Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, California

Serving since Dec 9, 2024119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide S001150FEC H0CA27085, S4CA00555

Portrait of Adam Schiff, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
69%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats

69% of 3,133 statements discuss policy (2,157 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 78%. Ranks 41st of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Schiff’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and press releases and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Schiff sits at −1.46 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 88% of Senate Democrats. Schiff raised $10.4M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M).

The measures on which Schiff 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.

Policy discussion

69%

Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 41st of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.46

More liberal than 88% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01

Raised, 2026

$10.4M

Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 6th of 45

Policy criticism

31%

Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 39th of 45

Personal attacks

17%

Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 8th of 45

Small donations, 2026

59%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 7th of 45

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Schiff says

Schiff attacks opponents personally more than 82% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 17% of 3,133 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 8th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Schiff’s 3,133 statements in the 119th Congress (2,520 posts on X, 501 press releases, 112 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Schiff
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,157 statements
69%
78%
41st of 45
Policy criticism967 statements
31%
37%
39th of 45
Credit claiming575 statements
18%
26%
35th of 45
Personal attacks538 statements
17%
11%
8th of 45
Bipartisanship375 statements
12%
18%
36th of 45
Show the data
Schiff's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowSchiffPeers
Policy discussion69%78%
Policy criticism31%37%
Credit claiming18%26%
Personal attacks17%11%
Bipartisanship12%18%
3,133

statements classified

2,520 posts on X, 501 press releases, 112 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,520 (80.4%)posts on X 2,520press releases: 501 (16.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 112 (3.6%)
Show the data
Schiff's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,520
press releases501
Congressional Record speeches112
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Schiff used extreme labels in 2.0% of statements, below the peer average. 64 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”18
  2. “MAGA”13
  3. “radical”3
  4. “communist”1
  5. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump6
  2. President4
  3. Trump4
  4. Administration2
  5. MAGA base2
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: 1272025-02: 1732025-03: 1432025-04: 1352025-05: 1112025-06: 1212025-07: 1102025-08: 662025-09: 892025-10: 1102025-11: 1002025-12: 1492026-01: 1542026-02: 1912026-03: 2202026-04: 1632026-05: 1352026-06: 1922026-07: 2282026-08: 1602026-09: 1382026-10: 118peak 228 · Jul ’26Personal attackspeak 27.2% · Feb ’25 · latest 13.6%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 17.3% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-02: 27.2% of 173Personal attacks, 2025-03: 12.6% of 143Personal attacks, 2025-04: 22.2% of 135Personal attacks, 2025-05: 24.3% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-06: 14.1% of 121Personal attacks, 2025-07: 19.1% of 110Personal attacks, 2025-08: 13.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-09: 16.9% of 89Personal attacks, 2025-10: 19.1% of 110Personal attacks, 2025-11: 14.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2025-12: 10.7% of 149Personal attacks, 2026-01: 17.5% of 154Personal attacks, 2026-02: 16.2% of 191Personal attacks, 2026-03: 14.5% of 220Personal attacks, 2026-04: 14.1% of 163Personal attacks, 2026-05: 13.3% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-06: 21.9% of 192Personal attacks, 2026-07: 23.3% of 228Personal attacks, 2026-08: 15.0% of 160Personal attacks, 2026-09: 10.9% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-10: 13.6% of 118Policy criticismpeak 56.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 11.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 20.5% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-02: 31.2% of 173Policy criticism, 2025-03: 28.7% of 143Policy criticism, 2025-04: 23.0% of 135Policy criticism, 2025-05: 27.9% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-06: 37.2% of 121Policy criticism, 2025-07: 33.6% of 110Policy criticism, 2025-08: 47.0% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-09: 39.3% of 89Policy criticism, 2025-10: 56.4% of 110Policy criticism, 2025-11: 39.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2025-12: 30.9% of 149Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.2% of 154Policy criticism, 2026-02: 35.1% of 191Policy criticism, 2026-03: 45.9% of 220Policy criticism, 2026-04: 26.4% of 163Policy criticism, 2026-05: 20.7% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-06: 40.1% of 192Policy criticism, 2026-07: 25.0% of 228Policy criticism, 2026-08: 25.0% of 160Policy criticism, 2026-09: 24.6% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.9% of 118Policy discussionpeak 90.3% · Jan ’26 · latest 88.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 51.2% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-02: 48.5% of 173Policy discussion, 2025-03: 53.8% of 143Policy discussion, 2025-04: 54.8% of 135Policy discussion, 2025-05: 46.9% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-06: 53.7% of 121Policy discussion, 2025-07: 47.3% of 110Policy discussion, 2025-08: 66.7% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-09: 48.3% of 89Policy discussion, 2025-10: 68.2% of 110Policy discussion, 2025-11: 62.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2025-12: 78.5% of 149Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.3% of 154Policy discussion, 2026-02: 64.4% of 191Policy discussion, 2026-03: 76.8% of 220Policy discussion, 2026-04: 79.8% of 163Policy discussion, 2026-05: 74.1% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-06: 74.0% of 192Policy discussion, 2026-07: 78.5% of 228Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.0% of 160Policy discussion, 2026-09: 84.8% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-10: 88.1% of 118Bipartisanshippeak 22.8% · Dec ’25 · latest 10.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.9% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.6% of 173Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.2% of 143Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.9% of 135Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 7.2% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 8.3% of 121Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.8% of 110Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 4.5% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.0% of 89Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 12.7% of 110Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 22.8% of 149Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 17.5% of 154Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 13.6% of 191Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.5% of 220Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 18.4% of 163Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 9.6% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.1% of 192Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.7% of 228Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 18.1% of 160Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 18.8% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.2% of 118Credit claimingpeak 31.3% · Apr ’26 · latest 17.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 12.6% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-02: 6.9% of 173Credit claiming, 2025-03: 10.5% of 143Credit claiming, 2025-04: 8.9% of 135Credit claiming, 2025-05: 12.6% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-06: 5.8% of 121Credit claiming, 2025-07: 10.9% of 110Credit claiming, 2025-08: 9.1% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.2% of 89Credit claiming, 2025-10: 7.3% of 110Credit claiming, 2025-11: 16.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2025-12: 22.8% of 149Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.9% of 154Credit claiming, 2026-02: 16.2% of 191Credit claiming, 2026-03: 29.5% of 220Credit claiming, 2026-04: 31.3% of 163Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.9% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-06: 29.7% of 192Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.3% of 228Credit claiming, 2026-08: 28.1% of 160Credit claiming, 2026-09: 21.0% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-10: 17.8% of 118Extreme labelspeak 4.5% · Aug ’25 · latest 1.7%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.9% of 173Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.4% of 143Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.5% of 135Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.6% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.3% of 121Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.8% of 110Extreme labels, 2025-08: 4.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.4% of 89Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.6% of 110Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.0% of 149Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.3% of 154Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.7% of 191Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.8% of 220Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.2% of 163Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.7% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.1% of 192Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.3% of 228Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.3% of 160Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.7% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.7% of 118Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Schiff, 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 ’2512717.3%20.5%51.2%7.9%12.6%0.0%
Feb ’2517327.2%31.2%48.5%4.6%6.9%2.9%
Mar ’2514312.6%28.7%53.8%4.2%10.5%1.4%
Apr ’2513522.2%23.0%54.8%5.9%8.9%1.5%
May ’2511124.3%27.9%46.9%7.2%12.6%3.6%
Jun ’2512114.1%37.2%53.7%8.3%5.8%3.3%
Jul ’2511019.1%33.6%47.3%1.8%10.9%1.8%
Aug ’256613.6%47.0%66.7%4.5%9.1%4.5%
Sep ’258916.9%39.3%48.3%9.0%11.2%3.4%
Oct ’2511019.1%56.4%68.2%12.7%7.3%3.6%
Nov ’2510014.0%39.0%62.0%13.0%16.0%2.0%
Dec ’2514910.7%30.9%78.5%22.8%22.8%2.0%
Jan ’2615417.5%18.2%90.3%17.5%16.9%1.3%
Feb ’2619116.2%35.1%64.4%13.6%16.2%3.7%
Mar ’2622014.5%45.9%76.8%14.5%29.5%1.8%
Apr ’2616314.1%26.4%79.8%18.4%31.3%1.2%
May ’2613513.3%20.7%74.1%9.6%25.9%0.7%
Jun ’2619221.9%40.1%74.0%14.1%29.7%3.1%
Jul ’2622823.3%25.0%78.5%12.7%23.3%1.3%
Aug ’2616015.0%25.0%90.0%18.1%28.1%1.3%
Sep ’2613810.9%24.6%84.8%18.8%21.0%0.7%
Oct ’2611813.6%11.9%88.1%10.2%17.8%1.7%
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 Schiff’s words

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

Bipartisanship

NEWS: Schiff, Murphy, Kelly, Slam Attorney General Blanche for Illegally Allowing Sale of Guns to Teenagers, Increasing Likelihood of School Shootings Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Friday led in a letter to Attorney Gene…

Oct 20, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; Law · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Bill Barr, Todd Blanche · Source

Extreme label

NEWS: Schiff Joins Raskin, Blumenthal in Pressing Kirkland & Ellis for Details of $125 Million Trump “Deal” Lawmakers Reject Kirkland’s Excuses for Stonewalling Investigation and Demand Immediate Compliance Washington, D.C. —Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law; extreme label “radical” aimed at executive privilege; target: Donald Trump · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: Bill Barr, Todd BlancheSource

  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 · Finance and Financial Sector · target: 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: BlancheSource

  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 · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · 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 · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · target: Elon MuskSource

All 3,133 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: 2,520 posts on X, 501 press releases, 112 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Schiff talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 13th 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 Schiff talks about. The bills Schiff sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Schiff talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Schiff
Peers
Government Operations and Politics642 statements
30%
22%
Armed Forces and National Security469 statements
22%
21%
Economics and Public Finance421 statements
20%
24%
International Affairs309 statements
14%
12%
Health303 statements
14%
27%
Show the data
Policy areas Schiff talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowSchiffPeers
Government Operations and Politics30%22%
Armed Forces and National Security22%21%
Economics and Public Finance20%24%
International Affairs14%12%
Health14%27%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Schiff’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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 30% (Senate Democrats 22%)30%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (Senate Democrats 9%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (Senate Democrats 21%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 20% (Senate Democrats 24%)20%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 12%)14%International Affairs, legislates on: 11% (Senate Democrats 8%)11%HealthHealth, talks about: 14% (Senate Democrats 27%)14%Health, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 14%)8%
Show the data
Schiff's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics30%22%13%9%
Armed Forces and National Security22%21%6%7%
Economics and Public Finance20%24%0%0%
International Affairs14%12%11%8%
Health14%27%8%14%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 13th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Schiff sits at −1.46 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 88% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.48 to −1.45, which understates the uncertainty; from 30,469 donors and 6,800 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”.

−1.46

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.48 to −1.45. From 30,469 donors and 6,800 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Schiff −1.5Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Schiff, 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 Schiff’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 Schiff sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Schiff −1.5All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Schiff's CSIP score of −1.46 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Schiff
Senate Democrats45−1.111%
All Senate98+0.45%
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 Schiff 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 Schiff.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Schiff raised $10.4M in the 2026 cycle, 4.0 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 59% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 53% 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
$10.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 6,227 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): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.4M (33.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $5.0M (48.2%)PACs and other committees: $79.4K (0.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.9M (18.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$3.4M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)48 squares$5.0M
  • PACs and other committees1 squares$79.4K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)18 squares$1.9M
Show the data
Sources of Schiff's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.4M33.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$5.0M48.2%
PACs and other committees$79.4K0.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.9M18.0%
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $19.6M$19.6M20202022 cycle: $25.3M$25.3M20222024 cycle: $48.1M$48.1M20242026 cycle: $10.4M$10.4M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Schiff's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$19.6M
2022 cycle$25.3M
2024 cycle$48.1M
2026 cycle$10.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 53% came from California.

  1. California$1.4M
  2. New York$131.9K
  3. Washington$93.9K
  4. Florida$90.7K
  5. Massachusetts$78.6K

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%
Schiff
Median
2026
59%
35%
2024
42%
35%
2022
61%
35%
2020
65%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowSchiffMedian
2026 cycle59%35%
2024 cycle42%35%
2022 cycle61%35%
2020 cycle65%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $6,071AKMaine: $16.5KMEVermont: $6,098VTNew Hampshire: $16.4KNHWashington: $93.9KWAIdaho: $5,003IDMontana: $3,316MTNorth Dakota: $725NDMinnesota: $28.8KMNIllinois: $49.1KILWisconsin: $17.3KWIMichigan: $31.6KMINew York: $131.9KNYRhode Island: $7,466RIMassachusetts: $78.6KMAOregon: $32.4KORNevada: $9,855NVWyoming: $3,535WYSouth Dakota: $1,475SDIowa: $6,245IAIndiana: $20.0KINOhio: $28.4KOHPennsylvania: $43.0KPANew Jersey: $38.8KNJConnecticut: $32.2KCTCalifornia: $1.4MCAUtah: $18.2KUTColorado: $27.6KCONebraska: $1,876NEMissouri: $24.6KMOKentucky: $4,735KYWest Virginia: $3,816WVVirginia: $58.0KVAMaryland: $48.7KMDDelaware: $2,137DEArizona: $37.6KAZNew Mexico: $16.3KNMKansas: $6,053KSArkansas: $6,595ARTennessee: $26.1KTNNorth Carolina: $26.9KNCSouth Carolina: $7,725SCDistrict of Columbia: $25.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $5,428LAMississippi: $1,940MSAlabama: $4,221ALGeorgia: $11.9KGAHawaii: $12.8KHITexas: $65.6KTXFlorida: $90.7KFL
Show the data
Schiff's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.4M
New York$131.9K
Washington$93.9K
Florida$90.7K
Massachusetts$78.6K
Texas$65.6K
Virginia$58.0K
Illinois$49.1K
Maryland$48.7K
Pennsylvania$43.0K
New Jersey$38.8K
Arizona$37.6K
Oregon$32.4K
Connecticut$32.2K
Michigan$31.6K
Minnesota$28.8K
Ohio$28.4K
Colorado$27.6K
North Carolina$26.9K
Tennessee$26.1K
District of Columbia$25.0K
Missouri$24.6K
Indiana$20.0K
Utah$18.2K
Wisconsin$17.3K
Maine$16.5K
New Hampshire$16.4K
New Mexico$16.3K
Hawaii$12.8K
Georgia$11.9K
Nevada$9,855
South Carolina$7,725
Rhode Island$7,466
Arkansas$6,595
Iowa$6,245
Vermont$6,098
Alaska$6,071
Kansas$6,053
Louisiana$5,428
Idaho$5,003
Kentucky$4,735
Alabama$4,221
West Virginia$3,816
Wyoming$3,535
Montana$3,316
Delaware$2,137
Mississippi$1,940
Nebraska$1,876
South Dakota$1,475
North Dakota$725
OklahomaNo data
6,227

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

53%

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 −1.75 to −1.50: 0.1%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 6.6%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 74%74%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 17%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.1%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Schiff's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 6.6% between −1.50 and −1.25, 74% between −1.25 and −1.00, 17% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.1%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.256.6%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0074%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7517%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.1%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Schiff’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Schiff’s own score is −1.46.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$1.3M 3,357 donors
  2. RETIRED$669.4K 1,425 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$114.9K 184 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$51.6K 94 donors
  5. CEO$39.7K 29 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$5,500
  2. AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PISTACHIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  3. AMERICAN SUGAR CANE LEAGUE OF USA, INC PAC$5,000
  4. D.R.I.V.E. - DEM, REP, IND VOTER ED (THE PAC OF THE INT'L BRHD OF TEAMSTERS)$5,000
  5. INT'L ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRON WORKERS (IPAL)$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$10.0K 4 donors
  2. NOT-EMPLOYED$2,718 18 donors
  3. STATE OF CALIFORNIA$2,634 8 donors
  4. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$2,490 9 donors
  5. UNITED AIRLINES$2,440 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Schiff voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 95.3% of party-line votes and missed 2.4% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schiff voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 61 times.

915 roll calls Schiff 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 Schiff voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

61

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 95.3%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 26th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Schiff
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
97.0%
25th of 45
Party unity
95.3%
95.3%
26th of 45
Show the data
Schiff's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowSchiffPeers
Attendance97.6%97.0%
Party unity95.3%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 Schiff most often

  1. Alex PadillaD863 shared votes96%
  2. Andy KimD885 shared votes95%
  3. Kirsten GillibrandD877 shared votes95%
  4. Cory BookerD847 shared votes95%
  5. Angela AlsobrooksD878 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schiff least often

  1. Tommy TubervilleR839 shared votes8.2%
  2. Marsha BlackburnR840 shared votes8.5%
  3. Ted CruzR847 shared votes8.5%
  4. Ron JohnsonR881 shared votes8.5%
  5. Bernie MorenoR888 shared votes8.7%
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

Schiff sponsored 100 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 621 others. 9.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 34th of 45).

The bills Schiff 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

Sponsored100 billsSponsored, Introduced: 100100Sponsored, In committee: 100100Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored621 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 621621Cosponsored, In committee: 621621Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7373Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Schiff sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored100100300
Cosponsored6216217365
How to read the blocks

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

9.0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 34th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Alex Padilla247
  2. Cory Booker208
  3. Richard Blumenthal197
  4. Jeff Merkley191
  5. Ron Wyden164
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 Schiff’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. 5604Improving Species Recovery ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionRead twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5618Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeLawRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5630Stop Orphaned Wells ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5632National Archives Protection ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text: CR S5264) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5656Domestic Violence SAFE Notice ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 79 times in 90 days. Schiff’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Schiff posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Schiff’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 Schiff 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 Schiff posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A news-style graphic featuring a black-and-white portrait of a man in a suit against a dark textured background. A red horizontal bar crosses behind him, with a large headline at the top and a short quote on the bar. Text is present.
    A news-style graphic featuring a black-and-white portrait of a man in a suit against a dark textured background. A red horizontal bar crosses behind him, with a large headline at the top and a short quote on the bar. Text is present.View post
  • A white rectangular news excerpt is centered on a black textured background crossed by a horizontal red stripe. The excerpt contains several paragraphs of article text and a small section heading. Three small red circular marks appear near the lower-right corner.
    A white rectangular news excerpt is centered on a black textured background crossed by a horizontal red stripe. The excerpt contains several paragraphs of article text and a small section heading. Three small red circular marks appear near the lower-right corner.View post
  • A white rectangular clipping of an article appears over a dark, textured background with a horizontal red stripe. The clipping contains several paragraphs of text, with some linked words in blue and a person’s name in bold. Three small red circular marks appear near the bottom right.
    A white rectangular clipping of an article appears over a dark, textured background with a horizontal red stripe. The clipping contains several paragraphs of text, with some linked words in blue and a person’s name in bold. Three small red circular marks appear near the bottom right.View post
  • A cropped newspaper-style article headline and subheading on a white background. The headline reports a court ruling about President Trump and the Los Angeles National Guard deployment. There is text.
    A cropped newspaper-style article headline and subheading on a white background. The headline reports a court ruling about President Trump and the Los Angeles National Guard deployment. There is text.View post
  • A cropped news headline in large black serif lettering on a white background.
    A cropped news headline in large black serif lettering on a white background.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 Schiff 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
S001150
Bioguide
S001150
FEC candidate ids
H0CA27085, S4CA00555

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