Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health · Source
81%
of House Democrats score to the right of Tonko on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.24 (approximate range −1.26 to −1.22, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,851 donors and 7,462 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Tonko sits among House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 26% of Tonko’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Democrats (median 13%). 79% of Tonko’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from New York, in the top quarter of House Democrats.
The measures on which Tonko 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.
CSIP ideology
−1.24
More liberal than 81% of House Democrats · ± 0.02
Small donations, 2026
26%
House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 39th of 214
From New York, 2026
79%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 43rd of 214 House Democrats
Party unity
99.5%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 40th of 217 · 11 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.65
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 170th of 216
Policy discussion
79%
House Democrats average 73% · ranks 51st of 216
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Tonko, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Tonko is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Tonko says
Tonko attacks opponents personally more than 73% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 8.7% of 1,121 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 57th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Tonko’s 1,121 statements in the 119th Congress (812 posts on X, 140 newsletters, 106 press releases, 63 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Tonko
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion883 statements
79%
73%
51st of 216
Policy criticism355 statements
32%
28%
82nd of 216
Credit claiming303 statements
27%
23%
60th of 216
Bipartisanship112 statements
10%
10%
83rd of 216
Personal attacks98 statements
9%
7%
57th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Tonko | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 32% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 27% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 7% |
1,121
statements classified
812 posts on X, 140 newsletters, 106 press releases, 63 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 812 |
| newsletters | 140 |
| press releases | 106 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 63 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Tonko; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Tonko does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Tonko used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, close to the peer average. 24 statements, most often aimed at GOP; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”11
- “radical”6
- “far right”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- GOP2
- Republican budget2
- Trump2
- bill1
- Donald Trump1
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 52 | 3.9% | 28.8% | 73.1% | 15.4% | 42.3% | 3.9% |
| Feb ’25 | 69 | 11.6% | 60.9% | 85.5% | 14.5% | 29.0% | 7.2% |
| Mar ’25 | 80 | 8.8% | 43.8% | 75.0% | 6.3% | 30.0% | 2.5% |
| Apr ’25 | 67 | 11.9% | 46.3% | 79.1% | 9.0% | 26.9% | 3.0% |
| May ’25 | 69 | 2.9% | 36.2% | 78.3% | 8.7% | 24.6% | 4.3% |
| Jun ’25 | 68 | 11.8% | 32.4% | 66.2% | 8.8% | 8.8% | 1.5% |
| Jul ’25 | 67 | 11.9% | 28.4% | 68.7% | 9.0% | 20.9% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 50 | 4.0% | 42.0% | 86.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 2.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 48 | 12.5% | 33.3% | 79.2% | 16.7% | 22.9% | 6.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 58 | 10.3% | 37.9% | 67.2% | 10.3% | 13.8% | 1.7% |
| Nov ’25 | 38 | 10.5% | 42.1% | 84.2% | 13.2% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 22.9% | 77.1% | 28.6% | 42.9% | 2.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 55 | 7.3% | 12.7% | 94.5% | 9.1% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 44 | 9.1% | 45.5% | 75.0% | 4.5% | 18.2% | 4.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 50 | 2.0% | 34.0% | 72.0% | 6.0% | 38.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 41 | 12.2% | 29.3% | 80.5% | 9.8% | 29.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 43 | 9.3% | 11.6% | 72.1% | 18.6% | 39.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 40 | 20.0% | 27.5% | 80.0% | 7.5% | 17.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 45 | 6.7% | 4.4% | 77.8% | 6.7% | 35.6% | 2.2% |
| Aug ’26 | 41 | 2.4% | 12.2% | 95.1% | 4.9% | 31.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 41 | 9.8% | 4.9% | 95.1% | 12.2% | 31.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 20 | 15.0% | 10.0% | 95.0% | 5.0% | 20.0% | 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 Tonko’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 17, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 7, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
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: TrumpSource
Newsletters
Trump’s broken economy Donald Trump and His Friends are Getting Richer While Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet [2025 press banner]<https://tonko.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=15015-1589912> Donald Trump and His Friends are Getting Richer While Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet October 17, 2026 Dear Friends, As we approach the midway point of Donald Trump’s second term, families across our nation…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Health · Agriculture and Food · Education · Labor and Employment · target: Donald Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle
Newsletters
The GOP’s cruel benefit cuts New Republican SNAP Cuts are Making Life Harder for Struggling Families October 3, 2026 Dear Friends,Last summer, almost every Republican in Congress voted to pass Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill — thereby enacting the largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in American history. Despite an outpouring of opposition from hospitals, businesses, labor unions, and their own constituents,…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Finance and Financial Sector · Taxation · target: Republicans
Newsletters
Making government work for the people I'm Fighting for a Government that Meets this Moment and Prioritizes People, Not Wealth and Power [2025 press banner]<https://tonko.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=14920-1589912> I'm Fighting for a Government that Meets this Moment and Prioritizes People, Not Wealth and Power September 26, 2026 Dear Friends, In previous sessions of Congress, I’ve been excited to retu…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Energy · Immigration · Law · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
All 1,121 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: 812 posts on X, 140 newsletters, 106 press releases, 63 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Health is what Tonko talks about most: 41% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 170th 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 Tonko talks about. The bills Tonko sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Tonko talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%45%
Tonko
Peers
Health360 statements
41%
26%
Economics and Public Finance238 statements
27%
20%
Government Operations and Politics173 statements
20%
20%
Environmental Protection163 statements
18%
5%
Energy145 statements
16%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Tonko | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 41% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 27% | 20% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 20% |
| Environmental Protection | 18% | 5% |
| Energy | 16% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Tonko’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 45%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 41% | 26% | 32% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 27% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 20% | 13% | 11% |
| Environmental Protection | 18% | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| Energy | 16% | 5% | 6% | 2% |
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 170th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Tonko legislates on exactly the areas Tonko 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 Tonko sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Tonko sits at −1.24 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 81% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.26 to −1.22, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,851 donors and 7,462 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”.
−1.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.26 to −1.22. From 1,851 donors and 7,462 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Tonko, 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 Tonko’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 Tonko sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Tonko |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 18% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 9% |
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 Tonko 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 Tonko.
Money
Tonko raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 26% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 79% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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.
$1.2M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 425 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)25 squares$316.6K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)9 squares$109.5K
- PACs and other committees66 squares$818.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $316.6K | 25.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $109.5K | 8.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $818.6K | 65.8% |
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.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.5M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.2M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from New York.
- New York$185.1K
- District of Columbia$12.6K
- Texas$10.5K
- California$7,000
- South Dakota$7,000
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%
Tonko
Median
2026
26%
13%
2024
25%
13%
2022
21%
13%
2020
28%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Tonko | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 26% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 25% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 21% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 28% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $185.1K |
| District of Columbia | $12.6K |
| Texas | $10.5K |
| South Dakota | $7,000 |
| California | $7,000 |
| Maryland | $3,800 |
| Virginia | $3,016 |
| Kentucky | $1,200 |
| New Jersey | $1,105 |
| Arkansas | $1,000 |
| Florida | $750 |
| Michigan | $550 |
| Colorado | $500 |
| Washington | $250 |
| Arizona | $250 |
| South Carolina | $250 |
| Alaska | $206 |
| Connecticut | $100 |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
425
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
79%
from New York
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 New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 1.4% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 76% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 10% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.9% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 6.8% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 3.2% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Tonko’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Tonko’s own score is −1.24.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$119.5K 248 donors
- ATTORNEY$12.0K 25 donors
- PRESIDENT$7,650 8 donors
- LOBBYIST$6,710 5 donors
- OWNER$4,700 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
- AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR RADIATION ONCOLOGY PAC (''ASTRO-PAC'')$10.0K
- AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEALTH SYSTEM PHARMACIST - PAC$10.0K
- AVANGRID POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PLUG POWER, INC.$2,250 5 donors
- ALBANY COUNTY$1,520 3 donors
- INVARIANT$1,500 3 donors
- NEW YORK STATE$905 3 donors
- SCHENECTADY COUNTY$800 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Tonko voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tonko voted against the majority of House Democrats 11 times.
674 roll calls Tonko 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 Tonko voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
11
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 99.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 40th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Tonko, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Tonko
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
96.9%
82nd of 217
Party unity
99.5%
96.4%
40th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Tonko | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.5% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Tonko most often
- Jill TokudaD663 shared votes99%
- Diana DeGetteD653 shared votes99%
- Lauren UnderwoodD661 shared votes99%
- Betty McCollumD650 shared votes99%
- Melanie StansburyD650 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Tonko least often
- Chip RoyR626 shared votes16%
- Ralph NormanR591 shared votes17%
- Eric BurlisonR634 shared votes17%
- Keith SelfR650 shared votes18%
- Andy BiggsR599 shared votes18%
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
Legislation
Tonko sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 654 others. 6.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 53rd of 207).
The bills Tonko 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 654 | 654 | 19 | 3 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Tonko sponsored, ochre blocks bills Tonko cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 53rd of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Tonko, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton104
- Rashida Tlaib47
- Shri Thanedar38
- Brian Fitzpatrick36
- Steve Cohen27
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 Tonko’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10875 | To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred 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. 10841 | Securing Elections From AI Deception Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026 |
| H.R. 10839 | Heat Island Reduction Act | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1611 | Expressing support for the designation of October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Energy | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.R. 10642 | STS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and 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 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 61 times in 90 days. Tonko’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Tonko posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Tonko’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 Tonko posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 27
pages crawled
61changes in 90 days
- 8
pages crawled
0changes 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.
Social accounts
- XRepPaulTonko
- Facebookreppaultonko
- Instagramreppaultonko
- YouTubereppaultonko
- Emailtonkotownhall@mail.house.gov
Images Tonko posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of people sit around tables in a conference room during a meeting. U.S. and other official flags stand behind several participants. Name placards and other text are visible on the tables.View post 
A group of nine adults pose for a photograph in an office or meeting room, with three flags behind them and a long table in front. There is visible text on one of the flags.View post 
A group of six people sit behind a long table at what appears to be a public meeting or panel. Two U.S. flags hang behind them, and an official-looking emblem is displayed on the front of the table. Nameplates and other small items are on the table; text is visible.View post 
A large group of people sits around tables arranged in a U shape for a meeting in a conference room. Two American flags stand behind the central participants. Papers, name placards, and drinks are on the tables. Some text is visible on signs and papers.View post 
A large group of adults pose for a photograph in a meeting room, with two American flags behind them and a congressional-style seal displayed at the front of the table. Some text is visible on the seal and a badge.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.
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 Tonko 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
- T000469
- Bioguide
- T000469
- FEC candidate ids
- H8NY21203
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