Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 32nd district

Serving since Jan 7, 1997119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S000344FEC H6CA24113

Portrait of Brad Sherman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.9%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

0.9% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 210th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $2.9M raised in all.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 61% of Sherman’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 73%). 15% of the 13 bills Sherman sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of House Democrats.

The measures on which Sherman 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.

Small donations, 2026

0.9%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 210th of 214

Policy discussion

61%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 201st of 216

Out of committee

15%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 13th of 207

Policy criticism

20%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 164th of 216

Credit claiming

17%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 155th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.89

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Sherman says

Sherman criticizes policies less than 75% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 20% of 1,346 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 164th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Sherman’s 1,346 statements in the 119th Congress (1,061 posts on X, 140 press releases, 76 newsletters, 69 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%
Sherman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion818 statements
61%
73%
201st of 216
Policy criticism272 statements
20%
28%
164th of 216
Credit claiming231 statements
17%
23%
155th of 216
Bipartisanship110 statements
8%
10%
117th of 216
Personal attacks91 statements
7%
7%
87th of 216
Show the data
Sherman's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowShermanPeers
Policy discussion61%73%
Policy criticism20%28%
Credit claiming17%23%
Bipartisanship8%10%
Personal attacks7%7%
1,346

statements classified

1,061 posts on X, 140 press releases, 76 newsletters, 69 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,061 (78.8%)posts on X 1,061press releases: 140 (10.4%)newsletters: 76 (5.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 69 (5.1%)
Show the data
Sherman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,061
press releases140
newsletters76
Congressional Record speeches69
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Sherman used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 22 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”13
  2. “MAGA”2
  3. “radical”2
  4. “woke”2
  5. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump3
  2. Trump3
  3. Trump administration3
  4. administration1
  5. America Last1
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: 1312025-02: 952025-03: 732025-04: 632025-05: 832025-06: 1132025-07: 462025-08: 522025-09: 612025-10: 582025-11: 432025-12: 532026-01: 822026-02: 692026-03: 702026-04: 452026-05: 232026-06: 342026-07: 372026-08: 332026-09: 612026-10: 21peak 131 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 24.2% · Aug ’26 · latest 9.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.8% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-02: 8.4% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-03: 16.4% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-04: 7.9% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-05: 7.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.0% of 113Personal attacks, 2025-07: 6.5% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.3% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.5% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.8% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-01: 11.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-02: 13.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.3% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-04: 11.1% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.4% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-08: 24.2% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.6% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-10: 9.5% of 21Policy criticismpeak 34.3% · Mar ’26 · latest 14.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.3% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-02: 33.7% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-03: 19.2% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-04: 27.0% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.9% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.7% of 113Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.4% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-08: 15.4% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-09: 18.0% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-10: 20.7% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-11: 32.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.4% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-01: 9.8% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-02: 26.1% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.3% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-04: 4.4% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.0% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.5% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.6% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-09: 27.9% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-10: 14.3% of 21Policy discussionpeak 78.4% · Jul ’26 · latest 61.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.4% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-02: 64.2% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-03: 49.3% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-04: 52.4% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-05: 55.4% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-06: 60.2% of 113Policy discussion, 2025-07: 78.3% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-08: 50.0% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-09: 54.1% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-10: 56.9% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-12: 58.5% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-01: 75.6% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.9% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-03: 54.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-04: 42.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-05: 56.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-06: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-07: 78.4% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-08: 60.6% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-09: 70.5% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-10: 61.9% of 21Bipartisanshippeak 20.6% · Jun ’26 · latest 9.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 4.6% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 15.8% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 17.8% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 1.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 15.0% of 113Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 6.5% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 1.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.8% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 2.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.4% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.2% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.1% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.3% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.7% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 20.6% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 13.5% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 9.5% of 21Credit claimingpeak 44.1% · Jun ’26 · latest 9.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 16.8% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.3% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-03: 12.3% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-04: 11.1% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-05: 16.9% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-06: 10.6% of 113Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.4% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-08: 19.2% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-09: 24.6% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-10: 15.5% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-11: 14.0% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-12: 13.2% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-01: 23.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-02: 17.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-03: 20.0% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-04: 4.4% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-05: 34.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-06: 44.1% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-07: 16.2% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-08: 9.1% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-09: 11.5% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-10: 9.5% of 21Extreme labelspeak 6.6% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.4% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.6% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.5% of 113Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-09: 6.6% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.9% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.2% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Sherman, 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 ’251310.8%15.3%66.4%4.6%16.8%0.0%
Feb ’25958.4%33.7%64.2%15.8%25.3%2.1%
Mar ’257316.4%19.2%49.3%17.8%12.3%1.4%
Apr ’25637.9%27.0%52.4%1.6%11.1%1.6%
May ’25837.2%16.9%55.4%8.4%16.9%1.2%
Jun ’251138.0%17.7%60.2%15.0%10.6%3.5%
Jul ’25466.5%30.4%78.3%6.5%17.4%2.2%
Aug ’25520.0%15.4%50.0%1.9%19.2%3.9%
Sep ’25613.3%18.0%54.1%9.8%24.6%6.6%
Oct ’25583.5%20.7%56.9%5.2%15.5%1.7%
Nov ’25432.3%32.6%58.1%2.3%14.0%2.3%
Dec ’25533.8%9.4%58.5%9.4%13.2%0.0%
Jan ’268211.0%9.8%75.6%1.2%23.2%0.0%
Feb ’266913.0%26.1%60.9%10.1%17.4%1.5%
Mar ’26704.3%34.3%54.3%4.3%20.0%2.9%
Apr ’264511.1%4.4%42.2%2.2%4.4%2.2%
May ’26230.0%13.0%56.5%8.7%34.8%0.0%
Jun ’26342.9%23.5%70.6%20.6%44.1%0.0%
Jul ’26375.4%21.6%78.4%13.5%16.2%0.0%
Aug ’263324.2%0.0%60.6%0.0%9.1%0.0%
Sep ’26611.6%27.9%70.5%6.6%11.5%0.0%
Oct ’26219.5%14.3%61.9%9.5%9.5%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 Sherman’s words

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

Credit claiming

Sherman Joins House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats in Condemning Trump’s Russian Diesel Deal Washington, D.C. – Congressman Brad Sherman (CA-32), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined Ranking Member Gregory W. Meeks and fellow Committee Democrats in condemning President…

Oct 14, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; International Affairs; target: Donald Trump · Source

Policy criticism

Sherman & Lawmakers Challenge Trump Administration’s Effort to Restart California Oil Pipeline SHERMAN OAKS, CA — Congressman Brad Sherman (CA-32) joined Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA), and a coalition of Democratic lawm…

Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy; Law; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Extreme label

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

Apr 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Law; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “far right” aimed at Court majority · 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. Press releases

    Sherman Joins House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats in Condemning Trump’s Russian Diesel Deal Washington, D.C. – Congressman Brad Sherman (CA-32), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined Ranking Member Gregory W. Meeks and fellow Committee Democrats in condemning President Trump’s decision to authorize purchases of Russian diesel, warning that the move would enrich Vladimir Putin and underm…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Energy · International Affairs · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: PresidentSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, preventing waste, fraud, and abuse is one thing we agree on. We have to do everything possible to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government. The two best tools for dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse are inspectors general, full-time independent investigators there to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, and whistleblowers, ordinary government workers…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Hasan PikerSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: PikerSource

All 1,346 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,061 posts on X, 140 press releases, 76 newsletters, 69 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Sherman talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 104th 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 Sherman talks about. The bills Sherman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Sherman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Sherman
Peers
International Affairs229 statements
28%
8%
Emergency Management150 statements
18%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security148 statements
18%
16%
Government Operations and Politics148 statements
18%
20%
Economics and Public Finance128 statements
16%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Sherman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowShermanPeers
International Affairs28%8%
Emergency Management18%5%
Armed Forces and National Security18%16%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Sherman’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 onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 8%)28%International Affairs, legislates on: 25% (House Democrats 8%)25%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 5%)18%Emergency Management, legislates on: 2% (House Democrats 1%)2%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 16%)18%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 7%)4%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 20%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%
Show the data
Sherman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
International Affairs28%8%25%8%
Emergency Management18%5%2%1%
Armed Forces and National Security18%16%4%7%
Government Operations and Politics18%20%10%11%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%1%1%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 104th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Sherman sits at −0.89 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 62% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.91 to −0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,762 donors and 7,481 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”.

−0.89

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.91 to −0.87. From 2,762 donors and 7,481 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Sherman −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Sherman, 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 Sherman’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 Sherman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Sherman −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Sherman's CSIP score of −0.89 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Sherman
House Democrats217−1.062%
All House439+0.331%
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 Sherman 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 Sherman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Sherman raised $2.9M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 0.9% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 70% of itemized individual money came from California.

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
$2.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 838 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): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (51.9%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)PACs and other committees: $859.4K (29.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $522.8K (18.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$12.8K
  • PACs and other committees30 squares$859.4K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)18 squares$522.8K
Show the data
Sources of Sherman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M51.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$12.8K0.4%
PACs and other committees$859.4K29.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$522.8K18.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.5M$1.5M20202022 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M20222024 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20242026 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Sherman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.5M
2022 cycle$2.7M
2024 cycle$2.1M
2026 cycle$2.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 70% came from California.

  1. California$993.8K
  2. New York$95.1K
  3. Florida$61.8K
  4. Massachusetts$53.8K
  5. Maryland$32.1K

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%
Sherman
Median
2026
1%
13%
2024
2%
13%
2022
3%
13%
2020
3%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowShermanMedian
2026 cycle1%13%
2024 cycle2%13%
2022 cycle3%13%
2020 cycle3%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $2,000NHWashington: $21.3KWAIdaho: $500IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $500MNIllinois: $16.0KILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $1,000MINew York: $95.1KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $53.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $10.0KNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,000INOhio: $800OHPennsylvania: $5,500PANew Jersey: $9,554NJConnecticut: $26.0KCTCalifornia: $993.8KCAUtah: $4,000UTColorado: $6,550CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $8,000MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $23.1KVAMaryland: $32.1KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $7,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,000TNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $18.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $250LAMississippi: $500MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $13.5KTXFlorida: $61.8KFL
Show the data
Sherman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$993.8K
New York$95.1K
Florida$61.8K
Massachusetts$53.8K
Maryland$32.1K
Connecticut$26.0K
Virginia$23.1K
Washington$21.3K
District of Columbia$18.0K
Illinois$16.0K
Texas$13.5K
Nevada$10.0K
New Jersey$9,554
Missouri$8,000
Arizona$7,000
Colorado$6,550
Pennsylvania$5,500
Utah$4,000
Indiana$3,000
New Hampshire$2,000
Michigan$1,000
Tennessee$1,000
Ohio$800
Idaho$500
Minnesota$500
Mississippi$500
Louisiana$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
838

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

70%

from California

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 California. 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: 0.0%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 4.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 47%47%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 16%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 14%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 11%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.5%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Sherman's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.25: 47% between −1.00 and −0.75, 16% between −0.75 and −0.50, 14% between −0.50 and −0.25, 11% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.3% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.004.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7547%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5016%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2514%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0011%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.5%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Sherman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Sherman’s own score is −0.89.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$255.1K 184 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$114.5K 70 donors
  3. NOT-EMPLOYED$106.7K 70 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$66.9K 29 donors
  5. CEO$65.2K 27 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT TRS, LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMH PAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT-EMPLOYED$106.7K 70 donors
  2. 7-ELEVEN$9,750 9 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Sherman voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sherman voted against the majority of House Democrats 16 times.

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

16

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.2%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 113th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Sherman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.3%
96.9%
140th of 217
Party unity
98.2%
96.4%
113th of 217
Show the data
Sherman's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowShermanPeers
Attendance97.3%96.9%
Party unity98.2%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
NayWith 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 Sherman most often

  1. Linda SánchezD643 shared votes98%
  2. Jerrold NadlerD586 shared votes98%
  3. Kweisi MfumeD610 shared votes98%
  4. Shontel BrownD654 shared votes98%
  5. Jennifer McClellanD652 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Sherman least often

  1. Chip RoyR616 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR589 shared votes18%
  3. Eric BurlisonR625 shared votes18%
  4. Andy BiggsR591 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR641 shared votes19%
How to read the agreement lists

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

Full voting record

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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Sherman sponsored 13 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 416 others. 15% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 13th of 207).

The bills Sherman sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored13 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1313Sponsored, In committee: 1313Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored416 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 416416Cosponsored, In committee: 416416Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3030Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Sherman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1313200
Cosponsored4164163064
How to read the blocks

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

15%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

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

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler53
  2. Eleanor Norton37
  3. Josh Gottheimer34
  4. Ted Lieu27
  5. Dina Titus27
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 Sherman’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. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, 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 15, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1593Recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10582Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 75 times in 90 days. Sherman’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Sherman posted on Oct 21, 2026.

The lab crawls Sherman’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 Sherman posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    sherman.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    24

    pages crawled

    75

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.bradsherman.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    7

    pages crawled

    7

    changes in 90 days

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 Sherman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Five people pose for a group photo in front of a blue congressional backdrop. An American flag is visible at the left, and text and emblems repeat across the backdrop.
    Five people pose for a group photo in front of a blue congressional backdrop. An American flag is visible at the left, and text and emblems repeat across the backdrop.View post
  • A screenshot of a social media post with a profile photo, account name, and a short message.
    A screenshot of a social media post with a profile photo, account name, and a short message.View post
  • A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated October 9, 2026. It is addressed to congressional appropriations leaders and urges increased funding for the Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The page includes an official seal, contact information, several paragraphs, and two linked footnotes.
    A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated October 9, 2026. It is addressed to congressional appropriations leaders and urges increased funding for the Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The page includes an official seal, contact information, several paragraphs, and two linked footnotes.View post
  • A page from a formal congressional letter discussing funding for CAISI and AI readiness. It includes several paragraphs, a closing, and a two-column arrangement of handwritten signatures with printed names and congressional titles. A footnote appears at the bottom.
    A page from a formal congressional letter discussing funding for CAISI and AI readiness. It includes several paragraphs, a closing, and a two-column arrangement of handwritten signatures with printed names and congressional titles. A footnote appears at the bottom.View post
  • A collage of U.S. political figures speaking or appearing at government hearings. The top image shows Donald Trump at a podium with his arms spread, with two men behind him and an American flag in the background. Below are eight separate portraits of officials seated at or addressing hearing tables. Text is visible on nameplates.
    A collage of U.S. political figures speaking or appearing at government hearings. The top image shows Donald Trump at a podium with his arms spread, with two men behind him and an American flag in the background. Below are eight separate portraits of officials seated at or addressing hearing tables. Text is visible on nameplates.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 Sherman 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
S000344
Bioguide
S000344
FEC candidate ids
H6CA24113

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