Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, South Carolina’s 2nd district

Serving since Dec 19, 2001119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide W000795FEC H2SC02059

Portrait of Joe Wilson, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.1×
the House Republican rate of personal attacks

6.7% of 1,634 statements contain a personal attack (110 statements); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 15th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Wilson’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. 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. Wilson missed 5.5% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 96.3%). Wilson raised $1.0M in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (median $2.2M).

The measures on which Wilson 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.

Personal attacks

6.7%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 15th of 221

Attendance

94.5%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 181st of 221 · 674 roll calls

Raised, 2026

$1.0M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 183rd of 220

Extreme labels

4.8%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 47th of 221

Credit claiming

31%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 161st of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.01

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Wilson says

Wilson attacks opponents personally more than 93% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 6.7% of 1,634 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 15th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Wilson’s 1,634 statements in the 119th Congress (1,332 posts on X, 254 Congressional Record speeches, 38 press releases, 10 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Wilson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,131 statements
69%
68%
106th of 221
Credit claiming509 statements
31%
37%
161st of 221
Policy criticism202 statements
12%
15%
141st of 221
Bipartisanship113 statements
7%
9%
123rd of 221
Personal attacks110 statements
7%
2%
15th of 221
Show the data
Wilson's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowWilsonPeers
Policy discussion69%68%
Credit claiming31%37%
Policy criticism12%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks7%2%
1,634

statements classified

1,332 posts on X, 254 Congressional Record speeches, 38 press releases, 10 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,332 (81.5%)posts on X 1,332Congressional Record speeches: 254 (15.5%)press releases: 38 (2.3%)newsletters: 10 (0.6%)
Show the data
Wilson's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,332
Congressional Record speeches254
press releases38
newsletters10
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Wilson used extreme labels in 4.8% of statements, above the peer average. 79 statements, most often aimed at Georgian Dream; peers 3.0%.

  1. “communist”38
  2. “radical”5
  3. “extreme”4
  4. “woke”3
  5. “MAGA”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Georgian Dream15
  2. Chinese Communist Party7
  3. Communist China3
  4. Iran2
  5. MAGA2
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: 2032025-02: 2842025-03: 1282025-04: 802025-05: 852025-06: 562025-07: 562025-08: 732025-09: 772025-10: 432025-11: 322025-12: 522026-01: 472026-02: 332026-03: 442026-04: 492026-05: 392026-06: 372026-07: 892026-08: 212026-09: 732026-10: 33peak 284 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 12.9% · May ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 12.8% of 203Personal attacks, 2025-02: 8.1% of 284Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.5% of 128Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.5% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-05: 12.9% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-06: 12.5% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-07: 10.7% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.5% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-09: 7.8% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.7% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.1% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-03: 9.1% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-04: 2.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.6% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-06: 8.1% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.1% of 89Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 33Policy criticismpeak 25.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 3.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 22.2% of 203Policy criticism, 2025-02: 21.5% of 284Policy criticism, 2025-03: 10.2% of 128Policy criticism, 2025-04: 10.0% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-05: 8.2% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-06: 3.6% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-07: 12.5% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-08: 15.1% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-09: 11.7% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-10: 25.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-11: 15.6% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-12: 1.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.3% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.2% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-03: 9.1% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-04: 4.1% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-05: 2.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-06: 10.8% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-07: 1.1% of 89Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-09: 1.4% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.0% of 33Policy discussionpeak 93.9% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.4% of 203Policy discussion, 2025-02: 66.9% of 284Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.8% of 128Policy discussion, 2025-04: 68.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-05: 71.8% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.6% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-07: 64.3% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-08: 53.4% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-09: 61.0% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-10: 62.8% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-11: 56.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-12: 80.8% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.1% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-02: 72.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-03: 59.1% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-04: 77.5% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-05: 53.8% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.9% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-07: 68.5% of 89Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.5% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-09: 83.6% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.9% of 33Bipartisanshippeak 19.1% · Aug ’26 · latest 12.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.5% of 203Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.1% of 284Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.3% of 128Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.2% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 16.1% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.8% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 12.3% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.4% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.3% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 13.5% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.4% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 8.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 7.7% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 18.9% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.1% of 89Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 19.1% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.9% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.1% of 33Credit claimingpeak 59.5% · Jun ’26 · latest 6.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 38.9% of 203Credit claiming, 2025-02: 22.9% of 284Credit claiming, 2025-03: 21.1% of 128Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.5% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-05: 45.9% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-06: 30.4% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-07: 44.6% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-08: 23.3% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-09: 37.7% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.1% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-12: 32.7% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-01: 38.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-02: 48.5% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-03: 36.4% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.7% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.9% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-06: 59.5% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-07: 28.1% of 89Credit claiming, 2026-08: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-09: 16.4% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-10: 6.1% of 33Extreme labelspeak 18.2% · Feb ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.9% of 203Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.2% of 284Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.7% of 128Extreme labels, 2025-04: 5.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-05: 7.1% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.6% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.6% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-08: 9.6% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.4% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-11: 15.6% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-02: 18.2% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.5% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-05: 12.8% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-06: 10.8% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.1% of 89Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 33Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Wilson, 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 ’2520312.8%22.2%73.4%3.5%38.9%3.9%
Feb ’252848.1%21.5%66.9%2.1%22.9%4.2%
Mar ’251285.5%10.2%64.8%2.3%21.1%4.7%
Apr ’25802.5%10.0%68.8%7.5%32.5%5.0%
May ’258512.9%8.2%71.8%8.2%45.9%7.1%
Jun ’255612.5%3.6%69.6%16.1%30.4%3.6%
Jul ’255610.7%12.5%64.3%1.8%44.6%3.6%
Aug ’25735.5%15.1%53.4%12.3%23.3%9.6%
Sep ’25777.8%11.7%61.0%10.4%37.7%10.4%
Oct ’25434.7%25.6%62.8%9.3%25.6%2.3%
Nov ’25323.1%15.6%56.3%6.3%28.1%15.6%
Dec ’25521.9%1.9%80.8%13.5%32.7%0.0%
Jan ’26474.3%4.3%85.1%0.0%38.3%0.0%
Feb ’26336.1%15.2%72.7%9.1%48.5%18.2%
Mar ’26449.1%9.1%59.1%11.4%36.4%4.5%
Apr ’26492.0%4.1%77.5%8.2%34.7%0.0%
May ’26392.6%2.6%53.8%7.7%35.9%12.8%
Jun ’26378.1%10.8%64.9%18.9%59.5%10.8%
Jul ’26891.1%1.1%68.5%10.1%28.1%1.1%
Aug ’26210.0%4.8%90.5%19.1%28.6%0.0%
Sep ’26730.0%1.4%83.6%6.9%16.4%0.0%
Oct ’26330.0%3.0%93.9%12.1%6.1%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 Wilson’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Türkiye Caucus Co-Chair Statement Celebrating National Day Washington, DC – Representatives Joe Wilson (R-SC), Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-AS), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Türkiye Relations and Turkish Americans, issued the following statement: “Congratu…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 7, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; target: Assad · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 8, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Georgian delegation · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · target: AssadSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, President Donald Trump and House Republicans are helping keep families safe. Border provisions in the Working Families Tax Cut Act secured the addition of completing hundreds of miles of border wall with advanced border technology, hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and strengthening the Coast Guard operations targeting drug trafficking and hum…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brian Mast for being so perceptive. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 7668, the Countering China's Control of the Caucasus Act, to reassert, as the speaker expressed earlier, to support freedom and prosperity in the South Caucasus region of Asia. President Donald Trump has presented a historic opportunity to expand economic prosperity in Central Asia, benefiting the region and A…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Commerce · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “communist” aimed at Chinese Party, deep stateSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Georgian Dream PMSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: PutinSource

All 1,634 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,332 posts on X, 254 Congressional Record speeches, 38 press releases, 10 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Wilson talks about most: 68% of policy statements, 7.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 123rd 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 Wilson talks about. The bills Wilson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Wilson talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%75%
Wilson
Peers
International Affairs770 statements
68%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security444 statements
39%
24%
Government Operations and Politics107 statements
9%
19%
Energy83 statements
7%
9%
Economics and Public Finance82 statements
7%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Wilson talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowWilsonPeers
International Affairs68%9%
Armed Forces and National Security39%24%
Government Operations and Politics9%19%
Energy7%9%
Economics and Public Finance7%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Wilson’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 75%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 68% (House Republicans 9%)68%International Affairs, legislates on: 39% (House Republicans 6%)39%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 39% (House Republicans 24%)39%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 8%)6%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 9% (House Republicans 19%)9%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 12%)6%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 7% (House Republicans 9%)7%Energy, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 3%)1%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 7% (House Republicans 19%)7%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Wilson's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
International Affairs68%9%39%6%
Armed Forces and National Security39%24%6%8%
Government Operations and Politics9%19%6%12%
Energy7%9%1%3%
Economics and Public Finance7%19%0%2%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 123rd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Wilson sits at +1.01 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 53% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.00 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,887 donors and 7,378 roll calls.

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

+1.01

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.00 to +1.02. From 1,887 donors and 7,378 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Wilson, 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 Wilson’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 Wilson sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Wilson +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Wilson's CSIP score of +1.01 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Wilson
House Republicans221+1.052%
All House439+0.376%
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 Wilson 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 Wilson.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Wilson raised $1.0M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 4.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 47% of itemized individual money came from South Carolina.

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

Election cycle
$1.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 247 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): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $411.6K (40.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.3K (1.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.3K (1.7%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)PACs and other committees: $359.5K (35.3%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)The candidate’s own money and loans: $200.0K (19.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $28.9K (2.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $28.9K (2.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $28.9K (2.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)40 squares$411.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$17.3K
  • PACs and other committees35 squares$359.5K
  • The candidate’s own money and loans20 squares$200.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$28.9K
Show the data
Sources of Wilson's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$411.6K40.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$17.3K1.7%
PACs and other committees$359.5K35.3%
The candidate’s own money and loans$200.0K19.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$28.9K2.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20202022 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20222024 cycle: $881.0K$881.0K20242026 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Wilson's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.7M
2022 cycle$1.0M
2024 cycle$881.0K
2026 cycle$1.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 47% came from South Carolina.

  1. South Carolina$170.0K
  2. Maryland$40.6K
  3. Michigan$33.3K
  4. California$31.3K
  5. Florida$28.3K

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%
Wilson
Median
2026
4%
9%
2024
12%
9%
2022
17%
9%
2020
17%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowWilsonMedian
2026 cycle4%9%
2024 cycle12%9%
2022 cycle17%9%
2020 cycle17%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $5,000MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $450NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $500MNIllinois: $1,500ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $33.3KMINew York: $9,500NYRhode Island: $500RIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $1,500NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $4,000INOhio: $2,000OHPennsylvania: $10.2KPANew Jersey: $2,000NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $31.3KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $13.3KVAMaryland: $40.6KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $3,260NCSouth Carolina: $170.0KSCDistrict of Columbia: $3,250DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $1,800ALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $500TXFlorida: $28.3KFL
Show the data
Wilson's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
South Carolina$170.0K
Maryland$40.6K
Michigan$33.3K
California$31.3K
Florida$28.3K
Virginia$13.3K
Pennsylvania$10.2K
New York$9,500
Maine$5,000
Indiana$4,000
North Carolina$3,260
District of Columbia$3,250
Ohio$2,000
New Jersey$2,000
Alabama$1,800
Illinois$1,500
Nevada$1,500
Arizona$1,000
Georgia$1,000
Minnesota$500
Rhode Island$500
Texas$500
New Hampshire$450
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
247

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

47%

from South Carolina

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 South Carolina. 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: 1.7%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 3.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 5.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 12%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 9.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 22%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 31%31%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Wilson's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 5.4% between −0.50 and −0.25, 12% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.3% between 0.00 and +0.25, 9.5% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.8% between +0.50 and +0.75, 22% between +0.75 and +1.00, 31% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.7%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.503.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.255.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0012%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.509.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0022%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2531%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Wilson’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Wilson’s own score is +1.01.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$52.9K 39 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$34.0K 17 donors
  3. PHYSICIAN$27.3K 19 donors
  4. OWNER$25.4K 15 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$21.4K 14 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS$10.0K
  2. BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. DOMINION ENERGY, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - DOMINION PAC$10.0K
  4. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP FEDERAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$9,994

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ACE GLASS COMPANY INC.$1,000 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Wilson voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 5.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wilson voted against the majority of House Republicans 12 times.

674 roll calls Wilson 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 Wilson voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

12

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 100th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Wilson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.5%
96.3%
181st of 221
Party unity
98.4%
97.1%
100th of 221
Show the data
Wilson's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowWilsonPeers
Attendance94.5%96.3%
Party unity98.4%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 Wilson most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR494 shared votes99%
  2. Andy BarrR599 shared votes98%
  3. Ashley HinsonR626 shared votes98%
  4. Tony GonzalesR398 shared votes98%
  5. Rudy YakymR637 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Wilson least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD621 shared votes24%
  2. Delia RamirezD609 shared votes25%
  3. Gregorio CasarD557 shared votes25%
  4. Adelita GrijalvaD362 shared votes25%
  5. Summer LeeD637 shared votes26%
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

Wilson sponsored 35 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 352 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 93rd of 216).

The bills Wilson 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

Sponsored35 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3535Sponsored, In committee: 3535Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored352 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 352352Cosponsored, In committee: 352352Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3636Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Wilson sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3535400
Cosponsored3523523643
How to read the blocks

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

14%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 93rd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick41
  2. Michael Lawler38
  3. Claudia Tenney29
  4. Don Bacon27
  5. Jimmy Panetta26
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 Wilson’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10847Military Justice Leadership and Independence ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 19, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10748Balkans Security Cooperation ActCosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10668EASE ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 56 times in 90 days. Wilson’s official site had 40 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Wilson posted on Oct 13, 2026.

The lab crawls Wilson’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 Wilson 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.

Social accounts

Images Wilson posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of adults and boys pose together at an outdoor graduation or military commissioning event. One young man wears a white naval uniform, and many other people in similar uniforms are visible in the background. There is some text visible in the scene.
    A group of adults and boys pose together at an outdoor graduation or military commissioning event. One young man wears a white naval uniform, and many other people in similar uniforms are visible in the background. There is some text visible in the scene.View post
  • A blue-toned poster featuring a large Israeli flag with a Star of David and a centered message in a white-outlined box. A small political organization logo appears near the bottom.
    A blue-toned poster featuring a large Israeli flag with a Star of David and a centered message in a white-outlined box. A small political organization logo appears near the bottom.View post
  • A white document page containing a bulleted directory of Serbian student groups and organizations, organized by region. The page is mostly text, with some web links.
    A white document page containing a bulleted directory of Serbian student groups and organizations, organized by region. The page is mostly text, with some web links.View post
  • A photograph of a printed document page containing paragraphs about Serbia’s electoral process and a bulleted list of Serbian diaspora groups and initiatives. Some text is bolded.
    A photograph of a printed document page containing paragraphs about Serbia’s electoral process and a bulleted list of Serbian diaspora groups and initiatives. Some text is bolded.View post
  • A photographed page of a formal document, filled with paragraphs and a numbered list about overseas voting access, polling locations, and voting hours. Some headings and phrases are bolded.
    A photographed page of a formal document, filled with paragraphs and a numbered list about overseas voting access, polling locations, and voting hours. Some headings and phrases are bolded.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 Wilson 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
W000795
Bioguide
W000795
FEC candidate ids
H2SC02059

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