87% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in California. Ranks 14th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 432 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in California, ranked among House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
4 measures against House Democrats. Wahab sits at −1.21 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 80% of House Democrats. Wahab raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of House Democrats (median $2.0M).
The measures on which Wahab sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From California, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 14th of 214 House Democrats
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 80% of House Democrats · ± 0.04
Raised, 2026
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 160th of 214
Small donations, 2026
House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 97th of 214
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with House Democrats
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wahab, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wahab is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Wahab says
No statements for the 119th Congress.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the 119th Congress.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Wahab sits at −1.21 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 80% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.25 to −1.17, which understates the uncertainty; from 929 donors and 613 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.25 to −1.17. From 929 donors and 613 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wahab, 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 Wahab’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 Wahab sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wahab |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 20% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 10% |
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 Wahab 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 Wahab.
Money
Wahab raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 13% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 87% of itemized individual money came from California.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 432 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)67 squares$805.8K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$124.7K
- PACs and other committees20 squares$244.5K
- The candidate’s own money and loans3 squares$38.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $805.8K | 66.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $124.7K | 10.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $244.5K | 20.1% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $38.5K | 3.2% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $69.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.2M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from California.
- California$465.9K
- Texas$14.0K
- Washington$11.0K
- Illinois$7,948
- New York$7,656
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
Show the data
| Row | Wahab | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 13% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 25% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $465.9K |
| Texas | $14.0K |
| Washington | $11.0K |
| Illinois | $7,948 |
| New York | $7,656 |
| Maryland | $7,582 |
| New Jersey | $3,988 |
| Virginia | $3,230 |
| District of Columbia | $2,465 |
| Massachusetts | $1,810 |
| North Carolina | $1,750 |
| Connecticut | $1,477 |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| Kansas | $1,000 |
| Tennessee | $1,000 |
| Michigan | $833 |
| Florida | $800 |
| Utah | $750 |
| Minnesota | $550 |
| Pennsylvania | $500 |
| Kentucky | $500 |
| Oregon | $488 |
| Iowa | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from California
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 3.9% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 73% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 18% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 2.1% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.7% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Wahab’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Wahab’s own score is −1.21.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$132.7K 113 donors
- RETIRED$39.3K 44 donors
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER$34.8K 14 donors
- ENGINEER$31.5K 27 donors
- HOMEMAKER$24.0K 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$15.0K
- COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA - COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE$10.0K
- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K
- MEDICARE FOR ALL$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE$2,000 3 donors
- GOOGLE, LLC$1,750 3 donors
- APPLE$1,580 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Wahab voted with the majority of House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 22 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wahab voted against the majority of House Democrats 1 time.
22 roll calls Wahab could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Wahab voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 100%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 10th of 217. 22 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Wahab, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Wahab | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 96.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
12 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Wahab most often
Not enough shared votes.
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wahab least often
Not enough shared votes.
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
Legislation
Wahab sponsored 0 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 3 others.
The bills Wahab 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Wahab sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wahab cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wahab, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Wahab’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 6164 | To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 28201 Franklin Parkway in Santa Clarita, California, as the "Deputy Ryan Clinkunbroomer Post Office Building". | Cosponsor | Nov 19, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Nov 19, 2025 |
| H.R. 3565 | To provide for a limitation on the transfer of defense articles and defense services to Israel. | Cosponsor | May 21, 2025 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. May 21, 2025 |
| H.R. 3069 | Medicare for All Act | Cosponsor | Apr 29, 2025 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Workforce, Rules, Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, and the Judiciary, 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. Apr 29, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 48 times in 90 days. Wahab’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026.
The lab crawls Wahab’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 Wahab posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 31
pages crawled
48changes 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.
Social accounts
No social accounts on file.
Images Wahab posted
No images from Wahab’s posts have been described.
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.
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 Wahab is most unusual among House Democrats, 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
- W000832
- Bioguide
- W000832
- FEC candidate ids
- H0CA15213
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