Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Florida’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001200FEC H6FL09179

Portrait of Darren Soto, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
16%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Democrats

16% of 19 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Democrats is 4.9%. Ranks 9th of 207, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Soto sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Democrats. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Soto voted against the majority of House Democrats 42 times; party unity 91.5%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%). Soto sits at −0.72 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 83% of House Democrats.

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

Out of committee

16%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 9th of 207

Attendance

100%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 10th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Party unity

91.5%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 194th of 217 · 42 votes against the majority of House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.72

More conservative than 83% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

From Florida, 2026

33%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 175th of 214 House Democrats

Personal attacks

9.1%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 54th of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Soto says

Soto attacks opponents personally more than 75% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 9.1% of 2,634 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 54th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Soto’s 2,634 statements in the 119th Congress (2,344 posts on X, 156 Congressional Record speeches, 100 newsletters, 34 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Soto
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,975 statements
75%
73%
95th of 216
Policy criticism777 statements
30%
28%
97th of 216
Credit claiming685 statements
26%
23%
68th of 216
Personal attacks239 statements
9%
7%
54th of 216
Bipartisanship222 statements
8%
10%
111th of 216
Show the data
Soto's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowSotoPeers
Policy discussion75%73%
Policy criticism30%28%
Credit claiming26%23%
Personal attacks9%7%
Bipartisanship8%10%
2,634

statements classified

2,344 posts on X, 156 Congressional Record speeches, 100 newsletters, 34 press releases.

posts on X: 2,344 (89.0%)posts on X 2,344Congressional Record speeches: 156 (5.9%)newsletters: 100 (3.8%)press releases: 34 (1.3%)
Show the data
Soto's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,344
Congressional Record speeches156
newsletters100
press releases34
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Soto used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 49 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.9%.

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

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA6
  2. Trump6
  3. Donald Trump3
  4. Republicans3
  5. MAGA Millionaires2
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: 972025-02: 1482025-03: 1482025-04: 1422025-05: 1222025-06: 1392025-07: 1072025-08: 1202025-09: 1542025-10: 1662025-11: 1372025-12: 1692026-01: 1782026-02: 1382026-03: 1402026-04: 1182026-05: 802026-06: 912026-07: 622026-08: 602026-09: 632026-10: 55peak 178 · Jan ’26Personal attackspeak 18.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 6.2% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-02: 10.1% of 148Personal attacks, 2025-03: 9.5% of 148Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.5% of 142Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.9% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.3% of 139Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.8% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-08: 7.5% of 120Personal attacks, 2025-09: 16.2% of 154Personal attacks, 2025-10: 10.8% of 166Personal attacks, 2025-11: 18.3% of 137Personal attacks, 2025-12: 11.8% of 169Personal attacks, 2026-01: 18.0% of 178Personal attacks, 2026-02: 15.9% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-03: 8.6% of 140Personal attacks, 2026-04: 17.0% of 118Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 91Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-08: 1.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 55Policy criticismpeak 50.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 3.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.8% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-02: 44.6% of 148Policy criticism, 2025-03: 37.2% of 148Policy criticism, 2025-04: 29.6% of 142Policy criticism, 2025-05: 31.1% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-06: 27.3% of 139Policy criticism, 2025-07: 39.3% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-08: 40.0% of 120Policy criticism, 2025-09: 35.7% of 154Policy criticism, 2025-10: 50.0% of 166Policy criticism, 2025-11: 40.2% of 137Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.0% of 169Policy criticism, 2026-01: 16.3% of 178Policy criticism, 2026-02: 29.7% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-03: 35.0% of 140Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.3% of 118Policy criticism, 2026-05: 17.5% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-06: 14.3% of 91Policy criticism, 2026-07: 19.4% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-08: 10.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.1% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.6% of 55Policy discussionpeak 90.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 78.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 84.5% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-02: 81.8% of 148Policy discussion, 2025-03: 79.7% of 148Policy discussion, 2025-04: 68.3% of 142Policy discussion, 2025-05: 80.3% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-06: 75.5% of 139Policy discussion, 2025-07: 72.0% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-08: 78.3% of 120Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.6% of 154Policy discussion, 2025-10: 73.5% of 166Policy discussion, 2025-11: 61.3% of 137Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.6% of 169Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.5% of 178Policy discussion, 2026-02: 67.4% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-03: 73.6% of 140Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.4% of 118Policy discussion, 2026-05: 83.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-06: 58.2% of 91Policy discussion, 2026-07: 83.9% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-09: 81.0% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-10: 78.2% of 55Bipartisanshippeak 19.4% · Jul ’26 · latest 7.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.3% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.1% of 148Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.1% of 148Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.6% of 142Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 10.7% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.5% of 139Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 2.5% of 120Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.7% of 154Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 11.5% of 166Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.8% of 137Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.1% of 169Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.4% of 178Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 8.0% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.6% of 140Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.4% of 118Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 17.6% of 91Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 19.4% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 5.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 7.3% of 55Credit claimingpeak 42.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 30.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 42.3% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-02: 35.8% of 148Credit claiming, 2025-03: 28.4% of 148Credit claiming, 2025-04: 28.2% of 142Credit claiming, 2025-05: 35.3% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-06: 28.8% of 139Credit claiming, 2025-07: 18.7% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.0% of 120Credit claiming, 2025-09: 22.1% of 154Credit claiming, 2025-10: 8.4% of 166Credit claiming, 2025-11: 16.1% of 137Credit claiming, 2025-12: 17.8% of 169Credit claiming, 2026-01: 24.2% of 178Credit claiming, 2026-02: 26.1% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.9% of 140Credit claiming, 2026-04: 11.9% of 118Credit claiming, 2026-05: 38.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-06: 36.3% of 91Credit claiming, 2026-07: 41.9% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-09: 31.8% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-10: 30.9% of 55Extreme labelspeak 5.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.4% of 148Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.7% of 148Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 142Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.5% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.4% of 139Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.0% of 120Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.6% of 154Extreme labels, 2025-10: 4.2% of 166Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.6% of 137Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.4% of 169Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 178Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.3% of 140Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 118Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 91Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 55Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Soto, 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 ’25976.2%26.8%84.5%8.3%42.3%4.1%
Feb ’2514810.1%44.6%81.8%10.1%35.8%1.4%
Mar ’251489.5%37.2%79.7%6.1%28.4%2.7%
Apr ’251423.5%29.6%68.3%5.6%28.2%0.0%
May ’251224.9%31.1%80.3%10.7%35.3%2.5%
Jun ’251394.3%27.3%75.5%6.5%28.8%1.4%
Jul ’251072.8%39.3%72.0%5.6%18.7%0.0%
Aug ’251207.5%40.0%78.3%2.5%20.0%5.0%
Sep ’2515416.2%35.7%65.6%9.7%22.1%2.6%
Oct ’2516610.8%50.0%73.5%11.5%8.4%4.2%
Nov ’2513718.3%40.2%61.3%8.8%16.1%3.6%
Dec ’2516911.8%16.0%74.6%10.1%17.8%2.4%
Jan ’2617818.0%16.3%81.5%8.4%24.2%0.0%
Feb ’2613815.9%29.7%67.4%8.0%26.1%1.5%
Mar ’261408.6%35.0%73.6%8.6%27.9%4.3%
Apr ’2611817.0%20.3%75.4%3.4%11.9%0.0%
May ’26800.0%17.5%83.8%7.5%38.8%0.0%
Jun ’26910.0%14.3%58.2%17.6%36.3%0.0%
Jul ’26620.0%19.4%83.9%19.4%41.9%0.0%
Aug ’26601.7%10.0%90.0%5.0%38.3%0.0%
Sep ’26630.0%19.1%81.0%7.9%31.8%0.0%
Oct ’26550.0%3.6%78.2%7.3%30.9%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Soto’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Honoring Local Firefighters This week's updates from Florida's Ninth Congressional District [https://jqdr8xabb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=b6d82afe-2d42-4c08-9dbe-667a159323aa&a=1134671990281&c=74a92b32-f056-11f0-bf6d-0242b4233b76&ch=74a9d10e-f056-11f0-bf6d-0242b4233b76] [https://files.constantcontact.com…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Health; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Transportation and Public Works; Immigration; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment

Personal attacks

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

Aug 21, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Mar 24, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Taxation; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump; 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 · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: TrumpSource

  2. Newsletters

    Improving Disaster Preparedness This week's updates from Florida's Ninth Congressional District [https://jqdr8xabb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=4a6ef1f5-a708-4c28-9fb1-cdf953eb018d&a=1134671990281&c=74a92b32-f056-11f0-bf6d-0242b4233b76&ch=74a9d10e-f056-11f0-bf6d-0242b4233b76] [https://files.constantcontact.com/90e88bf2801/7aba0aea-07b9-4d2e-8af7-558382ada73c.png?rdr=true] Dear political, This week, we participated in a Co…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Labor and Employment · Housing and Community Development · Health · Water Resources Development · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Commerce · Education · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Donald Trump

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Trump familySource

  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 · Commerce · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Law · target: TrumpSource

All 2,634 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: 2,344 posts on X, 156 Congressional Record speeches, 100 newsletters, 34 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Soto talks about most: 31% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 143rd of 216).

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

What Soto talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Soto
Peers
Health602 statements
31%
26%
Economics and Public Finance450 statements
23%
20%
Immigration278 statements
14%
11%
Government Operations and Politics266 statements
13%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security246 statements
12%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Soto talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowSotoPeers
Health31%26%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%
Immigration14%11%
Government Operations and Politics13%20%
Armed Forces and National Security12%16%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 31% (House Democrats 26%)31%Health, legislates on: 23% (House Democrats 16%)23%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 20%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 11%)14%Immigration, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 4%)6%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 13% (House Democrats 20%)13%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 16%)12%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 7%)4%
Show the data
Soto's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health31%26%23%16%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%1%1%
Immigration14%11%6%4%
Government Operations and Politics13%20%9%11%
Armed Forces and National Security12%16%4%7%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 143rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Soto sits at −0.72 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 83% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.74 to −0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,209 donors and 5,034 roll calls.

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

−0.72

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.74 to −0.71. From 2,209 donors and 5,034 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Soto −0.7House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Soto, 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 Soto’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 Soto sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Soto −0.7All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Soto's CSIP score of −0.72 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Soto
House Democrats217−1.082%
All House439+0.341%
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 Soto 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 Soto.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Soto raised $3.7M in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 33% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

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
$3.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 447 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $87.8K (2.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $87.8K (2.4%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)PACs and other committees: $2.1M (56.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $27.6K (0.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$87.8K
  • PACs and other committees56 squares$2.1M
  • Party committees$5,720
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$27.6K
Show the data
Sources of Soto's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M40.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$87.8K2.4%
PACs and other committees$2.1M56.2%
Party committees$5,7200.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$27.6K0.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20202022 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M20222024 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20242026 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Soto's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.1M
2022 cycle$1.3M
2024 cycle$2.2M
2026 cycle$3.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 33% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$240.5K
  2. New York$87.2K
  3. California$78.3K
  4. Massachusetts$72.5K
  5. Texas$59.7K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Soto
Median
2026
6%
13%
2024
4%
13%
2022
2%
13%
2020
4%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowSotoMedian
2026 cycle6%13%
2024 cycle4%13%
2022 cycle2%13%
2020 cycle4%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $14.3KMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $3,000NHWashington: $9,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,000MNIllinois: $4,750ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $6,300MINew York: $87.2KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $72.5KMAOregon: $3,500ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: $1,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $500INOhio: $2,000OHPennsylvania: $4,750PANew Jersey: $2,500NJConnecticut: $550CTCalifornia: $78.3KCAUtah: $5,500UTColorado: $4,500CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,010MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $10.8KVAMaryland: $19.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,000AZNew Mexico: $300NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $500ARTennessee: $500TNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: $7,650SCDistrict of Columbia: $46.4KDCOklahoma: $17.5KOKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $59.7KTXFlorida: $240.5KFL
Show the data
Soto's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$240.5K
New York$87.2K
California$78.3K
Massachusetts$72.5K
Texas$59.7K
District of Columbia$46.4K
Maryland$19.3K
Oklahoma$17.5K
Maine$14.3K
Virginia$10.8K
Washington$9,000
South Carolina$7,650
Michigan$6,300
Utah$5,500
Illinois$4,750
Pennsylvania$4,750
Colorado$4,500
Oregon$3,500
New Hampshire$3,000
New Jersey$2,500
Ohio$2,000
Missouri$1,010
Minnesota$1,000
Wyoming$1,000
Arizona$1,000
Louisiana$1,000
Georgia$1,000
Connecticut$550
Indiana$500
Arkansas$500
Tennessee$500
New Mexico$300
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
NevadaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
North CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
447

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

33%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 7.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 36%36%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 21%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 11%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 9.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 12%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Soto's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.00: 7.1% between −1.25 and −1.00, 36% between −1.00 and −0.75, 21% between −0.75 and −0.50, 11% between −0.50 and −0.25, 9.9% between −0.25 and 0.00, 12% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.007.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7536%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5021%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2511%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.009.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2512%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Soto’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Soto’s own score is −0.72.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$139.1K 75 donors
  2. NOT EMPLOYED$90.7K 47 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$64.8K 51 donors
  4. CEO$42.9K 20 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$40.0K 16 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NORPAC$18.7K
  2. AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$15.0K
  3. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. ACROSS THE AISLE PAC$10.0K
  5. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP$5,500 10 donors
  2. FULCRUM PUBLIC AFFAIRS$5,500 3 donors
  3. AVENUE SOLUTIONS$2,500 3 donors
  4. BGR GROUP$2,500 3 donors
  5. NVG LLC$1,250 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Soto voted with the majority of House Democrats on 91.5% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Soto voted against the majority of House Democrats 42 times.

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

42

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 91.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 194th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Soto
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.9%
10th of 217
Party unity
91.5%
96.4%
194th of 217
Show the data
Soto's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowSotoPeers
Attendance100%96.9%
Party unity91.5%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Soto most often

  1. Eric SwalwellD304 shared votes97%
  2. Lois FrankelD646 shared votes96%
  3. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD472 shared votes96%
  4. Jimmy PanettaD673 shared votes96%
  5. Frank MrvanD653 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Soto least often

  1. Chip RoyR634 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR642 shared votes22%
  3. Ralph NormanR597 shared votes22%
  4. Keith SelfR659 shared votes22%
  5. Andy BiggsR608 shared votes22%
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

Soto sponsored 19 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 533 others. 16% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 9th of 207).

The bills Soto 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

Sponsored19 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1919Sponsored, In committee: 1919Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored533 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 533533Cosponsored, In committee: 533533Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2020Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Soto sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1919200
Cosponsored5335332021
How to read the blocks

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

16%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 9th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton50
  2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz29
  3. Brian Fitzpatrick28
  4. Maxwell Frost27
  5. Gus Bilirakis26
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 Soto’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. 10874Medicare Low Income Subsidy Equality Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10898To direct the President's Pay Agent to establish pay localities for the Orlando metropolitan area and the Tampa metropolitan area.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10815Bright Beginnings ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 15, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10747Puerto Rico Medicare Advantage Fairness Act of 2026CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 86 times in 90 days. Soto’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Soto posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    soto.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    35

    pages crawled

    86

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    www.darrensoto.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    29

    pages crawled

    40

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Soto posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of formally dressed adults pose together at an indoor event. Two men in the center hold a document, with a decorative landscape backdrop and colorful drapes behind them. Some text is visible on the document and event materials.
    A group of formally dressed adults pose together at an indoor event. Two men in the center hold a document, with a decorative landscape backdrop and colorful drapes behind them. Some text is visible on the document and event materials.View post
  • A woman in a black floral dress and a man in a light gray suit pose together at a formal event, holding a document. Other guests and event equipment are visible in the background. The document contains text.
    A woman in a black floral dress and a man in a light gray suit pose together at a formal event, holding a document. Other guests and event equipment are visible in the background. The document contains text.View post
  • A large group of people seated under a canopy at an outdoor event. Several attendees are holding up phones to take photos, and a man stands near the front. A welcome banner is visible. The image contains text.
    A large group of people seated under a canopy at an outdoor event. Several attendees are holding up phones to take photos, and a man stands near the front. A welcome banner is visible. The image contains text.View post
  • A man in a light gray suit interacts with a large touchscreen kiosk inside a bright, modern library. Another person and the library’s tall windows are visible in the background. The kiosk displays text and a map.
    A man in a light gray suit interacts with a large touchscreen kiosk inside a bright, modern library. Another person and the library’s tall windows are visible in the background. The kiosk displays text and a map.View post
  • A colorful geometric logo and large lettering mounted on a reddish-brown paneled wall. Text is present.
    A colorful geometric logo and large lettering mounted on a reddish-brown paneled wall. Text is present.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 Soto is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
S001200
Bioguide
S001200
FEC candidate ids
H6FL09179

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