4. “far right”13
  5. “communist”10

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA36
  2. Donald Trump34
  3. Trump32
  4. Republicans27
  5. MAGA Republicans10
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: 2792025-02: 2482025-03: 1912025-04: 3212025-05: 2452025-06: 2462025-07: 2152025-08: 1502025-09: 2282025-10: 2302025-11: 1642025-12: 1712026-01: 1452026-02: 2332026-03: 2432026-04: 1882026-05: 1382026-06: 2082026-07: 1652026-08: 1082026-09: 1262026-10: 47peak 321 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 38.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 36.2%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 17.2% of 279Personal attacks, 2025-02: 14.9% of 248Personal attacks, 2025-03: 17.8% of 191Personal attacks, 2025-04: 22.7% of 321Personal attacks, 2025-05: 19.2% of 245Personal attacks, 2025-06: 13.4% of 246Personal attacks, 2025-07: 25.6% of 215Personal attacks, 2025-08: 16.0% of 150Personal attacks, 2025-09: 22.8% of 228Personal attacks, 2025-10: 18.3% of 230Personal attacks, 2025-11: 13.4% of 164Personal attacks, 2025-12: 23.4% of 171Personal attacks, 2026-01: 21.4% of 145Personal attacks, 2026-02: 17.6% of 233Personal attacks, 2026-03: 17.3% of 243Personal attacks, 2026-04: 27.1% of 188Personal attacks, 2026-05: 22.5% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-06: 30.8% of 208Personal attacks, 2026-07: 35.8% of 165Personal attacks, 2026-08: 38.0% of 108Personal attacks, 2026-09: 21.4% of 126Personal attacks, 2026-10: 36.2% of 47Policy criticismpeak 52.6% · May ’25 · latest 6.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 46.6% of 279Policy criticism, 2025-02: 47.2% of 248Policy criticism, 2025-03: 44.5% of 191Policy criticism, 2025-04: 41.7% of 321Policy criticism, 2025-05: 52.6% of 245Policy criticism, 2025-06: 45.5% of 246Policy criticism, 2025-07: 48.8% of 215Policy criticism, 2025-08: 42.0% of 150Policy criticism, 2025-09: 38.6% of 228Policy criticism, 2025-10: 47.8% of 230Policy criticism, 2025-11: 44.5% of 164Policy criticism, 2025-12: 31.6% of 171Policy criticism, 2026-01: 17.2% of 145Policy criticism, 2026-02: 41.2% of 233Policy criticism, 2026-03: 49.4% of 243Policy criticism, 2026-04: 27.1% of 188Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.8% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-06: 46.6% of 208Policy criticism, 2026-07: 17.0% of 165Policy criticism, 2026-08: 14.8% of 108Policy criticism, 2026-09: 15.1% of 126Policy criticism, 2026-10: 6.4% of 47Policy discussionpeak 85.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 76.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.3% of 279Policy discussion, 2025-02: 69.8% of 248Policy discussion, 2025-03: 70.7% of 191Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.2% of 321Policy discussion, 2025-05: 64.9% of 245Policy discussion, 2025-06: 61.8% of 246Policy discussion, 2025-07: 64.2% of 215Policy discussion, 2025-08: 56.0% of 150Policy discussion, 2025-09: 46.5% of 228Policy discussion, 2025-10: 57.8% of 230Policy discussion, 2025-11: 59.8% of 164Policy discussion, 2025-12: 66.1% of 171Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.5% of 145Policy discussion, 2026-02: 61.4% of 233Policy discussion, 2026-03: 59.3% of 243Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.7% of 188Policy discussion, 2026-05: 63.0% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-06: 59.1% of 208Policy discussion, 2026-07: 84.9% of 165Policy discussion, 2026-08: 85.2% of 108Policy discussion, 2026-09: 78.6% of 126Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.6% of 47Bipartisanshippeak 18.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 8.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.3% of 279Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 11.7% of 248Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.8% of 191Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.7% of 321Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.6% of 245Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.9% of 246Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 4.7% of 215Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 4.0% of 150Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 11.4% of 228Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 11.3% of 230Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 15.2% of 164Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.8% of 171Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.5% of 145Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.4% of 233Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 13.2% of 243Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 16.0% of 188Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.0% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.2% of 208Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 13.9% of 165Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 8.3% of 108Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 11.1% of 126Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 8.5% of 47Credit claimingpeak 25.4% · Sep ’26 · latest 14.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 22.9% of 279Credit claiming, 2025-02: 23.4% of 248Credit claiming, 2025-03: 10.0% of 191Credit claiming, 2025-04: 13.4% of 321Credit claiming, 2025-05: 11.4% of 245Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.6% of 246Credit claiming, 2025-07: 11.6% of 215Credit claiming, 2025-08: 18.7% of 150Credit claiming, 2025-09: 9.7% of 228Credit claiming, 2025-10: 8.3% of 230Credit claiming, 2025-11: 13.4% of 164Credit claiming, 2025-12: 13.5% of 171Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.6% of 145Credit claiming, 2026-02: 18.4% of 233Credit claiming, 2026-03: 11.9% of 243Credit claiming, 2026-04: 10.6% of 188Credit claiming, 2026-05: 18.1% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-06: 13.9% of 208Credit claiming, 2026-07: 19.4% of 165Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.2% of 108Credit claiming, 2026-09: 25.4% of 126Credit claiming, 2026-10: 14.9% of 47Extreme labelspeak 15.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 7.9% of 279Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.7% of 248Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.1% of 191Extreme labels, 2025-04: 5.6% of 321Extreme labels, 2025-05: 6.1% of 245Extreme labels, 2025-06: 11.0% of 246Extreme labels, 2025-07: 5.6% of 215Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.0% of 150Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.8% of 228Extreme labels, 2025-10: 10.4% of 230Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.7% of 164Extreme labels, 2025-12: 6.4% of 171Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.8% of 145Extreme labels, 2026-02: 6.9% of 233Extreme labels, 2026-03: 11.1% of 243Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.2% of 188Extreme labels, 2026-05: 11.6% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-06: 15.9% of 208Extreme labels, 2026-07: 5.5% of 165Extreme labels, 2026-08: 6.5% of 108Extreme labels, 2026-09: 4.0% of 126Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 47Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Schumer, 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 ’2527917.2%46.6%66.3%18.3%22.9%7.9%
Feb ’2524814.9%47.2%69.8%11.7%23.4%5.7%
Mar ’2519117.8%44.5%70.7%7.8%10.0%3.1%
Apr ’2532122.7%41.7%63.2%9.7%13.4%5.6%
May ’2524519.2%52.6%64.9%8.6%11.4%6.1%
Jun ’2524613.4%45.5%61.8%6.9%10.6%11.0%
Jul ’2521525.6%48.8%64.2%4.7%11.6%5.6%
Aug ’2515016.0%42.0%56.0%4.0%18.7%4.0%
Sep ’2522822.8%38.6%46.5%11.4%9.7%1.8%
Oct ’2523018.3%47.8%57.8%11.3%8.3%10.4%
Nov ’2516413.4%44.5%59.8%15.2%13.4%3.7%
Dec ’2517123.4%31.6%66.1%8.8%13.5%6.4%
Jan ’2614521.4%17.2%83.5%14.5%16.6%2.8%
Feb ’2623317.6%41.2%61.4%9.4%18.4%6.9%
Mar ’2624317.3%49.4%59.3%13.2%11.9%11.1%
Apr ’2618827.1%27.1%69.7%16.0%10.6%3.2%
May ’2613822.5%34.8%63.0%8.0%18.1%11.6%
Jun ’2620830.8%46.6%59.1%8.2%13.9%15.9%
Jul ’2616535.8%17.0%84.9%13.9%19.4%5.5%
Aug ’2610838.0%14.8%85.2%8.3%22.2%6.5%
Sep ’2612621.4%15.1%78.6%11.1%25.4%4.0%
Oct ’264736.2%6.4%76.6%8.5%14.9%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 Schumer’s words

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

Credit claiming

SCHUMER, MORELLE ANNOUNCE $5.3+ MILLION TO BOOST MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AS ONE OF AMERICA’S ONLY COMMUNITY COLLEGE OPTICS & PHOTONICS TRAINING CENTERS Schumer And Morelle Have Long Supported Department Of Defense’s Manufacturing Engineering Education Program (MEEP), Which Has Now Delivered $10+ Mi…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Labor and Employment · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Mr. President, 20 months ago, Republicans won control of Washington on a promise to bring down costs, make government more efficient, and end senseless wars. But over the past 2 years, Republicans betrayed the trust of the American people. For the past 20 months, Senate Republicans catered to Donald…

Sep 30, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Health; Agriculture and Food; Energy; Taxation; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; extreme label “radical” aimed at Republicans · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

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

  4. Posts on X

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

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

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: TrumpSource

All 4,289 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: 3,096 posts on X, 937 Congressional Record speeches, 256 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Schumer talks about most: 33% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.57 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 45th of 45).

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 Schumer talks about. The bills Schumer sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Schumer talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%37%
Schumer
Peers
Economics and Public Finance934 statements
33%
24%
Health797 statements
29%
27%
Government Operations and Politics730 statements
26%
22%
Armed Forces and National Security568 statements
20%
21%
Foreign Trade and International Finance328 statements
12%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Schumer talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowSchumerPeers
Economics and Public Finance33%24%
Health29%27%
Government Operations and Politics26%22%
Armed Forces and National Security20%21%
Foreign Trade and International Finance12%7%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Schumer’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 37%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 33% (Senate Democrats 24%)33%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%HealthHealth, talks about: 29% (Senate Democrats 27%)29%Health, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 14%)5%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 26% (Senate Democrats 22%)26%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (Senate Democrats 9%)18%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (Senate Democrats 21%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%Foreign Trade andInternational FinanceForeign Trade and International Finance, talks about: 12% (Senate Democrats 7%)12%Foreign Trade and International Finance, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 2%)6%
Show the data
Schumer's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance33%24%0%0%
Health29%27%5%14%
Government Operations and Politics26%22%18%9%
Armed Forces and National Security20%21%6%7%
Foreign Trade and International Finance12%7%6%2%
0.57

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 45th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Schumer sits at −1.10 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 61% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.11 to −1.09, which understates the uncertainty; from 20,507 donors and 5,006 roll calls.

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

−1.10

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.11 to −1.09. From 20,507 donors and 5,006 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Schumer −1.1Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Schumer, 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 Schumer’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 Schumer sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Schumer −1.1All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Schumer's CSIP score of −1.10 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Schumer
Senate Democrats45−1.160%
All Senate98+0.429%
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 Schumer 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 Schumer.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Schumer raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 38% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 28% 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
$1.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,203 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $418.8K (36.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $261.5K (22.6%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)PACs and other committees: $162.9K (14.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $316.5K (27.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$418.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)23 squares$261.5K
  • PACs and other committees14 squares$162.9K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)27 squares$316.5K
Show the data
Sources of Schumer's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$418.8K36.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$261.5K22.6%
PACs and other committees$162.9K14.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$316.5K27.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M20202022 cycle: $37.9M$37.9M20222024 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M20242026 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Schumer's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.0M
2022 cycle$37.9M
2024 cycle$2.8M
2026 cycle$1.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 28% came from New York.

  1. New York$85.5K
  2. California$57.9K
  3. Florida$17.9K
  4. Maryland$14.0K
  5. Connecticut$11.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Schumer
Median
2026
38%
35%
2024
60%
35%
2022
11%
35%
2020
31%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowSchumerMedian
2026 cycle38%35%
2024 cycle60%35%
2022 cycle11%35%
2020 cycle31%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $180AKMaine: $453MEVermont: $917VTNew Hampshire: $2,946NHWashington: $11.4KWAIdaho: $535IDMontana: $130MTNorth Dakota: $10NDMinnesota: $2,418MNIllinois: $5,721ILWisconsin: $2,244WIMichigan: $3,826MINew York: $85.5KNYRhode Island: $971RIMassachusetts: $10.3KMAOregon: $3,072ORNevada: $1,873NVWyoming: $5WYSouth Dakota: $912SDIowa: $410IAIndiana: $140INOhio: $8,062OHPennsylvania: $5,278PANew Jersey: $6,580NJConnecticut: $11.8KCTCalifornia: $57.9KCAUtah: $205UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: $201NEMissouri: $1,601MOKentucky: $36KYWest Virginia: $242WVVirginia: $10.9KVAMaryland: $14.0KMDDelaware: $1,050DEArizona: $5,351AZNew Mexico: $4,532NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $375ARTennessee: $3,418TNNorth Carolina: $4,799NCSouth Carolina: $1,942SCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: $771OKLouisiana: $1,106LAMississippi: $705MSAlabama: $135ALGeorgia: $4,557GAHawaii: $1,282HITexas: $10.3KTXFlorida: $17.9KFL
Show the data
Schumer's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$85.5K
California$57.9K
Florida$17.9K
Maryland$14.0K
Connecticut$11.8K
Washington$11.4K
Virginia$10.9K
Massachusetts$10.3K
Texas$10.3K
Ohio$8,062
New Jersey$6,580
Illinois$5,721
Arizona$5,351
Pennsylvania$5,278
North Carolina$4,799
Georgia$4,557
New Mexico$4,532
Michigan$3,826
Tennessee$3,418
Oregon$3,072
New Hampshire$2,946
Minnesota$2,418
Wisconsin$2,244
South Carolina$1,942
Nevada$1,873
Missouri$1,601
Hawaii$1,282
Louisiana$1,106
Delaware$1,050
Rhode Island$971
Vermont$917
South Dakota$912
Oklahoma$771
Mississippi$705
Idaho$535
Maine$453
Iowa$410
Arkansas$375
West Virginia$242
Utah$205
Nebraska$201
Alaska$180
Indiana$140
Alabama$135
Montana$130
Kentucky$36
North Dakota$10
Wyoming$5
ColoradoNo data
KansasNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
1,203

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

28%

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 −1.75 to −1.50: 0.2%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 4.9%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 63%63%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 23%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.6%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Schumer's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +0.25: 63% between −1.25 and −1.00, 23% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.2%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.254.9%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0063%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7523%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.6%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Schumer’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Schumer’s own score is −1.10.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$194.1K 810 donors
  2. CEO$17.1K 7 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$15.6K 18 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$10.6K 22 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$10.1K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. BEYOND FINANCE EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. HUMANA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND$7,500
  4. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (CRNA-PAC)$5,000
  5. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL ACTION$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UTMB$500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Schumer voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schumer voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 22 times.

915 roll calls Schumer could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Schumer voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

22

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 98.8%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 10th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Schumer
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
97.0%
4th of 45
Party unity
98.8%
95.3%
10th of 45
Show the data
Schumer's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowSchumerPeers
Attendance99.5%97.0%
Party unity98.8%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schumer most often

  1. Richard BlumenthalD900 shared votes98%
  2. Patty MurrayD860 shared votes97%
  3. Lisa Blunt RochesterD905 shared votes97%
  4. Brian SchatzD901 shared votes97%
  5. Tina SmithD869 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schumer least often

  1. Mike LeeR883 shared votes5.4%
  2. Ron JohnsonR899 shared votes5.7%
  3. Rick ScottR909 shared votes5.9%
  4. Cynthia LummisR881 shared votes6.1%
  5. Ted CruzR864 shared votes6.1%
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

Schumer sponsored 35 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 261 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 19th of 45).

The bills Schumer 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

Sponsored35 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3535Sponsored, In committee: 3333Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored261 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 261261Cosponsored, In committee: 259259Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5454Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Schumer sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3533400
Cosponsored2612595411
How to read the blocks

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

14%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 19th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Kirsten Gillibrand67
  2. Cory Booker62
  3. Ron Wyden57
  4. Chris Van Hollen55
  5. Andy Kim53
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 Schumer’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5619Restoring Essential Plan Coverage ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeTaxationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text: CR S5264) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 928A resolution to authorize testimony, document production, and representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of United States v. Terry.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5178) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S. 5461Strategic Fertilizer Reserve Act of 2026SponsorSep 23, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodRead twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text: CR S4933-4935; Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S4932-4933) Sep 23, 2026
S.Res. 897A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona.CosponsorSep 23, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 87 times in 90 days. Schumer’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Schumer posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Schumer’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 Schumer 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.

Social accounts

Images Schumer posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A news headline graphic on a white background, with a small black exclusive label above a large headline. It contains primarily text.
    A news headline graphic on a white background, with a small black exclusive label above a large headline. It contains primarily text.View post
  • A black news graphic with the AP logo in the upper-left corner and a large white headline. The image contains text.
    A black news graphic with the AP logo in the upper-left corner and a large white headline. The image contains text.View post
  • A screenshot of a Washington Post article headline and subheading on a white background. The headline says rising health care costs are pushing people to forgo medicine and doctor visits. There is text throughout.
    A screenshot of a Washington Post article headline and subheading on a white background. The headline says rising health care costs are pushing people to forgo medicine and doctor visits. There is text throughout.View post
  • A CNBC news graphic on a white paper-like panel against a dark red background. It features a black-and-white image of Marco Rubio during a television interview, a large headline, and a date. Text appears throughout.
    A CNBC news graphic on a white paper-like panel against a dark red background. It features a black-and-white image of Marco Rubio during a television interview, a large headline, and a date. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A news collage on a dark red background, headed by a large title. Six white panels display headlines and news outlet logos covering gas prices, inflation, the stock market, insider trading, sanctions, and wage growth. Text appears throughout.
    A news collage on a dark red background, headed by a large title. Six white panels display headlines and news outlet logos covering gas prices, inflation, the stock market, insider trading, sanctions, and wage growth. Text appears throughout.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 Schumer is most unusual among Senate 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
S000148
Bioguide
S000148
FEC candidate ids
H0NY16010, S8NY00082

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

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

How the measures work

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

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top