Skip to content

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

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

Bioguide W000812FEC H2MO02102

Portrait of Ann Wagner, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
45%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Republicans

45% of 20 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Republicans is 17%. Ranks 11th of 216, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Wagner sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Republicans. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 19% of Wagner’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.1 times the House Republican average of 8.9%. The policy areas Wagner talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of House Republicans.

The measures on which Wagner 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.

Out of committee

45%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 11th of 216

Bipartisanship

19%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 16th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.69

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 40th of 221

Small donations, 2026

32%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 50th of 220

Raised, 2026

$4.2M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 53rd of 220

CSIP ideology

+0.90

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Wagner says

Wagner stresses bipartisanship more than 92% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 19% of 824 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 16th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Wagner’s 824 statements in the 119th Congress (556 posts on X, 104 Congressional Record speeches, 91 press releases, 73 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%
Wagner
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion586 statements
71%
68%
94th of 221
Credit claiming374 statements
45%
37%
58th of 221
Bipartisanship154 statements
19%
9%
16th of 221
Policy criticism103 statements
13%
15%
137th of 221
Personal attacks13 statements
2%
2%
89th of 221
Show the data
Wagner's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowWagnerPeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming45%37%
Bipartisanship19%9%
Policy criticism13%15%
Personal attacks2%2%
824

statements classified

556 posts on X, 104 Congressional Record speeches, 91 press releases, 73 newsletters.

posts on X: 556 (67.5%)posts on X 556Congressional Record speeches: 104 (12.6%)press releases: 91 (11.0%)newsletters: 73 (8.9%)
Show the data
Wagner's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X556
Congressional Record speeches104
press releases91
newsletters73
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Wagner used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, below the peer average. 20 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”9
  2. “extreme”6
  3. “far left”5
  4. “communist”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats4
  2. Senate Democrats3
  3. far left2
  4. capital markets1
  5. Chinese Communist Party1
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: 572025-02: 352025-03: 392025-04: 282025-05: 512025-06: 882025-07: 362025-08: 272025-09: 472025-10: 382025-11: 282025-12: 622026-01: 392026-02: 322026-03: 292026-04: 322026-05: 322026-06: 292026-07: 242026-08: 222026-09: 312026-10: 18peak 88 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 14.3% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.9% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-03: 5.1% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.6% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.4% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-11: 14.3% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-07: 4.2% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 18Policy criticismpeak 25.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-02: 25.7% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-03: 5.1% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-04: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-05: 7.8% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-06: 12.5% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-07: 19.4% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.8% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-09: 4.3% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-10: 23.7% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.0% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-02: 6.3% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-03: 24.1% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-04: 9.4% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-05: 9.4% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.8% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.2% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-09: 3.2% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 18Policy discussionpeak 94.4% · Oct ’26 · latest 94.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 63.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-02: 82.9% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-03: 79.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-05: 66.7% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.2% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-07: 86.1% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-08: 70.4% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-09: 68.1% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-10: 68.4% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-11: 67.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-12: 67.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-02: 75.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-03: 86.2% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-04: 62.5% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-05: 81.3% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-06: 51.7% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-07: 70.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-08: 63.6% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-09: 61.3% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-10: 94.4% of 18Bipartisanshippeak 31.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 10.5% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 17.1% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 30.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 17.9% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 25.5% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 17.1% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 22.2% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.4% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.5% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 15.8% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 22.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 20.5% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 21.9% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 27.6% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.5% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 28.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 31.0% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 25.0% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 9.1% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 12.9% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 18Credit claimingpeak 66.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 55.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 49.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-02: 57.1% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-03: 41.0% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.1% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-05: 51.0% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-06: 26.1% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-07: 66.7% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-08: 40.7% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-09: 55.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-10: 47.4% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-11: 46.4% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-12: 35.5% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-01: 46.2% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-02: 62.5% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-03: 48.3% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.4% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-05: 62.5% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-06: 51.7% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-07: 45.8% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-08: 13.6% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-09: 51.6% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-10: 55.6% of 18Extreme labelspeak 26.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.3% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.1% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-10: 26.3% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.9% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 18Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Wagner, 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 ’25570.0%15.8%63.2%10.5%49.1%5.3%
Feb ’25352.9%25.7%82.9%17.1%57.1%0.0%
Mar ’25395.1%5.1%79.5%30.8%41.0%5.1%
Apr ’25283.6%14.3%67.9%17.9%32.1%0.0%
May ’25512.0%7.8%66.7%25.5%51.0%0.0%
Jun ’25883.4%12.5%68.2%17.1%26.1%0.0%
Jul ’25360.0%19.4%86.1%22.2%66.7%0.0%
Aug ’25270.0%14.8%70.4%7.4%40.7%0.0%
Sep ’25470.0%4.3%68.1%8.5%55.3%0.0%
Oct ’25380.0%23.7%68.4%15.8%47.4%26.3%
Nov ’252814.3%14.3%67.9%21.4%46.4%7.1%
Dec ’25620.0%21.0%67.7%22.6%35.5%1.6%
Jan ’26390.0%10.3%79.5%20.5%46.2%0.0%
Feb ’26320.0%6.3%75.0%21.9%62.5%0.0%
Mar ’26290.0%24.1%86.2%27.6%48.3%6.9%
Apr ’26320.0%9.4%62.5%12.5%34.4%0.0%
May ’26320.0%9.4%81.3%28.1%62.5%0.0%
Jun ’26290.0%13.8%51.7%31.0%51.7%0.0%
Jul ’26244.2%4.2%70.8%25.0%45.8%0.0%
Aug ’26220.0%0.0%63.6%9.1%13.6%0.0%
Sep ’26310.0%3.2%61.3%12.9%51.6%0.0%
Oct ’26180.0%0.0%94.4%0.0%55.6%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 Wagner’s words

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

Personal attacks

A Message from Ann | Dear Friend, Last week was the 200th Anniversary of our very own historic Jefferson Barracks that has had an outsized impact on our military history and national security. Jefferson Barracks is home to the Missouri Air National Guard and Army National Guard, a Veterans Affairs…

Jul 13, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Families; Finance and Financial Sector; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Immigration; Taxation; target: Democratic Socialists

Bipartisanship

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

Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source

Extreme label

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

Mar 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “radical” aimed at Iran · 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. Newsletters

    A Message from Ann | Dear Friend, Last week was the 200th Anniversary of our very own historic Jefferson Barracks that has had an outsized impact on our military history and national security. Jefferson Barracks is home to the Missouri Air National Guard and Army National Guard, a Veterans Affairs hospital complex, and the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery where more than 200,000 veterans are laid to rest. It sta…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Families · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Immigration · Taxation · target: Democratic Socialists

  2. Newsletters

    A Message from Ann | Dear Friend, Missourians need and deserve a functional Postal Service. But for the last several years-dating back to at least 2022-severe dysfunction has plagued service in our area, due to systemic problems, inefficiencies, and major adverse events like mercury spills and the bankruptcy of a major contractor. USPS's failure to quickly address these problems and restore timely, accurate, and eff…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · Education · Health · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Jeffrey Epstein

  3. Press releases

    Wagner Votes to Release Epstein Files, Support Victims of Trafficking Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-MO) released the following statement after she voted to release files associated with Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific crimes: “Jeffrey Epstein was an evil man, full stop, and I hope he is rotting in Hell for what he did to all those girls. I have said from day one I support releasing any files related to Je…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jeffrey EpsteinSource

  4. Newsletters

    A Message from Ann | Dear Friend, Finally, after over forty days of an absolutely reckless government shutdown, Senate Democrats came to the table to join us in reopening the government. I proudly voted to reopen the government, a vote that includes full-year funding for veteran's healthcare and the VA. It includes billions of dollars for SNAP, billions of dollars for food stamps and the National School Lunch Progra…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Taxation · target: Senate Democrats

  5. Newsletters

    A Message from Ann | Dear Friend, We have now exceeded the longest government shutdown in our nation's history, all due to the Senate Democrats who insisted on holding our government hostage for their partisan policies. They made it clear that they do not care about our servicemembers, our essential federal workers, or the families who are on SNAP and going hungry. This is utterly shameful behavior, and it is hurtin…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · target: Senate Democrats

All 824 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: 556 posts on X, 104 Congressional Record speeches, 91 press releases, 73 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Wagner talks about most: 33% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 40th 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 Wagner talks about. The bills Wagner sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Wagner talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%36%
Wagner
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security191 statements
33%
24%
Finance and Financial Sector155 statements
26%
3%
International Affairs119 statements
20%
9%
Crime and Law Enforcement114 statements
19%
12%
Economics and Public Finance99 statements
17%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Wagner talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowWagnerPeers
Armed Forces and National Security33%24%
Finance and Financial Sector26%3%
International Affairs20%9%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Wagner’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 36%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 33% (House Republicans 24%)33%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Finance and Financial SectorFinance and Financial Sector, talks about: 26% (House Republicans 3%)26%Finance and Financial Sector, legislates on: 22% (House Republicans 5%)22%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 9%)20%International Affairs, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 6%)12%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 12%)19%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 9%)18%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%
Show the data
Wagner's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security33%24%7%8%
Finance and Financial Sector26%3%22%5%
International Affairs20%9%12%6%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%18%9%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%0%2%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 40th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Wagner sits at +0.90 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 68% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.89 to +0.91, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,730 donors and 7,336 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”.

+0.90

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.89 to +0.91. From 5,730 donors and 7,336 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Wagner +0.9House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Wagner, 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 Wagner’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 Wagner sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Wagner +0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Wagner's CSIP score of +0.90 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Wagner
House Republicans221+1.032%
All House439+0.366%
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 Wagner 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 Wagner.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Wagner raised $4.2M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 32% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 59% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.

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
$4.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,418 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): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.6M (38.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $761.7K (18.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (34.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $385.5K (9.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)38 squares$1.6M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)18 squares$761.7K
  • PACs and other committees35 squares$1.4M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)9 squares$385.5K
Show the data
Sources of Wagner's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.6M38.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$761.7K18.2%
PACs and other committees$1.4M34.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$385.5K9.2%
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: $5.7M$5.7M20202022 cycle: $4.9M$4.9M20222024 cycle: $4.3M$4.3M20242026 cycle: $4.2M$4.2M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Wagner's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.7M
2022 cycle$4.9M
2024 cycle$4.3M
2026 cycle$4.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 59% came from Missouri.

  1. Missouri$1.1M
  2. California$148.8K
  3. Florida$126.9K
  4. New York$97.2K
  5. Illinois$49.7K

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%
Wagner
Median
2026
32%
9%
2024
30%
9%
2022
30%
9%
2020
26%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowWagnerMedian
2026 cycle32%9%
2024 cycle30%9%
2022 cycle30%9%
2020 cycle26%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $250AKMaine: $763MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $2,500NHWashington: $12.7KWAIdaho: $1,794IDMontana: $1,498MTNorth Dakota: $150NDMinnesota: $1,865MNIllinois: $49.7KILWisconsin: $3,137WIMichigan: $5,439MINew York: $97.2KNYRhode Island: $3,046RIMassachusetts: $11.7KMAOregon: $4,103ORNevada: $17.7KNVWyoming: $5,262WYSouth Dakota: $474SDIowa: $2,169IAIndiana: $1,477INOhio: $4,011OHPennsylvania: $16.2KPANew Jersey: $8,514NJConnecticut: $2,603CTCalifornia: $148.8KCAUtah: $4,711UTColorado: $29.9KCONebraska: $2,422NEMissouri: $1.1MMOKentucky: $3,349KYWest Virginia: $2,251WVVirginia: $35.0KVAMaryland: $40.3KMDDelaware: $804DEArizona: $14.5KAZNew Mexico: $1,972NMKansas: $9,085KSArkansas: $338ARTennessee: $5,404TNNorth Carolina: $5,081NCSouth Carolina: $3,347SCDistrict of Columbia: $14.2KDCOklahoma: $868OKLouisiana: $6,268LAMississippi: $2,670MSAlabama: $6,338ALGeorgia: $11.6KGAHawaii: $290HITexas: $47.5KTXFlorida: $126.9KFL
Show the data
Wagner's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Missouri$1.1M
California$148.8K
Florida$126.9K
New York$97.2K
Illinois$49.7K
Texas$47.5K
Maryland$40.3K
Virginia$35.0K
Colorado$29.9K
Nevada$17.7K
Pennsylvania$16.2K
Arizona$14.5K
District of Columbia$14.2K
Washington$12.7K
Massachusetts$11.7K
Georgia$11.6K
Kansas$9,085
New Jersey$8,514
Alabama$6,338
Louisiana$6,268
Michigan$5,439
Tennessee$5,404
Wyoming$5,262
North Carolina$5,081
Utah$4,711
Oregon$4,103
Ohio$4,011
Kentucky$3,349
South Carolina$3,347
Wisconsin$3,137
Rhode Island$3,046
Mississippi$2,670
Connecticut$2,603
New Hampshire$2,500
Nebraska$2,422
West Virginia$2,251
Iowa$2,169
New Mexico$1,972
Minnesota$1,865
Idaho$1,794
Montana$1,498
Indiana$1,477
Oklahoma$868
Delaware$804
Maine$763
South Dakota$474
Arkansas$338
Hawaii$290
Alaska$250
North Dakota$150
VermontNo data
1,418

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

59%

from Missouri

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 Missouri. 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: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 11%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 56%56%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 17%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Wagner's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 6.0% between −0.25 and 0.00, 11% between +0.50 and +0.75, 56% between +0.75 and +1.00, 17% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7511%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0056%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2517%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Wagner’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Wagner’s own score is +0.90.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$618.8K 893 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$137.1K 16 donors
  3. HOMEMAKER$92.5K 19 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$82.8K 38 donors
  5. PARTNER$78.5K 11 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ACPAC ACA INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. ADVOCACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICA'S FIRST PAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. EDWARD JONES$55.8K 14 donors
  2. ARCHKEY SOLUTIONS$6,500 3 donors
  3. STIFEL$6,250 9 donors
  4. EQUIFAX$6,000 3 donors
  5. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP$4,250 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Wagner voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.6% of party-line votes and missed 2.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wagner voted against the majority of House Republicans 13 times.

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

13

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.6%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 131st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Wagner
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.4%
96.3%
138th of 221
Party unity
97.6%
97.1%
131st of 221
Show the data
Wagner's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowWagnerPeers
Attendance97.4%96.3%
Party unity97.6%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 Wagner most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR510 shared votes99%
  2. Cliff BentzR656 shared votes99%
  3. Matt Van EppsR353 shared votes99%
  4. Young KimR652 shared votes99%
  5. Dale StrongR640 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Wagner least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD380 shared votes22%
  2. Rashida TlaibD641 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD626 shared votes24%
  4. Grace MengD612 shared votes25%
  5. Summer LeeD657 shared votes25%
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

Wagner sponsored 20 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 164 others. 45% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 11th of 216).

The bills Wagner 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

Sponsored20 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2020Sponsored, In committee: 2020Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 88Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored164 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 164164Cosponsored, In committee: 164164Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2929Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Wagner sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2020811
Cosponsored1641642922
How to read the blocks

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

45%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 11th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler22
  2. Daniel Meuser19
  3. Tim Moore14
  4. Bill Huizenga14
  5. Zachary (Zach) Nunn12
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 Wagner’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. 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. 10582Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10426Backlog Justice Act of 2026CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 16, 2026
H.Res. 1522Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Missouri-Panama State Partnership Program and celebrating the enduring partnership between the State of Missouri and the Republic of Panama.CosponsorSep 10, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Sep 10, 2026
H.Res. 1511Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' familiesCosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 52 times in 90 days. Wagner’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Wagner posted on Oct 19, 2026.

The lab crawls Wagner’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 Wagner posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    wagner.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    39

    pages crawled

    52

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    annwagner.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    5

    pages crawled

    14

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Wagner posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of U.S. Air Force personnel in camouflage uniforms pose on outdoor steps with a woman holding a framed pair of documents. There is text on the uniforms, documents, and a sign in the background.
    A group of U.S. Air Force personnel in camouflage uniforms pose on outdoor steps with a woman holding a framed pair of documents. There is text on the uniforms, documents, and a sign in the background.View post
  • A woman in a patterned dress shakes hands with a U.S. Army soldier in camouflage in an indoor office or meeting room. Two other soldiers stand behind them. Text appears on the soldiers’ uniforms and patches.
    A woman in a patterned dress shakes hands with a U.S. Army soldier in camouflage in an indoor office or meeting room. Two other soldiers stand behind them. Text appears on the soldiers’ uniforms and patches.View post
  • Several women are seated around a conference table in an office, apparently having a discussion. U.S. and state flags and an official seal are behind them. Papers, notebooks, and water bottles are on the table, including a purple Alzheimer’s Association folder with visible text.
    Several women are seated around a conference table in an office, apparently having a discussion. U.S. and state flags and an official seal are behind them. Papers, notebooks, and water bottles are on the table, including a purple Alzheimer’s Association folder with visible text.View post
  • Four women pose for a group photo in an office in front of two flags and a congressional seal. Some clothing and the seal contain text.
    Four women pose for a group photo in an office in front of two flags and a congressional seal. Some clothing and the seal contain text.View post
  • A woman in a blue suit and a man in a white uniform pose for a photograph indoors, with an American flag behind them. No prominent text is visible.
    A woman in a blue suit and a man in a white uniform pose for a photograph indoors, with an American flag behind them. No prominent text is visible.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 Wagner 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
W000812
Bioguide
W000812
FEC candidate ids
H2MO02102

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