Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Arizona’s 1st district

Serving since Jan 5, 2011119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001183FEC H4AZ06045, H8AZ05097

Portrait of David Schweikert, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.2×
the House Republican rate of policy criticism

49% of 608 statements criticize a policy (297 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 1st of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Schweikert’s posts on X, press releases, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 5.4% of Schweikert’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.5 times the House Republican average of 2.1%. 14% of Schweikert’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.6 times the House Republican average of 8.9%.

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

Policy criticism

49%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 1st of 221

Personal attacks

5.4%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 25th of 221

Bipartisanship

14%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 37th of 221

Credit claiming

26%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 181st of 221

Policy discussion

75%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 53rd of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.00

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Schweikert says

Schweikert criticizes policies more than any other House Republican. Policy criticism in 49% of 608 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 1st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Schweikert’s 608 statements in the 119th Congress (345 posts on X, 154 Congressional Record speeches, 72 newsletters, 37 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Schweikert
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion457 statements
75%
68%
53rd of 221
Policy criticism297 statements
49%
15%
1st of 221
Credit claiming161 statements
26%
37%
181st of 221
Bipartisanship87 statements
14%
9%
37th of 221
Personal attacks33 statements
5%
2%
25th of 221
Show the data
Schweikert's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowSchweikertPeers
Policy discussion75%68%
Policy criticism49%15%
Credit claiming26%37%
Bipartisanship14%9%
Personal attacks5%2%
608

statements classified

345 posts on X, 154 Congressional Record speeches, 72 newsletters, 37 press releases.

posts on X: 345 (56.7%)posts on X 345Congressional Record speeches: 154 (25.3%)Congressional Record speeches 154newsletters: 72 (11.8%)press releases: 37 (6.1%)
Show the data
Schweikert's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X345
Congressional Record speeches154
newsletters72
press releases37
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Schweikert used extreme labels in 2.8% of statements, close to the peer average. 17 statements, most often aimed at left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “MAGA”1
  2. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. left3
  2. clown show1
  3. H-1B model1
  4. leftist consultant1
  5. MAGA influencers1
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: 192025-02: 442025-03: 182025-04: 82025-05: 392025-06: 172025-07: 122025-08: 102025-09: 232025-10: 92025-11: 142025-12: 342026-01: 612026-02: 552026-03: 622026-04: 502026-05: 402026-06: 502026-07: 232026-08: 72026-09: 122026-10: 1peak 62 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 22.2% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 15.8% of 19Personal attacks, 2025-02: 15.9% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-03: 22.2% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-05: 10.3% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-06: 17.6% of 17Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.3% of 12Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-09: 4.3% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.3% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-03: 3.2% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-04: 2.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-06: 4.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 12Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 66.7% · Mar ’25 · latest 25.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 42.1% of 19Policy criticism, 2025-02: 40.9% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-03: 66.7% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-05: 25.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-06: 52.9% of 17Policy criticism, 2025-07: 33.3% of 12Policy criticism, 2025-08: 30.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-09: 47.8% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: 64.3% of 14Policy criticism, 2025-12: 58.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-01: 37.7% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-02: 61.8% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-03: 59.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-04: 48.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-05: 62.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-06: 54.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-07: 34.8% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 25.0% of 12Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 66.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 68.4% of 19Policy discussion, 2025-02: 56.8% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-03: 72.2% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-05: 46.2% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-06: 82.3% of 17Policy discussion, 2025-07: 75.0% of 12Policy discussion, 2025-08: 100.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-09: 56.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: 92.9% of 14Policy discussion, 2025-12: 79.4% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-01: 78.7% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-02: 81.8% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.8% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-04: 84.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-05: 85.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-07: 73.9% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 66.7% of 12Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 44.4% · Mar ’25 · latest 8.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 31.6% of 19Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 22.7% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 44.4% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 10.3% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 29.4% of 17Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 10.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 30.4% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.3% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.9% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 17.7% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 16.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 8.3% of 12Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 60.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 16.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 52.6% of 19Credit claiming, 2025-02: 25.0% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-03: 55.6% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-05: 12.8% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-06: 35.3% of 17Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.0% of 12Credit claiming, 2025-08: 60.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-09: 34.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: 35.7% of 14Credit claiming, 2025-12: 20.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-01: 26.2% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-02: 20.0% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-03: 14.5% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-04: 30.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-06: 26.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-07: 30.4% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 16.7% of 12Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 13.0% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.3% of 19Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.1% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-03: 11.1% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.6% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 17Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-09: 13.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.2% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 12Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Schweikert, 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 ’251915.8%42.1%68.4%31.6%52.6%5.3%
Feb ’254415.9%40.9%56.8%22.7%25.0%9.1%
Mar ’251822.2%66.7%72.2%44.4%55.6%11.1%
Apr ’258— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
May ’253910.3%25.6%46.2%10.3%12.8%2.6%
Jun ’251717.6%52.9%82.3%29.4%35.3%0.0%
Jul ’25128.3%33.3%75.0%8.3%25.0%0.0%
Aug ’25100.0%30.0%100.0%10.0%60.0%0.0%
Sep ’25234.3%47.8%56.5%30.4%34.8%13.0%
Oct ’259— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’25147.1%64.3%92.9%7.1%35.7%7.1%
Dec ’25340.0%58.8%79.4%11.8%20.6%2.9%
Jan ’26613.3%37.7%78.7%3.3%26.2%0.0%
Feb ’26550.0%61.8%81.8%10.9%20.0%0.0%
Mar ’26623.2%59.7%75.8%17.7%14.5%3.2%
Apr ’26502.0%48.0%84.0%6.0%30.0%0.0%
May ’26402.5%62.5%85.0%10.0%25.0%0.0%
Jun ’26504.0%54.0%78.0%16.0%26.0%4.0%
Jul ’26230.0%34.8%73.9%0.0%30.4%0.0%
Aug ’267— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26120.0%25.0%66.7%8.3%16.7%0.0%
Oct ’261— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 4 months are hatched here.

In Schweikert’s words

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

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be another presentation of basically budget, debt, my frustration with this place, and my frustration with telling the truth. Look, we are a remarkable country, no matter what you hear often from our brothers and sisters, particularly from the left, a quarter millennium…

Jun 30, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Immigration; Taxation · Source

Policy criticism

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

Sep 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, this is sort of our weekly attempt to see if we can use math to annoy people, so let's actually have some fun here. I am going to try three different things in this presentation. One, we are going to actually talk about the real driver of interest rates, housing affordability. The secon…

Jun 25, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Law; Immigration; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “extreme” aimed at MAHA · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, this is going to be another presentation of basically budget, debt, my frustration with this place, and my frustration with telling the truth. Look, we are a remarkable country, no matter what you hear often from our brothers and sisters, particularly from the left, a quarter millennium of a remarkable experiment. We have brought more freedom to the world, more prosperity to the world, more ingenuity to…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Immigration · TaxationSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we are going to actually try to do something that is a little complex, so I apologize. I apologize for those trying to keep track. If I start speaking like a machine gun--once again, I have had a stunning amount of coffee--just wave at me, and I will slow down. I am going to try to actually explain and walk through what we talk about constantly, and that is wa…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Taxation · Families · Agriculture and Food · Crime and Law Enforcement · Finance and Financial SectorSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Madam Speaker, I am actually going to try something that we have done over and over. I apologize; I have had a lot of coffee. If I start talking like a machine gun, just start waving at me. I am going to try one more time to communicate to the thousands of televisions we are on around the campus. Hopefully, there are still staff, interns, and others who actually care about our economic future. Maybe there are a few M…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Taxation · Transportation and Public WorksSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: AnyoneSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, we are going to actually do something with a little meat on the bones today. I have to walk through the math. Repeatedly, I have come behind this microphone over the last decade, trying to walk through our Joint Economic Committee's, my office's, and my personal unified theory. The unified theory is a fairly simple concept: We have an incredibly complex problem. Last year, for every dollar this country t…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Commerce · Armed Forces and National Security · Immigration · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · Agriculture and Food · Finance and Financial Sector · Energy · Taxation · extreme label “radical” aimed at H-1B modelSource

All 608 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: 345 posts on X, 154 Congressional Record speeches, 72 newsletters, 37 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Schweikert talks about most: 60% of policy statements, 3.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 150th of 221).

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

What Schweikert talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%66%
Schweikert
Peers
Economics and Public Finance274 statements
60%
19%
Health215 statements
47%
15%
Taxation137 statements
30%
10%
Government Operations and Politics120 statements
26%
19%
Science, Technology, Communications114 statements
25%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Schweikert talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowSchweikertPeers
Economics and Public Finance60%19%
Health47%15%
Taxation30%10%
Government Operations and Politics26%19%
Science, Technology, Communications25%7%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 66%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 60% (House Republicans 19%)60%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 2%)5%HealthHealth, talks about: 47% (House Republicans 15%)47%Health, legislates on: 20% (House Republicans 11%)20%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 30% (House Republicans 10%)30%Taxation, legislates on: 16% (House Republicans 9%)16%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 19%)26%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Republicans 12%)11%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 7%)25%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 3%)2%
Show the data
Schweikert's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance60%19%5%2%
Health47%15%20%11%
Taxation30%10%16%9%
Government Operations and Politics26%19%11%12%
Science, Technology, Communications25%7%2%3%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 150th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Schweikert sits at +1.00 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 50% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.98 to +1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,234 donors and 7,506 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”.

+1.00

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.98 to +1.01. From 2,234 donors and 7,506 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Schweikert, 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 Schweikert’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 Schweikert sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Schweikert +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Schweikert's CSIP score of +1.00 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Schweikert
House Republicans221+1.050%
All House439+0.375%
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 Schweikert 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 Schweikert.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Schweikert raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 4.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 59% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 327 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $587.3K (34.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $24.4K (1.4%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)PACs and other committees: $663.2K (38.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $424.8K (24.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)35 squares$587.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$24.4K
  • PACs and other committees39 squares$663.2K
  • Party committees$5,000
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)25 squares$424.8K
Show the data
Sources of Schweikert's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$587.3K34.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$24.4K1.4%
PACs and other committees$663.2K38.9%
Party committees$5,0000.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$424.8K24.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20202022 cycle: $2.0M$2.0M20222024 cycle: $4.2M$4.2M20242026 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Schweikert's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.3M
2022 cycle$2.0M
2024 cycle$4.2M
2026 cycle$1.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 59% came from Arizona.

  1. Arizona$264.3K
  2. Virginia$56.8K
  3. California$36.5K
  4. New York$17.0K
  5. District of Columbia$16.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Schweikert
Median
2026
4%
9%
2024
7%
9%
2022
5%
9%
2020
8%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowSchweikertMedian
2026 cycle4%9%
2024 cycle7%9%
2022 cycle5%9%
2020 cycle8%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $94MEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: $2,000NHWashington: $1,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $3,500MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $204MNIllinois: $1,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $1MINew York: $17.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $6,500NVWyoming: $11.5KWYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: $252IAIndiana: $204INOhio: $1,000OHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: $3,602NJConnecticut: $4,000CTCalifornia: $36.5KCAUtah: $9,250UTColorado: $3,400CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $282KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $56.8KVAMaryland: $3,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $264.3KAZNew Mexico: $41NMKansas: $2,137KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $1,615TNNorth Carolina: $5,520NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $16.8KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $700MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,391GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $4,179TXFlorida: $12.2KFL
Show the data
Schweikert's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Arizona$264.3K
Virginia$56.8K
California$36.5K
New York$17.0K
District of Columbia$16.8K
Florida$12.2K
Wyoming$11.5K
Utah$9,250
Nevada$6,500
North Carolina$5,520
Texas$4,179
Connecticut$4,000
New Jersey$3,602
Montana$3,500
Maryland$3,500
Colorado$3,400
Kansas$2,137
New Hampshire$2,000
Tennessee$1,615
Georgia$1,391
Washington$1,000
Illinois$1,000
Ohio$1,000
Mississippi$700
Vermont$500
South Dakota$500
Pennsylvania$500
Kentucky$282
Iowa$252
Minnesota$204
Indiana$204
Maine$94
New Mexico$41
Michigan$1
AlaskaNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
327

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

59%

from Arizona

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 8.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 70%70%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 10%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Schweikert's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 8.8% between +0.50 and +0.75, 70% between +0.75 and +1.00, 10% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.758.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0070%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2510%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Schweikert’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Schweikert’s own score is +1.00.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$157.8K 60 donors
  2. CEO$61.5K 31 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$33.3K 10 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$25.8K 25 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$21.5K 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION PAC$7,000
  2. HUMANA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$6,000
  3. ABRAHAM LINCOLN PAC$5,000
  4. ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. AXON$7,000 3 donors
  2. BROWNSTEIN$6,500 6 donors
  3. PATHLIGHT ADVISORS$1,750 3 donors
  4. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF AZ$1,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Schweikert voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schweikert voted against the majority of House Republicans 23 times.

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

23

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 78th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Schweikert
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
96.3%
64th of 221
Party unity
98.7%
97.1%
78th of 221
Show the data
Schweikert's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowSchweikertPeers
Attendance98.8%96.3%
Party unity98.7%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schweikert most often

  1. Doug LamalfaR334 shared votes98%
  2. Mike JohnsonR515 shared votes98%
  3. Mark E. GreenR167 shared votes98%
  4. Rudy YakymR666 shared votes97%
  5. Tom EmmerR657 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schweikert least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD386 shared votes23%
  2. Rashida TlaibD650 shared votes23%
  3. Delia RamirezD633 shared votes23%
  4. Jan SchakowskyD621 shared votes24%
  5. Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes24%
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

Schweikert sponsored 35 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 96 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 125th of 216).

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

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored35 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3535Sponsored, In committee: 3535Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored96 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 9696Cosponsored, In committee: 9696Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Schweikert sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3535100
Cosponsored9696922
How to read the blocks

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

11%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 125th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Juan Ciscomani11
  2. Greg Stanton11
  3. Yassamin Ansari9
  4. Paul Gosar9
  5. Lloyd Smucker9
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 Schweikert’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. 10460SMARTER ActSponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10400SMARTER ActSponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 15, 2026
H.R. 10288Rural Broadband Modernization ActSponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026
H.R. 10218Advancing American Innovation ActSponsorSep 1, 2026In committeeForeign Trade and International FinanceReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 1, 2026
H.R. 9819AIDEN (Advancing Integrated Data for Equitable National Child Welfare)SponsorJul 21, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jul 21, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 84 times in 90 days. Schweikert’s official site had 53 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Schweikert posted on Sep 24, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Schweikert posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A purple-and-white financial table shows estimated dollar amounts across 10 years and different increases in the 10-year Treasury interest rate. The cells are shaded in increasingly deep purple, and the image contains text and numerical values.
    A purple-and-white financial table shows estimated dollar amounts across 10 years and different increases in the 10-year Treasury interest rate. The cells are shaded in increasingly deep purple, and the image contains text and numerical values.View post
  • A photograph of three adults standing together and smiling in front of a light-colored wall with large green lettering. There is text in the background.
    A photograph of three adults standing together and smiling in front of a light-colored wall with large green lettering. There is text in the background.View post
  • Two men in suits pose in front of a branded event backdrop. One holds a small award. Text appears on the backdrop and award.
    Two men in suits pose in front of a branded event backdrop. One holds a small award. Text appears on the backdrop and award.View post
  • A blue-and-white table showing changes in national debt over a specified period and during the current fiscal year. It compares publicly held debt, intragovernmental debt, and total debt, with figures broken down by time interval. A source note appears at the bottom.
    A blue-and-white table showing changes in national debt over a specified period and during the current fiscal year. It compares publicly held debt, intragovernmental debt, and total debt, with figures broken down by time interval. A source note appears at the bottom.View post
  • A man and a woman pose together inside a bright, modern building. The man holds a framed certificate, and both are smiling at the camera. Other people and a large glass-and-steel interior are visible in the background. The certificate contains text.
    A man and a woman pose together inside a bright, modern building. The man holds a framed certificate, and both are smiling at the camera. Other people and a large glass-and-steel interior are visible in the background. The certificate contains text.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 Schweikert is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
S001183
Bioguide
S001183
FEC candidate ids
H4AZ06045, H8AZ05097

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