Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Mississippi

Serving since Dec 31, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide W000437FEC H4MS01078, S8MS00196

Portrait of Roger Wicker, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$286.7K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans

The median for Senate Republicans is $3.2M. Ranks 49th of 51, where 1st raised the most. 33 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Wicker’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among Senate Republicans. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 1.1% of Wicker’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (median 17%). The policy areas Wicker talks about and legislates on agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans.

The measures on which Wicker 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.

Raised, 2026

$286.7K

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 49th of 51

Small donations, 2026

1.1%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 48th of 51

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.56

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 49th of 52

Policy discussion

80%

Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 7th of 52

Bipartisanship

18%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 9th of 52

CSIP ideology

+0.84

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 Wicker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wicker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Wicker says

Wicker attacks opponents personally about as often as the median Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 0.9% of 885 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 28th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Wicker’s 885 statements in the 119th Congress (434 posts on X, 226 press releases, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters) 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%
Wicker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion706 statements
80%
70%
7th of 52
Credit claiming377 statements
43%
36%
10th of 52
Policy criticism174 statements
20%
17%
15th of 52
Bipartisanship159 statements
18%
13%
9th of 52
Personal attacks8 statements
1%
2%
28th of 52
Show the data
Wicker's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowWickerPeers
Policy discussion80%70%
Credit claiming43%36%
Policy criticism20%17%
Bipartisanship18%13%
Personal attacks1%2%
885

statements classified

434 posts on X, 226 press releases, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters.

posts on X: 434 (49.0%)posts on X 434press releases: 226 (25.5%)press releases 226Congressional Record speeches: 128 (14.5%)newsletters: 97 (11.0%)
Show the data
Wicker's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X434
press releases226
Congressional Record speeches128
newsletters97
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Wicker used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, 27% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at candidates; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”4
  2. “communist”2
  3. “extreme”2
  4. “far left”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. candidates1
  2. climate activists1
  3. environmental groups1
  4. EV mandates1
  5. Green agenda1
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: 902025-02: 782025-03: 562025-04: 512025-05: 502025-06: 362025-07: 262025-08: 332025-09: 322025-10: 432025-11: 292025-12: 362026-01: 322026-02: 372026-03: 382026-04: 352026-05: 272026-06: 182026-07: 442026-08: 222026-09: 482026-10: 24peak 90 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 3.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.2% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.3% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-01: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 24Policy criticismpeak 33.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 4.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 33.3% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.4% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-03: 19.6% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-04: 25.5% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-05: 18.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-06: 19.4% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-07: 26.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-09: 18.8% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-10: 27.9% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-11: 17.2% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-12: 5.6% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.8% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-02: 29.7% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-03: 21.1% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-04: 22.9% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-05: 33.3% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-06: 11.1% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-07: 9.1% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-08: 9.1% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.2% of 24Policy discussionpeak 93.8% · Sep ’26 · latest 91.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 74.4% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-02: 80.8% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-03: 73.2% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-04: 76.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-05: 82.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-06: 86.1% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.9% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-08: 66.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.6% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-10: 51.2% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-11: 75.9% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-12: 80.6% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-01: 81.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-02: 91.9% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-03: 89.5% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-04: 88.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-05: 85.2% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-06: 88.9% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-07: 84.1% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.9% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-09: 93.8% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-10: 91.7% of 24Bipartisanshippeak 31.8% · Aug ’26 · latest 8.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 13.3% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 14.1% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 16.1% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 31.4% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 16.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 11.1% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 18.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 18.8% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 30.2% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 22.2% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 15.6% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 23.7% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 17.1% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 22.2% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 16.7% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 22.7% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 31.8% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.4% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 8.3% of 24Credit claimingpeak 62.2% · Feb ’26 · latest 33.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 47.8% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-02: 30.8% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-03: 41.1% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-04: 39.2% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-05: 52.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-06: 47.2% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-07: 46.2% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-08: 42.4% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-09: 31.3% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-10: 23.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-11: 31.0% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-12: 41.7% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-01: 53.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-02: 62.2% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-03: 50.0% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-04: 48.6% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-05: 37.0% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-06: 50.0% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-07: 34.1% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-08: 59.1% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-09: 47.9% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-10: 33.3% of 24Extreme labelspeak 4.0% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.1% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.9% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 24Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Wicker, 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 ’25902.2%33.3%74.4%13.3%47.8%1.1%
Feb ’25781.3%15.4%80.8%14.1%30.8%2.6%
Mar ’25563.6%19.6%73.2%16.1%41.1%0.0%
Apr ’25512.0%25.5%76.5%31.4%39.2%0.0%
May ’25500.0%18.0%82.0%16.0%52.0%4.0%
Jun ’25360.0%19.4%86.1%11.1%47.2%0.0%
Jul ’25260.0%26.9%76.9%7.7%46.2%3.9%
Aug ’25330.0%12.1%66.7%18.2%42.4%0.0%
Sep ’25323.1%18.8%65.6%18.8%31.3%0.0%
Oct ’25430.0%27.9%51.2%30.2%23.3%0.0%
Nov ’25290.0%17.2%75.9%13.8%31.0%0.0%
Dec ’25360.0%5.6%80.6%22.2%41.7%0.0%
Jan ’26323.1%18.8%81.3%15.6%53.1%0.0%
Feb ’26370.0%29.7%91.9%18.9%62.2%0.0%
Mar ’26380.0%21.1%89.5%23.7%50.0%0.0%
Apr ’26350.0%22.9%88.6%17.1%48.6%0.0%
May ’26270.0%33.3%85.2%22.2%37.0%0.0%
Jun ’26180.0%11.1%88.9%16.7%50.0%0.0%
Jul ’26440.0%9.1%84.1%22.7%34.1%0.0%
Aug ’26220.0%9.1%90.9%31.8%59.1%0.0%
Sep ’26480.0%10.4%93.8%10.4%47.9%2.1%
Oct ’26240.0%4.2%91.7%8.3%33.3%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 Wicker’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Wicker Backs Landmark Permit Reform Bill Bill Tops U.S. Senate Agenda A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators recently introduced legislation that could quietly become one of the most consequential laws passed in years. The bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, would fundame…

Oct 13, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Energy; Environmental Protection; Government Operations and Politics; Law; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications

Personal attacks

Mr. President, this week, we began a new year's work here in the Congress. But as we open this chapter, I have a bittersweet task of helping to close another. Beside me sits John Patrick Keast, my longtime adviser and friend. In a few short days, John will conclude nearly two decades of service to m…

Jan 7, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Energy; Transportation and Public Works; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; International Affairs; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance; Education · Source

Extreme label

Wicker Warns of Socialist Agenda Reject Socialism, Embrace Founding Principles In a year that many have spent celebrating America’s 250th birthday, we have seen a surge of support for a movement that is actually opposed to our founding principles. For most of our history, socialism has been a fring…

Sep 14, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Commerce; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Immigration; Law; extreme label “far left” aimed at candidates

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, this week, we began a new year's work here in the Congress. But as we open this chapter, I have a bittersweet task of helping to close another. Beside me sits John Patrick Keast, my longtime adviser and friend. In a few short days, John will conclude nearly two decades of service to my office, to the people of Mississippi, and to the United States of America. The US Senate and the people we represent a…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Energy · Transportation and Public Works · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · EducationSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, now let me say that I come to the floor today to join with President Trump and with a bipartisan majority of my colleagues in the Senate in calling for another tougher round of sanctions against Russia and its war machine. For the past 8 months, President Trump and President Zelenskyy have extended the hand of peace. Ukraine is committed to a cease-fire. President Trump has sat down personally with Vla…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Foreign Trade and International Finance · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource

  3. Congressional Record

    Madam President, I come to the floor today once again to make a simple point, and that is that the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has once again shown the world that he has no interest in peace. In Saudi Arabia, representatives of the United States and representatives of Ukraine are continuing to work in good faith toward a just end to the war in Ukraine. In the coming weeks, a Ukrainian delegation will travel to Wa…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Foreign Trade and International FinanceSource

  4. Press releases

    Chairman Wicker Warns of Putin’s Deceit in Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire Talks WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday delivered remarks on the Senate floor warning that Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted as negotiations to achieve a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict continue in Riyadh. In his remarks, Chairman Wicker explored the 20-year history…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Finance and Financial Sector · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Vladimir PutinSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer some remarks on the situation in Europe and the prospects for peace in Ukraine. We should start with recent positive developments. President Trump and President Zelenskyy have demonstrated remarkable resolve and remarkable wherewithal. Just this week, we heard news from the peace talks in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine publicly expressed openness to prisoner exchanges, a welcome d…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Finance and Financial SectorSource

All 885 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: 434 posts on X, 226 press releases, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 97 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Wicker talks about most: 58% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 49th 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 Wicker talks about. The bills Wicker sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Wicker talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%64%
Wicker
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security412 statements
58%
25%
International Affairs186 statements
26%
11%
Economics and Public Finance111 statements
16%
17%
Science, Technology, Communications111 statements
16%
9%
Commerce79 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Wicker talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowWickerPeers
Armed Forces and National Security58%25%
International Affairs26%11%
Economics and Public Finance16%17%
Science, Technology, Communications16%9%
Commerce11%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Wicker’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 64%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 58% (Senate Republicans 25%)58%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 8%)8%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 26% (Senate Republicans 11%)26%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (Senate Republicans 8%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 17%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Republicans 1%)0%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 9%)16%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 3%)8%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 10%)11%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 3%)1%
Show the data
Wicker's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security58%25%8%8%
International Affairs26%11%12%8%
Economics and Public Finance16%17%0%1%
Science, Technology, Communications16%9%8%3%
Commerce11%10%1%3%
0.56

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 49th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Wicker sits at +0.84 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 66% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,726 donors and 4,943 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”.

+0.84

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.83 to +0.86. From 4,726 donors and 4,943 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Wicker +0.8Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Wicker, 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 Wicker’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 Wicker sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Wicker +0.8All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Wicker's CSIP score of +0.84 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Wicker
Senate Republicans51+1.033%
All Senate98+0.465%
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 Wicker 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 Wicker.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Wicker raised $286.7K in the 2026 cycle, 8.9% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 1.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 30% of itemized individual money came from Mississippi.

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
$286.7K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 33 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): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $128.0K (44.6%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)PACs and other committees: $138.5K (48.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.8K (6.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)45 squares$128.0K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,463
  • PACs and other committees48 squares$138.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)7 squares$18.8K
Show the data
Sources of Wicker's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$128.0K44.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1,4630.5%
PACs and other committees$138.5K48.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$18.8K6.5%
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: $603.6K$603.6K20202022 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20222024 cycle: $7.4M$7.4M20242026 cycle: $286.7K$286.7K2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Wicker's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$603.6K
2022 cycle$1.8M
2024 cycle$7.4M
2026 cycle$286.7K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 30% came from Mississippi.

  1. California$23.0K
  2. Mississippi$22.8K
  3. Virginia$7,750
  4. Texas$7,000
  5. New York$7,000

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%
Wicker
Median
2026
1%
17%
2024
8%
17%
2022
16%
17%
2020
31%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowWickerMedian
2026 cycle1%17%
2024 cycle8%17%
2022 cycle16%17%
2020 cycle31%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $5,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $7,000NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $250PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $23.0KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $7,750VAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $3,500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $22.8KMSAlabama: $500ALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $7,000TXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Wicker's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$23.0K
Mississippi$22.8K
Virginia$7,750
New York$7,000
Texas$7,000
Washington$5,000
District of Columbia$3,500
Alabama$500
Pennsylvania$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
FloridaNo data
33

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

30%

from Mississippi

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 6.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 22%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 11%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 21%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 37%37%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Wicker's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 6.5% between −0.50 and −0.25, 22% between −0.25 and 0.00, 11% between 0.00 and +0.25, 21% between +0.25 and +0.50, 37% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.256.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0022%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.2511%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5021%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0037%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Wicker’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Wicker’s own score is +0.84.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$13.5K 3 donors
  2. EXECUTIVE$11.0K 3 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$5,000 5 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$2,250 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. PAC (BOOZ ALLEN PAC)$6,000
  2. AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  3. BLUE WATER AUTONOMY, INC. PAC$5,000
  4. CADENCE BANK PAC$5,000
  5. EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Wicker voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed 3.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wicker voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 11 times.

915 roll calls Wicker 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 Wicker voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

11

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.0%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 42nd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Wicker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
97.1%
40th of 53
Party unity
99.0%
98.4%
42nd of 53
Show the data
Wicker's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowWickerPeers
Attendance96.5%97.1%
Party unity99.0%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
YeaWith 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 Wicker most often

  1. Lindsey O. GrahamR764 shared votes100%
  2. John BoozmanR869 shared votes100%
  3. Cindy Hyde-SmithR869 shared votes99%
  4. Shelley CapitoR867 shared votes99%
  5. Markwayne MullinR653 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Wicker least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD876 shared votes3.8%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD869 shared votes4.0%
  3. Bernie SandersI819 shared votes4.0%
  4. Christopher MurphyD861 shared votes4.5%
  5. Chris Van HollenD869 shared votes5.3%
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

Wicker sponsored 46 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 303 others. 30% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 13th of 51).

The bills Wicker 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

Sponsored46 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4646Sponsored, In committee: 4646Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 88Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored303 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 303303Cosponsored, In committee: 299299Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7373Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Wicker sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4646811
Cosponsored3032997366
How to read the blocks

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

30%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 13th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Cindy Hyde-Smith70
  2. Marsha Blackburn61
  3. Katie Britt52
  4. Ted Budd48
  5. John Cornyn48
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 Wicker’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.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 926A resolution designating September 2026 as "National Literacy Month".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEducationSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S. 5533Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Tax Relief Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 76 times in 90 days. Wicker’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Oct 4, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Wicker posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Wicker’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 Wicker 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 Wicker posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of officials stands beneath a canopy, applauding at an outdoor event in front of a large banner. A wooden display pedestal holding a small object is in the foreground. The banner contains text.
    A group of officials stands beneath a canopy, applauding at an outdoor event in front of a large banner. A wooden display pedestal holding a small object is in the foreground. The banner contains text.View post
  • A man in a dark suit speaks at a podium during an event under a tent, while several people sit behind him. A large backdrop displays visitor-center branding and logos. There is text in the image.
    A man in a dark suit speaks at a podium during an event under a tent, while several people sit behind him. A large backdrop displays visitor-center branding and logos. There is text in the image.View post
  • A speaker addresses a seated audience at a formal event, with several officials seated onstage. A large backdrop and display panels are behind them, and there is text on the backdrop.
    A speaker addresses a seated audience at a formal event, with several officials seated onstage. A large backdrop and display panels are behind them, and there is text on the backdrop.View post
  • An older man in a blue suit speaks at a clear lectern with microphones while several people sit nearby at an indoor event. Text is visible on the lectern.
    An older man in a blue suit speaks at a clear lectern with microphones while several people sit nearby at an indoor event. Text is visible on the lectern.View post
  • A group of formally dressed people pose beneath a tent at a groundbreaking ceremony, holding shovels over rows of dirt. A display with text is behind them, and a long platform with flowers and greenery is in front.
    A group of formally dressed people pose beneath a tent at a groundbreaking ceremony, holding shovels over rows of dirt. A display with text is behind them, and a long platform with flowers and greenery is in front.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 Wicker 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
W000437
Bioguide
W000437
FEC candidate ids
H4MS01078, S8MS00196

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