Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Florida

Serving since Jan 8, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide S001217FEC S8FL00273

Portrait of Rick Scott, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
50%
of itemized money from Florida donors, in the top 5% of Senate Republicans

50% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Florida. Ranks 2nd of 50, where 1st is the highest share. 361 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Florida, ranked among Senate Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 44% of Scott’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (median 17%). 7.3% of Scott’s statements use an extreme label, 2.6 times the Senate Republican average of 2.9%.

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

From Florida, 2026

50%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2nd of 50 Senate Republicans

Attendance

99.7%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 5th of 53 · 915 roll calls

Small donations, 2026

44%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 7th of 51

Extreme labels

7.3%

Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 7th of 52

Personal attacks

5.2%

Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 8th of 52

CSIP ideology

+1.22

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Scott says

Scott attacks opponents personally more than 84% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 5.2% of 5,387 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 8th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Scott’s 5,387 statements in the 119th Congress (4,518 posts on X, 521 press releases, 247 newsletters, 101 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Scott
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion3,660 statements
68%
70%
35th of 52
Credit claiming1,715 statements
32%
36%
38th of 52
Policy criticism900 statements
17%
17%
26th of 52
Bipartisanship331 statements
6%
13%
45th of 52
Personal attacks280 statements
5%
2%
8th of 52
Show the data
Scott's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowScottPeers
Policy discussion68%70%
Credit claiming32%36%
Policy criticism17%17%
Bipartisanship6%13%
Personal attacks5%2%
5,387

statements classified

4,518 posts on X, 521 press releases, 247 newsletters, 101 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 4,518 (83.9%)posts on X 4,518press releases: 521 (9.7%)newsletters: 247 (4.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 101 (1.9%)
Show the data
Scott's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X4,518
press releases521
newsletters247
Congressional Record speeches101
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Scott used extreme labels in 7.3% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 396 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “communist”180
  2. “radical”88
  3. “far left”33
  4. “woke”20
  5. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats64
  2. China25
  3. Communist China20
  4. Cuban regime9
  5. Mamdani9
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: 3392025-02: 2312025-03: 2172025-04: 1952025-05: 2202025-06: 2572025-07: 2182025-08: 1742025-09: 1942025-10: 2602025-11: 1792025-12: 2122026-01: 3002026-02: 2572026-03: 2732026-04: 2802026-05: 3342026-06: 2842026-07: 2812026-08: 2732026-09: 2212026-10: 188peak 339 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 12.8% · Aug ’26 · latest 2.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 9.7% of 339Personal attacks, 2025-02: 4.3% of 231Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.7% of 217Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.1% of 195Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.7% of 220Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.3% of 257Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.3% of 218Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.5% of 174Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.0% of 194Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.4% of 260Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.8% of 179Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.9% of 212Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.7% of 300Personal attacks, 2026-02: 3.9% of 257Personal attacks, 2026-03: 5.1% of 273Personal attacks, 2026-04: 7.1% of 280Personal attacks, 2026-05: 7.8% of 334Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.0% of 284Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.3% of 281Personal attacks, 2026-08: 12.8% of 273Personal attacks, 2026-09: 3.6% of 221Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.1% of 188Policy criticismpeak 34.6% · Nov ’25 · latest 5.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.3% of 339Policy criticism, 2025-02: 13.9% of 231Policy criticism, 2025-03: 12.4% of 217Policy criticism, 2025-04: 7.7% of 195Policy criticism, 2025-05: 11.4% of 220Policy criticism, 2025-06: 24.5% of 257Policy criticism, 2025-07: 13.3% of 218Policy criticism, 2025-08: 20.1% of 174Policy criticism, 2025-09: 11.3% of 194Policy criticism, 2025-10: 33.5% of 260Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.6% of 179Policy criticism, 2025-12: 24.5% of 212Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.3% of 300Policy criticism, 2026-02: 25.3% of 257Policy criticism, 2026-03: 31.1% of 273Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 280Policy criticism, 2026-05: 11.7% of 334Policy criticism, 2026-06: 27.5% of 284Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.7% of 281Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.8% of 273Policy criticism, 2026-09: 5.4% of 221Policy criticism, 2026-10: 5.3% of 188Policy discussionpeak 84.0% · Jan ’26 · latest 77.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 59.6% of 339Policy discussion, 2025-02: 65.4% of 231Policy discussion, 2025-03: 71.4% of 217Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.5% of 195Policy discussion, 2025-05: 70.5% of 220Policy discussion, 2025-06: 73.5% of 257Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.6% of 218Policy discussion, 2025-08: 60.3% of 174Policy discussion, 2025-09: 55.7% of 194Policy discussion, 2025-10: 68.8% of 260Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.9% of 179Policy discussion, 2025-12: 80.2% of 212Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.0% of 300Policy discussion, 2026-02: 56.8% of 257Policy discussion, 2026-03: 60.1% of 273Policy discussion, 2026-04: 70.0% of 280Policy discussion, 2026-05: 64.1% of 334Policy discussion, 2026-06: 59.5% of 284Policy discussion, 2026-07: 68.3% of 281Policy discussion, 2026-08: 76.6% of 273Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.1% of 221Policy discussion, 2026-10: 77.7% of 188Bipartisanshippeak 10.8% · Sep ’25 · latest 2.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 4.7% of 339Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.4% of 231Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.8% of 217Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.2% of 195Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 10.0% of 220Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.8% of 257Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.8% of 218Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.5% of 174Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.8% of 194Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.5% of 260Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.4% of 179Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.2% of 212Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.3% of 300Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.3% of 257Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.1% of 273Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.6% of 280Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 8.7% of 334Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 7.8% of 284Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.3% of 281Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.2% of 273Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.1% of 221Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 2.1% of 188Credit claimingpeak 53.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 18.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 40.1% of 339Credit claiming, 2025-02: 53.7% of 231Credit claiming, 2025-03: 47.0% of 217Credit claiming, 2025-04: 42.6% of 195Credit claiming, 2025-05: 39.1% of 220Credit claiming, 2025-06: 30.3% of 257Credit claiming, 2025-07: 39.9% of 218Credit claiming, 2025-08: 38.5% of 174Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.1% of 194Credit claiming, 2025-10: 34.6% of 260Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.6% of 179Credit claiming, 2025-12: 43.9% of 212Credit claiming, 2026-01: 27.0% of 300Credit claiming, 2026-02: 29.2% of 257Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.4% of 273Credit claiming, 2026-04: 19.3% of 280Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.9% of 334Credit claiming, 2026-06: 26.8% of 284Credit claiming, 2026-07: 25.3% of 281Credit claiming, 2026-08: 19.8% of 273Credit claiming, 2026-09: 16.3% of 221Credit claiming, 2026-10: 18.1% of 188Extreme labelspeak 15.0% · Mar ’26 · latest 1.6%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.6% of 339Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.1% of 231Extreme labels, 2025-03: 12.9% of 217Extreme labels, 2025-04: 12.3% of 195Extreme labels, 2025-05: 9.6% of 220Extreme labels, 2025-06: 7.4% of 257Extreme labels, 2025-07: 11.0% of 218Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.5% of 174Extreme labels, 2025-09: 7.7% of 194Extreme labels, 2025-10: 11.5% of 260Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.8% of 179Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.8% of 212Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.0% of 300Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.4% of 257Extreme labels, 2026-03: 15.0% of 273Extreme labels, 2026-04: 8.2% of 280Extreme labels, 2026-05: 8.4% of 334Extreme labels, 2026-06: 7.0% of 284Extreme labels, 2026-07: 6.0% of 281Extreme labels, 2026-08: 2.2% of 273Extreme labels, 2026-09: 4.1% of 221Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.6% of 188Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Scott, 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 ’253399.7%15.3%59.6%4.7%40.1%5.6%
Feb ’252314.3%13.9%65.4%10.4%53.7%9.1%
Mar ’252173.7%12.4%71.4%7.8%47.0%12.9%
Apr ’251954.1%7.7%61.5%7.2%42.6%12.3%
May ’252202.7%11.4%70.5%10.0%39.1%9.6%
Jun ’252572.3%24.5%73.5%5.8%30.3%7.4%
Jul ’252188.3%13.3%70.6%7.8%39.9%11.0%
Aug ’251743.5%20.1%60.3%7.5%38.5%3.5%
Sep ’251941.0%11.3%55.7%10.8%38.1%7.7%
Oct ’252605.4%33.5%68.8%8.5%34.6%11.5%
Nov ’251792.8%34.6%65.9%8.4%34.6%7.8%
Dec ’252121.9%24.5%80.2%5.2%43.9%2.8%
Jan ’263002.7%7.3%84.0%1.3%27.0%1.0%
Feb ’262573.9%25.3%56.8%4.3%29.2%7.4%
Mar ’262735.1%31.1%60.1%5.1%26.4%15.0%
Apr ’262807.1%11.1%70.0%3.6%19.3%8.2%
May ’263347.8%11.7%64.1%8.7%23.9%8.4%
Jun ’262847.0%27.5%59.5%7.8%26.8%7.0%
Jul ’262815.3%15.7%68.3%5.3%25.3%6.0%
Aug ’2627312.8%4.8%76.6%2.2%19.8%2.2%
Sep ’262213.6%5.4%75.1%4.1%16.3%4.1%
Oct ’261882.1%5.3%77.7%2.1%18.1%1.6%
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 Scott’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Senator Rick Scott's Week in Review? [Image] [Image]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenScott&crop=21244.1488909119.20856834.19201898&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsenrickscott&redir_log=069732049657233> [Image] <https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/…

Oct 17, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; Housing and Community Development; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy

Personal attacks

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

Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Labor and Employment; target: @NYCMayor · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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 · Economics and Public Finance · Labor and Employment · target: @NYCMayorSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: professional athletesSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: MamdaniSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Zohran MamdaniSource

  5. 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: Jay PowellSource

All 5,387 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: 4,518 posts on X, 521 press releases, 247 newsletters, 101 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Scott talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 10th of 52).

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

What Scott talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Scott
Peers
International Affairs939 statements
26%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security883 statements
24%
25%
Government Operations and Politics816 statements
22%
19%
Economics and Public Finance773 statements
21%
17%
Health459 statements
13%
15%
Show the data
Policy areas Scott talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowScottPeers
International Affairs26%11%
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%
Government Operations and Politics22%19%
Economics and Public Finance21%17%
Health13%15%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Scott’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 26% (Senate Republicans 11%)26%International Affairs, legislates on: 13% (Senate Republicans 8%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 24% (Senate Republicans 25%)24%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 8%)7%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 22% (Senate Republicans 19%)22%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 14% (Senate Republicans 11%)14%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (Senate Republicans 17%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 1%)2%HealthHealth, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 15%)13%Health, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 11%)8%
Show the data
Scott's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
International Affairs26%11%13%8%
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%7%8%
Government Operations and Politics22%19%14%11%
Economics and Public Finance21%17%2%1%
Health13%15%8%11%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 10th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Scott sits at +1.22 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 83% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.21 to +1.24, which understates the uncertainty; from 18,065 donors and 3,173 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”.

+1.22

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.21 to +1.24. From 18,065 donors and 3,173 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Scott +1.2Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Scott, 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 Scott’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 Scott sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Scott +1.2All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Scott's CSIP score of +1.22 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Scott
Senate Republicans51+1.082%
All Senate98+0.491%
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 Scott 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 Scott.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Scott raised $1.8M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 44% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 50% 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
$1.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 361 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $238.7K (13.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $184.4K (10.2%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $108.7K (6.0%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $786.5K (43.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $498.2K (27.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)13 squares$238.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$184.4K
  • PACs and other committees6 squares$108.7K
  • The candidate’s own money and loans43 squares$786.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)28 squares$498.2K
Show the data
Sources of Scott's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$238.7K13.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$184.4K10.2%
PACs and other committees$108.7K6.0%
The candidate’s own money and loans$786.5K43.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$498.2K27.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20202022 cycle: $8.2M$8.2M20222024 cycle: $36.7M$36.7M20242026 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Scott's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.7M
2022 cycle$8.2M
2024 cycle$36.7M
2026 cycle$1.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$123.6K
  2. Texas$26.2K
  3. Kansas$14.5K
  4. California$11.9K
  5. Illinois$6,705

Small donations

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

0%60%
Scott
Median
2026
44%
17%
2024
40%
17%
2022
55%
17%
2020
57%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowScottMedian
2026 cycle44%17%
2024 cycle40%17%
2022 cycle55%17%
2020 cycle57%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $400AKMaine: $480MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $45NHWashington: $1,941WAIdaho: $1,000IDMontana: $105MTNorth Dakota: $500NDMinnesota: $1,285MNIllinois: $6,705ILWisconsin: $3,936WIMichigan: $914MINew York: $1,421NYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: $3,382MAOregon: $374ORNevada: $1,110NVWyoming: $300WYSouth Dakota: $5SDIowa: $40IAIndiana: $1,654INOhio: $1,435OHPennsylvania: $5,408PANew Jersey: $2,027NJConnecticut: $2,455CTCalifornia: $11.9KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $4,623CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,533MOKentucky: $900KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $4,190VAMaryland: $680MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $2,357AZNew Mexico: $411NMKansas: $14.5KKSArkansas: $1,526ARTennessee: $3,613TNNorth Carolina: $1,559NCSouth Carolina: $751SCDistrict of Columbia: $1,000DCOklahoma: $1,810OKLouisiana: $1,599LAMississippi: $1,548MSAlabama: $1,244ALGeorgia: $2,735GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $26.2KTXFlorida: $123.6KFL
Show the data
Scott's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$123.6K
Texas$26.2K
Kansas$14.5K
California$11.9K
Illinois$6,705
Pennsylvania$5,408
Colorado$4,623
Virginia$4,190
Wisconsin$3,936
Tennessee$3,613
Massachusetts$3,382
Georgia$2,735
Connecticut$2,455
Arizona$2,357
New Jersey$2,027
Washington$1,941
Oklahoma$1,810
Indiana$1,654
Louisiana$1,599
North Carolina$1,559
Mississippi$1,548
Missouri$1,533
Arkansas$1,526
Ohio$1,435
New York$1,421
Minnesota$1,285
Alabama$1,244
Nevada$1,110
Idaho$1,000
Rhode Island$1,000
District of Columbia$1,000
Michigan$914
Kentucky$900
South Carolina$751
Maryland$680
North Dakota$500
Maine$480
New Mexico$411
Alaska$400
Oregon$374
Wyoming$300
Montana$105
New Hampshire$45
Iowa$40
South Dakota$5
VermontNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
HawaiiNo data
361

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

50%

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 −0.25 to 0.00: 0.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.2%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 23%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 72%72%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.9%← More liberalMore conservative →
Show the data
Ideology of Scott's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.25 to +1.50: 23% between +0.75 and +1.00, 72% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.2%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0023%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2572%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.9%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Scott’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Scott’s own score is +1.22.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$126.0K 237 donors
  2. OWNER$20.8K 5 donors
  3. CEO$20.8K 6 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$11.4K 8 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$8,885 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ATLAS AIR WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$7,000
  2. CARNIVAL/PRINCESS HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC. PAC (HALPAC)$6,000
  3. AAR CORP. PAC$5,000
  4. ARGENTUM'S SILVER PAC$5,000
  5. CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION PAC (CLIA PAC)$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Scott voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Scott voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 31 times.

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

31

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 29th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Scott
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
97.1%
5th of 53
Party unity
99.5%
98.4%
29th of 53
Show the data
Scott's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowScottPeers
Attendance99.7%97.1%
Party unity99.5%98.4%
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 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
NayAgainst majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Scott most often

  1. Ron JohnsonR901 shared votes99%
  2. Tommy TubervilleR854 shared votes98%
  3. Mike LeeR885 shared votes98%
  4. Ted CruzR866 shared votes98%
  5. Ashley MoodyR894 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Scott least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD906 shared votes3.1%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD899 shared votes3.3%
  3. Bernie SandersI850 shared votes3.5%
  4. Patty MurrayD862 shared votes3.6%
  5. Jeff MerkleyD906 shared votes3.9%
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

Scott sponsored 191 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 404 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 38th of 51).

The bills Scott 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

Sponsored191 billsSponsored, Introduced: 191191Sponsored, In committee: 189189Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1818Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored404 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 404404Cosponsored, In committee: 394394Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6868Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 77Cosponsored, Became law: 77IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Scott sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1911891810
Cosponsored4043946877
How to read the blocks

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

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 38th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn120
  2. Ashley Moody103
  3. Ted Budd102
  4. Ted Cruz99
  5. Pete Ricketts83
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 Scott’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5682Foreign Government-Owned Media FARA Registration ActSponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedUnassignedUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5684No Cash for Incompetent and Malicious Contractors ActSponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedGovernment Operations and PoliticsUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5642Know Your Sanctioned Securities ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5643Protecting U.S. Investors From Chinese Military Companies ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5654Protecting Florida's Offshore Military Readiness ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 87 times in 90 days. Scott’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Scott posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Scott’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 Scott 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 Scott posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of men and women pose for a formal photo in a university lobby, standing in front of political and university backdrops. Text is visible on the wall and signs.
    A group of men and women pose for a formal photo in a university lobby, standing in front of political and university backdrops. Text is visible on the wall and signs.View post
  • A large group of people pose for a photo inside a university lobby, in front of a campaign backdrop and university displays. There is text on the backdrop, signs, and building.
    A large group of people pose for a photo inside a university lobby, in front of a campaign backdrop and university displays. There is text on the backdrop, signs, and building.View post
  • A screenshot of a press release webpage with a tropical beach and palm trees in the banner, followed by a large headline about Senator Rick Scott donating his Senate salary to support hurricane recovery in Northwest Florida. The image contains text.
    A screenshot of a press release webpage with a tropical beach and palm trees in the banner, followed by a large headline about Senator Rick Scott donating his Senate salary to support hurricane recovery in Northwest Florida. The image contains text.View post
  • Two men stand with their backs to the camera at a stone overlook, looking across a broad valley and distant mountains under a blue, cloudy sky. One wears a light-colored jacket and a dark cap; the other wears an olive uniform and cap with a shoulder bag. A third person is partially visible at the right edge. There is text on the first man's cap.
    Two men stand with their backs to the camera at a stone overlook, looking across a broad valley and distant mountains under a blue, cloudy sky. One wears a light-colored jacket and a dark cap; the other wears an olive uniform and cap with a shoulder bag. A third person is partially visible at the right edge. There is text on the first man's cap.View post
  • Three men stand on a waterfront promenade overlooking a harbor. A man in a dark suit faces the water while a uniformed man points toward ships and boats. The sky is cloudy, and there is text visible on some vessels.
    Three men stand on a waterfront promenade overlooking a harbor. A man in a dark suit faces the water while a uniformed man points toward ships and boats. The sky is cloudy, and there is text visible on some vessels.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 Scott is most unusual among Senate 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
S001217
Bioguide
S001217
FEC candidate ids
S8FL00273

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

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

How the measures work

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

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top