Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Arkansas’s 4th district

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide W000821FEC H4AR04048

Portrait of Bruce Westerman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.1%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans

0.1% of 1,303 statements contain a personal attack (2 statements); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 198th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Westerman’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, 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. The policy areas Westerman talks about and legislates on agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans. 58% of Westerman’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Westerman 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

0.1%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 198th of 221

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.55

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 200th of 221

Attendance

99.5%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 28th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Policy discussion

58%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 188th of 221

Bipartisanship

14%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 43rd 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 Westerman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Westerman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Westerman says

Westerman attacks opponents personally less than 89% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,303 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 198th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Westerman’s 1,303 statements in the 119th Congress (737 Congressional Record speeches, 450 posts on X, 79 newsletters, 37 press releases) 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%
Westerman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion755 statements
58%
68%
188th of 221
Credit claiming378 statements
29%
37%
173rd of 221
Policy criticism219 statements
17%
15%
73rd of 221
Bipartisanship180 statements
14%
9%
43rd of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
198th of 221
Show the data
Westerman's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowWestermanPeers
Policy discussion58%68%
Credit claiming29%37%
Policy criticism17%15%
Bipartisanship14%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,303

statements classified

737 Congressional Record speeches, 450 posts on X, 79 newsletters, 37 press releases.

Congressional Record speeches: 737 (56.6%)Congressional Record speeches 737posts on X: 450 (34.5%)posts on X 450newsletters: 79 (6.1%)press releases: 37 (2.8%)
Show the data
Westerman's statements by source
PartValue
Congressional Record speeches737
posts on X450
newsletters79
press releases37
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Westerman used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, 30% of the peer average. 12 statements, most often aimed at California standards; peers 3.0%.

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

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. California standards1
  2. China1
  3. Chinese Communist Party1
  4. environmental extremists1
  5. environmentalism1
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: 1042025-02: 922025-03: 522025-04: 612025-05: 1342025-06: 552025-07: 712025-08: 372025-09: 662025-10: 292025-11: 532025-12: 682026-01: 532026-02: 322026-03: 922026-04: 322026-05: 282026-06: 962026-07: 92026-08: 52026-09: 1322026-10: 2peak 134 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 1.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.0% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 134Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 132Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 37.5% · Feb ’26 · latest 8.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 17.3% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-02: 20.6% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-03: 19.2% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.4% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-05: 18.7% of 134Policy criticism, 2025-06: 3.6% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-07: 2.8% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-08: 10.8% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-09: 28.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-10: 13.8% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-11: 32.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-12: 25.0% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-01: 17.0% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-02: 37.5% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-03: 18.5% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.5% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-05: 14.3% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.5% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.3% of 132Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 71.9% · Feb ’26 · latest 47.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.7% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-02: 58.7% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-03: 50.0% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.9% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-05: 59.0% of 134Policy discussion, 2025-06: 60.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-07: 57.8% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-08: 51.3% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-09: 57.6% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-10: 65.5% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.5% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-12: 51.5% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-01: 58.5% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.9% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-03: 57.6% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.9% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-06: 58.3% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: 47.0% of 132Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 25.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 9.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 25.0% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 13.0% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.6% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 14.2% of 134Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.6% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.0% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 10.8% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.3% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 19.1% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.4% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 15.6% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.1% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 21.9% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 21.4% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 19.8% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 9.8% of 132Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 48.6% · Aug ’25 · latest 11.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 37.5% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-02: 43.5% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-03: 28.8% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.2% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.4% of 134Credit claiming, 2025-06: 23.6% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-07: 28.2% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-08: 48.6% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-09: 27.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-10: 34.5% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-11: 39.6% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-12: 22.1% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-01: 34.0% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-02: 40.6% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-03: 22.8% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.4% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-05: 39.3% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-06: 25.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: 11.4% of 132Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 6.3% · Feb ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.9% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.2% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.0% of 134Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-11: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-02: 6.3% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 132Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Westerman, 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 ’251041.0%17.3%57.7%25.0%37.5%1.9%
Feb ’25920.0%20.6%58.7%13.0%43.5%2.2%
Mar ’25520.0%19.2%50.0%9.6%28.8%0.0%
Apr ’25610.0%16.4%63.9%6.6%26.2%0.0%
May ’251340.0%18.7%59.0%14.2%25.4%3.0%
Jun ’25550.0%3.6%60.0%3.6%23.6%0.0%
Jul ’25710.0%2.8%57.8%7.0%28.2%0.0%
Aug ’25370.0%10.8%51.3%10.8%48.6%0.0%
Sep ’25660.0%28.8%57.6%12.1%27.3%1.5%
Oct ’25290.0%13.8%65.5%13.8%34.5%0.0%
Nov ’25530.0%32.1%58.5%11.3%39.6%1.9%
Dec ’25680.0%25.0%51.5%19.1%22.1%0.0%
Jan ’26530.0%17.0%58.5%9.4%34.0%0.0%
Feb ’26320.0%37.5%71.9%15.6%40.6%6.3%
Mar ’26920.0%18.5%57.6%14.1%22.8%0.0%
Apr ’26320.0%12.5%71.9%21.9%34.4%0.0%
May ’26280.0%14.3%71.4%21.4%39.3%0.0%
Jun ’26960.0%13.5%58.3%19.8%25.0%0.0%
Jul ’269— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Aug ’265— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’261320.0%8.3%47.0%9.8%11.4%0.0%
Oct ’262— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 3 months are hatched here.

In Westerman’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Westerman Cosponsors the Introduction of Bipartisan Legislation to Support Veterans' Right to Build Their Own Homes This week, Reps. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) introduced the Veterans Owner-Builders’ Rights Act to expand VA home loans and provide rural veterans with th…

Sep 28, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Nidal Hasan · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill, there is absolutely nothing in the bill about allowing foreign mining companies to come into the US and exploit our Federal lands, to bypass all Federal regulations, and create scenarios like may have happened…

Feb 4, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Environmental Protection; International Affairs; extreme label “communist” aimed at China · 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Nidal HasanSource

  2. Newsletters

    Westerman Weekly Wrap Up Bruce's Take After four years of countless blows to American energy production, the Biden administration has once again proven that they have no interest in putting our country and our national security first. A midnight ruling proved that this administration has no desire to work toward American energy dominance as a ban on oil and gas production in more than 600 million acres of federal wa…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Energy · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Agriculture and Food · Environmental Protection · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Immigration · extreme label “radical” · target: Biden administration

All 1,303 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: 737 Congressional Record speeches, 450 posts on X, 79 newsletters, 37 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Public Lands and Natural Resources is what Westerman talks about most: 47% of policy statements, 12.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 200th 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 Westerman talks about. The bills Westerman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Westerman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%52%
Westerman
Peers
Public Lands and Natural Resources358 statements
47%
4%
Government Operations and Politics177 statements
23%
19%
Environmental Protection150 statements
20%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security132 statements
17%
24%
Energy130 statements
17%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Westerman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowWestermanPeers
Public Lands and Natural Resources47%4%
Government Operations and Politics23%19%
Environmental Protection20%4%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%
Energy17%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Westerman’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 52%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onPublic Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 47% (House Republicans 4%)47%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 3%)9%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 19%)23%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 12%)8%Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Protection, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 4%)20%Environmental Protection, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 3%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 24%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 8%)5%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 9%)17%Energy, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 3%)1%
Show the data
Westerman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Public Lands and Natural Resources47%4%9%3%
Government Operations and Politics23%19%8%12%
Environmental Protection20%4%9%3%
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%5%8%
Energy17%9%1%3%
0.55

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 200th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Westerman sits at +1.01 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 51% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.99 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,119 donors and 6,332 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 +0.99 to +1.02. From 2,119 donors and 6,332 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Westerman, 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 Westerman’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 Westerman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Westerman +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Westerman's CSIP score of +1.01 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Westerman
House Republicans221+1.051%
All House439+0.375%
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 Westerman 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 Westerman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Westerman raised $3.0M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 4.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 44% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.

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
$3.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 406 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): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $936.3K (31.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $39.3K (1.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.3M (42.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $740.4K (24.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)32 squares$936.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$39.3K
  • PACs and other committees42 squares$1.3M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)25 squares$740.4K
Show the data
Sources of Westerman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$936.3K31.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$39.3K1.3%
PACs and other committees$1.3M42.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$740.4K24.9%
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: $1.4M$1.4M20202022 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M20222024 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M20242026 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Westerman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.4M
2022 cycle$1.9M
2024 cycle$2.7M
2026 cycle$3.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 44% came from Arkansas.

  1. Arkansas$284.5K
  2. Texas$71.9K
  3. District of Columbia$47.3K
  4. Florida$40.8K
  5. Virginia$29.8K

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%
Westerman
Median
2026
4%
9%
2024
3%
9%
2022
4%
9%
2020
9%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowWestermanMedian
2026 cycle4%9%
2024 cycle3%9%
2022 cycle4%9%
2020 cycle9%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,000AKMaine: $1,250MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $10.4KWAIdaho: $3,800IDMontana: $250MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,000MNIllinois: $4,000ILWisconsin: $2,500WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $23.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $4,750MAOregon: $7,250ORNevada: $1,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $1,000OHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $28.0KCAUtah: $500UTColorado: $3,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $7,000MOKentucky: $2,750KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $29.8KVAMaryland: $8,300MDDelaware: $2,000DEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $284.5KARTennessee: $5,000TNNorth Carolina: $16.3KNCSouth Carolina: $350SCDistrict of Columbia: $47.3KDCOklahoma: $10.6KOKLouisiana: $2,500LAMississippi: $3,000MSAlabama: $8,945ALGeorgia: $12.8KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $71.9KTXFlorida: $40.8KFL
Show the data
Westerman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Arkansas$284.5K
Texas$71.9K
District of Columbia$47.3K
Florida$40.8K
Virginia$29.8K
California$28.0K
New York$23.0K
North Carolina$16.3K
Georgia$12.8K
Oklahoma$10.6K
Washington$10.4K
Alabama$8,945
Maryland$8,300
Oregon$7,250
Missouri$7,000
Tennessee$5,000
Massachusetts$4,750
Illinois$4,000
Idaho$3,800
Colorado$3,000
Mississippi$3,000
Kentucky$2,750
Wisconsin$2,500
Louisiana$2,500
Alaska$2,000
Delaware$2,000
Maine$1,250
Minnesota$1,000
Nevada$1,000
Ohio$1,000
Pennsylvania$500
Utah$500
South Carolina$350
Montana$250
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
North DakotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
HawaiiNo data
406

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

44%

from Arkansas

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 Arkansas. 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: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 7.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 9.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 43%43%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 31%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Westerman's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 7.4% between +0.25 and +0.50, 9.0% between +0.50 and +0.75, 43% between +0.75 and +1.00, 31% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.507.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.759.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0043%
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 Westerman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Westerman’s own score is +1.01.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$95.4K 71 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$55.2K 27 donors
  3. OWNER$51.7K 19 donors
  4. CEO$41.1K 24 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$33.5K 21 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. CATERPILLAR INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CATPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$7,000 8 donors
  2. LITHIUM AMERICAS$3,000 3 donors
  3. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICE, LLC$2,945 9 donors
  4. ALPINE GROUP$1,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Westerman voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Westerman voted against the majority of House Republicans 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 97.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 141st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Westerman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
96.3%
28th of 221
Party unity
97.4%
97.1%
141st of 221
Show the data
Westerman's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowWestermanPeers
Attendance99.5%96.3%
Party unity97.4%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 Westerman most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR518 shared votes99%
  2. Robert AderholtR651 shared votes99%
  3. J. HillR663 shared votes98%
  4. Mike RogersR650 shared votes98%
  5. James BairdR630 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Westerman least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD385 shared votes25%
  2. Rashida TlaibD655 shared votes25%
  3. Delia RamirezD638 shared votes26%
  4. Dan GoldmanD588 shared votes27%
  5. Gregorio CasarD573 shared votes27%
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

Westerman sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 103 others. 21% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 59th of 216).

The bills Westerman 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

Sponsored14 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1414Sponsored, In committee: 1414Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored103 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 103103Cosponsored, In committee: 103103Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1212Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Westerman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1414200
Cosponsored1031031211
How to read the blocks

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

21%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 59th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Buddy Carter9
  2. Pete Stauber8
  3. Don Bacon7
  4. Mike Collins Jr.7
  5. J. Hill7
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 Westerman’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. 10906To strengthen American wood, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Agriculture, Financial Services, Armed Services, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.Res. 1623Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month".SponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10590Veteran Owner-Builders Rights ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10442To require the Ronald A. Robinson Post Office in Little Rock, Arkansas, to replace certain exterior signage, and for other purposes.CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 16, 2026
H.Res. 1537Supporting the designation of the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week".CosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeEnergyReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 53 times in 90 days. Westerman’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Westerman posted on Oct 19, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Westerman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue-toned promotional graphic featuring a large stack of cut logs at a lumber facility, overlaid with bright green lettering and small campaign-style graphics.
    A blue-toned promotional graphic featuring a large stack of cut logs at a lumber facility, overlaid with bright green lettering and small campaign-style graphics.View post
  • A promotional graphic with a row of blue semi-trucks in the background and large white lettering over them. A small name and office label appear near the bottom.
    A promotional graphic with a row of blue semi-trucks in the background and large white lettering over them. A small name and office label appear near the bottom.View post
  • A commemorative poster showing the World Trade Center towers against a blue sky, with American flag motifs and prominent remembrance messaging. Text appears throughout.
    A commemorative poster showing the World Trade Center towers against a blue sky, with American flag motifs and prominent remembrance messaging. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A formal congressional statement graphic on a light background, with a dark blue headline banner, red accent stripe, and three paragraphs of text. A capitol dome icon appears in the banner, with a congressman’s logo at the lower left and an American flag at the lower right.
    A formal congressional statement graphic on a light background, with a dark blue headline banner, red accent stripe, and three paragraphs of text. A capitol dome icon appears in the banner, with a congressman’s logo at the lower left and an American flag at the lower right.View post
  • A man in a dark suit speaks at a clear lectern to an audience seated in rows in a conference room. A digital display is visible on the wall; there is text in the image.
    A man in a dark suit speaks at a clear lectern to an audience seated in rows in a conference room. A digital display is visible on the wall; there is text in the image.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 Westerman 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
W000821
Bioguide
W000821
FEC candidate ids
H4AR04048

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