Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, California’s 22nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide V000129FEC H2CA20094

Portrait of David Valadao, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.4×
the House Republican rate of bipartisan language

30% of 950 statements use bipartisan language (286 statements); the average for House Republicans is 8.9%. Ranks 2nd of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Valadao’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Valadao voted against the majority of House Republicans 30 times; party unity 93.5%, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 97.1%). Valadao sits at +0.56 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 94% of House Republicans.

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

Bipartisanship

30%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 2nd of 221

Party unity

93.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 208th of 221 · 30 votes against the majority of House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.56

More liberal than 94% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Credit claiming

51%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 20th of 221

Raised, 2026

$6.3M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 29th of 220

Policy discussion

78%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 32nd of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Valadao says

Valadao attacks opponents personally less than 84% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 950 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 188th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Valadao’s 950 statements in the 119th Congress (569 posts on X, 186 press releases, 145 newsletters, 50 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Valadao
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion739 statements
78%
68%
32nd of 221
Credit claiming486 statements
51%
37%
20th of 221
Bipartisanship286 statements
30%
9%
2nd of 221
Policy criticism182 statements
19%
15%
53rd of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
188th of 221
Show the data
Valadao's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowValadaoPeers
Policy discussion78%68%
Credit claiming51%37%
Bipartisanship30%9%
Policy criticism19%15%
Personal attacks0%2%
950

statements classified

569 posts on X, 186 press releases, 145 newsletters, 50 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 569 (59.9%)posts on X 569press releases: 186 (19.6%)newsletters: 145 (15.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 50 (5.3%)
Show the data
Valadao's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X569
press releases186
newsletters145
Congressional Record speeches50
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Valadao used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 21% of the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at environmental policies; peers 3.0%.

  1. “extreme”4
  2. “radical”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. environmental policies3
  2. California Democrats1
  3. High-Speed Rail1
  4. radical Left1
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: 402025-02: 482025-03: 302025-04: 602025-05: 622025-06: 632025-07: 372025-08: 292025-09: 632025-10: 302025-11: 352025-12: 472026-01: 542026-02: 302026-03: 482026-04: 542026-05: 562026-06: 442026-07: 322026-08: 312026-09: 242026-10: 33peak 63 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 6.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.7% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 33Policy criticismpeak 36.7% · Feb ’26 · latest 15.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-03: 16.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-04: 21.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-05: 27.4% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-06: 23.8% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-07: 35.1% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.3% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.3% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-10: 23.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.3% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.4% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-02: 36.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-03: 12.5% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-04: 11.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.9% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.9% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-08: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-09: 33.3% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-10: 15.2% of 33Policy discussionpeak 96.8% · Aug ’26 · latest 84.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 70.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-02: 79.2% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-03: 83.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-04: 78.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-05: 83.9% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.4% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-07: 86.5% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-08: 62.1% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-09: 60.3% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-10: 66.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-11: 71.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.5% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-01: 94.4% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-02: 76.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-03: 62.5% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-04: 77.8% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-05: 67.9% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-06: 88.6% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-07: 90.6% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-08: 96.8% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-09: 87.5% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-10: 84.9% of 33Bipartisanshippeak 48.4% · May ’25 · latest 24.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 45.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 31.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 40.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 23.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 48.4% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 28.6% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 21.6% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 27.6% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 30.2% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 28.6% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 36.2% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 29.6% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 36.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 31.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 27.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 21.4% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 25.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 40.6% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 19.4% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 29.2% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 24.2% of 33Credit claimingpeak 67.7% · May ’25 · latest 42.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 55.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-02: 62.5% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-03: 53.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-04: 51.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-05: 67.7% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-06: 47.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-07: 54.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-08: 62.1% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-09: 41.3% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-11: 62.9% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-12: 61.7% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-01: 51.8% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-03: 45.8% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-04: 44.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-05: 48.2% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-06: 56.8% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-07: 56.3% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.0% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-09: 33.3% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-10: 42.4% of 33Extreme labelspeak 4.8% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.8% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.2% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.7% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 33Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Valadao, 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 ’25400.0%27.5%70.0%45.0%55.0%0.0%
Feb ’25480.0%35.4%79.2%31.3%62.5%0.0%
Mar ’25300.0%16.7%83.3%40.0%53.3%0.0%
Apr ’25600.0%21.7%78.3%23.3%51.7%0.0%
May ’25620.0%27.4%83.9%48.4%67.7%4.8%
Jun ’25630.0%23.8%79.4%28.6%47.6%3.2%
Jul ’25370.0%35.1%86.5%21.6%54.0%2.7%
Aug ’25290.0%10.3%62.1%27.6%62.1%0.0%
Sep ’25630.0%14.3%60.3%30.2%41.3%0.0%
Oct ’25306.7%23.3%66.7%10.0%30.0%0.0%
Nov ’25350.0%14.3%71.4%28.6%62.9%0.0%
Dec ’25470.0%12.8%74.5%36.2%61.7%0.0%
Jan ’26540.0%7.4%94.4%29.6%51.8%0.0%
Feb ’26300.0%36.7%76.7%36.7%53.3%0.0%
Mar ’26480.0%12.5%62.5%31.3%45.8%0.0%
Apr ’26540.0%11.1%77.8%27.8%44.4%0.0%
May ’26560.0%8.9%67.9%21.4%48.2%0.0%
Jun ’26440.0%15.9%88.6%25.0%56.8%0.0%
Jul ’26320.0%21.9%90.6%40.6%56.3%0.0%
Aug ’26310.0%6.5%96.8%19.4%29.0%0.0%
Sep ’26240.0%33.3%87.5%29.2%33.3%0.0%
Oct ’26330.0%15.2%84.9%24.2%42.4%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 Valadao’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Valadao in the Valley Dear , It's been a busy week here in the 22nd District. Read below for an update on my work on behalf of the Central Valley. Make sure to sign up for my newsletter to receive regular updates on what's happening in D.C. and the Central Valley. Know someone who would want to rea…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Health; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Immigration

Personal attacks

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

Oct 22, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Democrat leaders · Source

Extreme label

Congressman Valadao Joins Entire California GOP Delegation in Releasing a Statement on Governor Newsom's Move to Overturn the Will of Voters Today, Congressman David Valadao (CA-22) released the following statement alongside the entire California Republican Congressional delegation following Governo…

Jul 25, 2025 · Press releases · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at radical Left · 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 criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Democrat leadersSource

  2. Newsletters

    Government Shutdown Update At midnight on September 30th, funding for the federal government expired. Each year, Congress must pass 12 appropriations bills to fully fund the government-one of our most important jobs. These appropriations bills provide funding for various government agencies and programs. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I've worked to advance all 12 bills out of Committee. After that, th…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: Congressional Democrats

All 950 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: 569 posts on X, 186 press releases, 145 newsletters, 50 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Valadao talks about most: 32% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 76th of 221).

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

What Valadao talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Valadao
Peers
Health234 statements
32%
15%
Agriculture and Food231 statements
31%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security159 statements
22%
24%
Education147 statements
20%
8%
Economics and Public Finance140 statements
19%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Valadao talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowValadaoPeers
Health32%15%
Agriculture and Food31%9%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%
Education20%8%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 32% (House Republicans 15%)32%Health, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 11%)18%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 31% (House Republicans 9%)31%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 3%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 24%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 8%)10%EducationEducation, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 8%)20%Education, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 3%)4%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Valadao's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Health32%15%18%11%
Agriculture and Food31%9%13%3%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%10%8%
Education20%8%4%3%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%0%2%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 76th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Valadao sits at +0.56 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 94% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.54 to +0.57, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,478 donors and 6,541 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”.

+0.56

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.54 to +0.57. From 4,478 donors and 6,541 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Valadao +0.6House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Valadao, 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 Valadao’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 Valadao sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Valadao +0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Valadao's CSIP score of +0.56 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Valadao
House Republicans221+1.05%
All House439+0.352%
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 Valadao 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 Valadao.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Valadao raised $6.3M in the 2026 cycle, 2.9 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 5.9% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 58% of itemized individual money came from California.

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

Election cycle
$6.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 722 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (32.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $130.3K (2.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $130.3K (2.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (36.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.8M (28.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$2.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$130.3K
  • PACs and other committees36 squares$2.3M
  • Party committees$20.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)29 squares$1.8M
Show the data
Sources of Valadao's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.1M32.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$130.3K2.1%
PACs and other committees$2.3M36.1%
Party committees$20.0K0.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.8M28.7%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $4.0M$4.0M20202022 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20222024 cycle: $4.9M$4.9M20242026 cycle: $6.3M$6.3M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Valadao's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$4.0M
2022 cycle$3.7M
2024 cycle$4.9M
2026 cycle$6.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 58% came from California.

  1. California$742.3K
  2. Virginia$136.2K
  3. Florida$84.3K
  4. District of Columbia$66.8K
  5. Maryland$42.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Valadao
Median
2026
6%
9%
2024
9%
9%
2022
12%
9%
2020
23%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowValadaoMedian
2026 cycle6%9%
2024 cycle9%9%
2022 cycle12%9%
2020 cycle23%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $360MEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $6,377NHWashington: $8,355WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,000MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $750MNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $5,530MINew York: $35.2KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $24.5KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $11.5KNVWyoming: $412WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $781IAIndiana: $1,016INOhio: $3,250OHPennsylvania: $11.1KPANew Jersey: $4,500NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $742.3KCAUtah: $14.2KUTColorado: $14.2KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $136.2KVAMaryland: $42.0KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $6,359AZNew Mexico: $3,133NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $3,850ARTennessee: $1,755TNNorth Carolina: $13.5KNCSouth Carolina: $7,529SCDistrict of Columbia: $66.8KDCOklahoma: $3,500OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $200MSAlabama: $4,500ALGeorgia: $6,987GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $36.8KTXFlorida: $84.3KFL
Show the data
Valadao's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$742.3K
Virginia$136.2K
Florida$84.3K
District of Columbia$66.8K
Maryland$42.0K
Texas$36.8K
New York$35.2K
Massachusetts$24.5K
Colorado$14.2K
Utah$14.2K
North Carolina$13.5K
Nevada$11.5K
Pennsylvania$11.1K
Washington$8,355
South Carolina$7,529
Georgia$6,987
New Hampshire$6,377
Arizona$6,359
Michigan$5,530
New Jersey$4,500
Alabama$4,500
Arkansas$3,850
Oklahoma$3,500
Ohio$3,250
New Mexico$3,133
Tennessee$1,755
Indiana$1,016
Vermont$1,000
Montana$1,000
Iowa$781
Minnesota$750
Wyoming$412
Maine$360
Mississippi$200
AlaskaNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
South DakotaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
LouisianaNo data
HawaiiNo data
722

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

58%

from California

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.0%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 8.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 8.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 49%49%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 21%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Valadao's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 6.5% between −0.25 and 0.00, 8.0% between 0.00 and +0.25, 8.9% between +0.25 and +0.50, 49% between +0.50 and +0.75, 21% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.0%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.258.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.508.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7549%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0021%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Valadao’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Valadao’s own score is +0.56.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$153.4K 140 donors
  2. CEO$147.7K 52 donors
  3. FARMER$85.4K 54 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$76.4K 33 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$58.0K 34 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  4. AMERICA'S ESSENTIAL HOSPITALS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, (ESSENTIAL HOSPITALS PAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NEXTERA ENERGY$19.5K 19 donors
  2. EVGO$19.0K 3 donors
  3. KERN ENERGY$12.5K 5 donors
  4. YORK SPACE SYSTEMS$8,000 5 donors
  5. INVARIANT$7,505 6 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Valadao voted with the majority of House Republicans on 93.5% of party-line votes and missed 1.8% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Valadao voted against the majority of House Republicans 30 times.

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

30

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 93.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 208th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Valadao
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
96.3%
103rd of 221
Party unity
93.5%
97.1%
208th of 221
Show the data
Valadao's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowValadaoPeers
Attendance98.2%96.3%
Party unity93.5%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Valadao most often

  1. Mike SimpsonR649 shared votes98%
  2. Tom ColeR655 shared votes98%
  3. Michael McCaulR567 shared votes98%
  4. Thomas Kean Jr.R518 shared votes98%
  5. Young KimR657 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Valadao least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD646 shared votes28%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD380 shared votes28%
  3. Delia RamirezD629 shared votes28%
  4. Dan GoldmanD579 shared votes30%
  5. Gregorio CasarD563 shared votes30%
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

Valadao sponsored 37 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 332 others. 19% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 66th of 216).

The bills Valadao 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

Sponsored37 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3737Sponsored, In committee: 3737Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored332 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 332332Cosponsored, In committee: 332332Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3838Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Valadao sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3737611
Cosponsored3323323832
How to read the blocks

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

19%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 66th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Jim Costa48
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick41
  3. Josh Harder33
  4. Michael Lawler27
  5. Jimmy Panetta27
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 Valadao’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.Res. 1611Expressing support for the designation of October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day".CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 5, 2026
H.Res. 1616Recognizing the importance of biodiversity conservation, welcoming the Republic of Armenia as host of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and supporting the protection of Armenia's sovereign territory and natural heritage.SponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10626HELP STATES ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10542Combating Pasture Mealybug ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10528To amend the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act to include secondary schools in best practices for teaching financial literacy, and for other purposes.SponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 21, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 61 times in 90 days. Valadao’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Valadao posted on Oct 24, 2026.

The lab crawls Valadao’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 Valadao 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 Valadao posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A photo of four men standing together outdoors in front of a bright blue metal gate. There is a small amount of text on one man's shirt.
    A photo of four men standing together outdoors in front of a bright blue metal gate. There is a small amount of text on one man's shirt.View post
  • A group of people pose outside a storefront for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, holding a long printed ribbon. A blue canopy tent and metal gate are behind them. There is text on the ribbon, clothing, tent, and storefront signage.
    A group of people pose outside a storefront for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, holding a long printed ribbon. A blue canopy tent and metal gate are behind them. There is text on the ribbon, clothing, tent, and storefront signage.View post
  • A promotional graphic over a photograph of flowering orchard trees, with a dark green border and yellow accents. Large yellow text is centered over the orchard, and a small campaign-style logo appears at the bottom.
    A promotional graphic over a photograph of flowering orchard trees, with a dark green border and yellow accents. Large yellow text is centered over the orchard, and a small campaign-style logo appears at the bottom.View post
  • Three people wearing hard hats and blue safety vests walk through a fenced construction or industrial site. There is text on a distant sign.
    Three people wearing hard hats and blue safety vests walk through a fenced construction or industrial site. There is text on a distant sign.View post
  • A group of seven people wearing blue safety vests and hard hats pose outside a modern building. There is some text visible on the building, but it is not legible.
    A group of seven people wearing blue safety vests and hard hats pose outside a modern building. There is some text visible on the building, but it is not legible.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 Valadao is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
V000129
Bioguide
V000129
FEC candidate ids
H2CA20094

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