Skip to content

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

Serving since Nov 14, 2022119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide Y000067FEC H2IN02295

Portrait of Rudy Yakym, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
12%
of itemized money from Indiana donors, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

12% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Indiana. Ranks 205th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 2,609 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 Indiana, ranked among House Republicans. 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

6 measures against House Republicans. 56% of Yakym’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%). 41% of Yakym’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of House Republicans (median 9.4%).

The measures on which Yakym 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.

Party unity

99.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 7th of 221 · 5 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Attendance

100%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 6th of 221 · 674 roll calls

From Indiana, 2026

12%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 205th of 216 House Republicans

Policy discussion

56%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 193rd of 221

Small donations, 2026

41%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 25th of 220

CSIP ideology

+1.06

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Yakym says

Yakym criticizes policies less than 77% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 9.6% of 1,538 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 173rd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Yakym’s 1,538 statements in the 119th Congress (1,331 posts on X, 88 newsletters, 82 press releases, 37 Congressional Record speeches) 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%
Yakym
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion869 statements
56%
68%
193rd of 221
Credit claiming570 statements
37%
37%
117th of 221
Policy criticism148 statements
10%
15%
173rd of 221
Bipartisanship88 statements
6%
9%
139th of 221
Personal attacks39 statements
3%
2%
60th of 221
Show the data
Yakym's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowYakymPeers
Policy discussion56%68%
Credit claiming37%37%
Policy criticism10%15%
Bipartisanship6%9%
Personal attacks3%2%
1,538

statements classified

1,331 posts on X, 88 newsletters, 82 press releases, 37 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,331 (86.5%)posts on X 1,331newsletters: 88 (5.7%)press releases: 82 (5.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 37 (2.4%)
Show the data
Yakym's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,331
newsletters88
press releases82
Congressional Record speeches37
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Yakym used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, below the peer average. 32 statements, most often aimed at Biden administration; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”12
  2. “extreme”6
  3. “communist”4
  4. “far left”4
  5. “woke”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Biden administration2
  2. environmental agenda2
  3. candidates1
  4. Communism1
  5. Communist China1
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: 1262025-02: 1012025-03: 1052025-04: 762025-05: 942025-06: 942025-07: 732025-08: 702025-09: 512025-10: 302025-11: 312025-12: 442026-01: 622026-02: 522026-03: 532026-04: 392026-05: 372026-06: 862026-07: 852026-08: 842026-09: 792026-10: 66peak 126 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 10.6% · Oct ’26 · latest 10.6%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.0% of 126Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.8% of 105Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.3% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.3% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.2% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.4% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-02: 3.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.3% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.5% of 85Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-09: 3.8% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-10: 10.6% of 66Policy criticismpeak 17.1% · Mar ’25 · latest 4.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.1% of 126Policy criticism, 2025-02: 12.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.1% of 105Policy criticism, 2025-04: 11.8% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.4% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-06: 4.3% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-07: 6.9% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-08: 1.4% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-09: 7.8% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-10: 13.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-11: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-12: 11.4% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.8% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-02: 3.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-03: 15.1% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.3% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-05: 2.7% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-06: 14.0% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-07: 14.1% of 85Policy criticism, 2026-08: 7.1% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.9% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.5% of 66Policy discussionpeak 82.3% · Sep ’26 · latest 71.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 52.4% of 126Policy discussion, 2025-02: 55.5% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-03: 55.2% of 105Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.8% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-05: 43.6% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-06: 42.5% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-07: 45.2% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-08: 58.6% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-09: 43.1% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-10: 33.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-11: 45.2% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-12: 59.1% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-01: 56.5% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-02: 40.4% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-03: 49.1% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-04: 61.5% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-05: 64.9% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-06: 48.8% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-07: 72.9% of 85Policy discussion, 2026-08: 82.1% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.3% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-10: 71.2% of 66Bipartisanshippeak 24.3% · May ’26 · latest 3.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.6% of 126Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 11.4% of 105Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.6% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 2.1% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.3% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.5% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 3.9% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 0.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.7% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.8% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 6.5% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.7% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 17.9% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 24.3% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 9.3% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 4.7% of 85Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.2% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.8% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.0% of 66Credit claimingpeak 57.1% · Aug ’25 · latest 34.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 44.4% of 126Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-03: 43.8% of 105Credit claiming, 2025-04: 40.8% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-05: 36.2% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-06: 25.5% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-07: 41.1% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-08: 57.1% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-09: 37.3% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-10: 20.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-11: 41.9% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-12: 38.6% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-01: 30.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-02: 36.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-03: 18.9% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-04: 43.6% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-05: 46.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-06: 32.6% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-07: 24.7% of 85Credit claiming, 2026-08: 33.3% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-09: 40.5% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-10: 34.8% of 66Extreme labelspeak 8.2% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.8% of 126Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.8% of 105Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.2% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.2% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-07: 8.2% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.4% of 85Extreme labels, 2026-08: 2.4% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 66Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Yakym, 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 ’251264.0%15.1%52.4%5.6%44.4%4.8%
Feb ’251012.0%12.9%55.5%4.0%39.6%1.0%
Mar ’251054.8%17.1%55.2%11.4%43.8%4.8%
Apr ’25761.3%11.8%61.8%2.6%40.8%0.0%
May ’25945.3%6.4%43.6%2.1%36.2%3.2%
Jun ’25943.2%4.3%42.5%4.3%25.5%3.2%
Jul ’25731.4%6.9%45.2%5.5%41.1%8.2%
Aug ’25700.0%1.4%58.6%0.0%57.1%0.0%
Sep ’25510.0%7.8%43.1%3.9%37.3%0.0%
Oct ’25300.0%13.3%33.3%0.0%20.0%0.0%
Nov ’25310.0%6.5%45.2%9.7%41.9%0.0%
Dec ’25440.0%11.4%59.1%6.8%38.6%2.3%
Jan ’26620.0%4.8%56.5%6.5%30.6%0.0%
Feb ’26523.9%3.9%40.4%7.7%36.5%1.9%
Mar ’26530.0%15.1%49.1%5.7%18.9%0.0%
Apr ’26390.0%10.3%61.5%17.9%43.6%0.0%
May ’26370.0%2.7%64.9%24.3%46.0%0.0%
Jun ’26862.3%14.0%48.8%9.3%32.6%2.3%
Jul ’26853.5%14.1%72.9%4.7%24.7%2.4%
Aug ’26840.0%7.1%82.1%1.2%33.3%2.4%
Sep ’26793.8%8.9%82.3%3.8%40.5%0.0%
Oct ’266610.6%4.5%71.2%3.0%34.8%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 Yakym’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Rudy's Wrap Up: Fighting Corruption and Fraud for Hoosier Taxpayers [Rep. Rudy Yakym banner image] Dear political, My wife, our three kids and I live in Granger, not Washington. That was deliberate, and it wasn’t a hard call. I say that because when Hoosiers sent me to Washington, I noticed a lot…

Oct 17, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Health; Taxation; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick

Policy criticism

Rudy's Wrap Up: Why I’ve Never Traded a Stock in Congress [Rep. Rudy Yakym banner image] Dear political, It’s rare for almost the whole country to agree on anything, but Americans agree on this: D.C. politicians should not be using insider information to trade stocks and get rich. A recent poll<…

Oct 10, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Finance and Financial Sector

Extreme label

Rudy's Wrap Up: Week Three on the Hoosier Heartland Tour [Rep. Rudy Yakym banner image] Hello, Indiana's Second District, otherwise known as home, is one of the most prosperous places in America. From the rich farmland in Pulaski and Cass Counties, to the RV capital of the world in Elkhart, to th…

Aug 22, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Labor and Employment; Taxation; extreme label “radical, communist” aimed at candidates

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · target: DemocratsSource

  2. Newsletters

    Rudy's Wrap Up: Fighting Corruption and Fraud for Hoosier Taxpayers [Rep. Rudy Yakym banner image] Dear political, My wife, our three kids and I live in Granger, not Washington. That was deliberate, and it wasn’t a hard call. I say that because when Hoosiers sent me to Washington, I noticed a lot of politicians uproot their families. They buy a house near the Capitol, and they put their kids in D.C. schools. That…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Health · Taxation · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · target: DemocratsSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: himSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

All 1,538 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,331 posts on X, 88 newsletters, 82 press releases, 37 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Taxation is what Yakym talks about most: 22% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 54th 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 Yakym talks about. The bills Yakym sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Yakym talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Yakym
Peers
Taxation187 statements
22%
10%
Government Operations and Politics150 statements
17%
19%
Economics and Public Finance144 statements
17%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security143 statements
16%
24%
Commerce129 statements
15%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Yakym talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowYakymPeers
Taxation22%10%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%
Commerce15%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Yakym’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onTaxationTaxation, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 10%)22%Taxation, legislates on: 20% (House Republicans 9%)20%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 12%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 2%)3%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 24%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 9%)15%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%
Show the data
Yakym's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Taxation22%10%20%9%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%5%12%
Economics and Public Finance17%19%3%2%
Armed Forces and National Security16%24%7%8%
Commerce15%9%1%2%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 54th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Yakym sits at +1.06 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 60% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.04 to +1.07, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,941 donors and 1,978 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”.

+1.06

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.04 to +1.07. From 3,941 donors and 1,978 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Yakym +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Yakym, 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 Yakym’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 Yakym sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Yakym +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Yakym's CSIP score of +1.06 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Yakym
House Republicans221+1.059%
All House439+0.379%
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 Yakym 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 Yakym.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Yakym raised $6.6M in the 2026 cycle, 3.0 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 41% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 12% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.

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
$6.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,609 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): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (33.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (23.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (23.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.3M (19.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)33 squares$2.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)24 squares$1.6M
  • PACs and other committees24 squares$1.6M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)19 squares$1.3M
Show the data
Sources of Yakym's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.2M33.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.6M23.6%
PACs and other committees$1.6M23.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.3M19.1%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20222024 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20242026 cycle: $6.6M$6.6M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Yakym's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1.2M
2024 cycle$3.7M
2026 cycle$6.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 12% came from Indiana.

  1. Indiana$206.1K
  2. Texas$172.5K
  3. Florida$152.0K
  4. Illinois$149.6K
  5. Virginia$146.0K

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%
Yakym
Median
2026
41%
9%
2024
56%
9%
2022
3%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowYakymMedian
2026 cycle41%9%
2024 cycle56%9%
2022 cycle3%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,165AKMaine: $4,954MEVermont: $1,622VTNew Hampshire: $1,297NHWashington: $16.4KWAIdaho: $6,940IDMontana: $3,298MTNorth Dakota: $572NDMinnesota: $10.5KMNIllinois: $149.6KILWisconsin: $14.5KWIMichigan: $39.9KMINew York: $138.4KNYRhode Island: $601RIMassachusetts: $8,751MAOregon: $8,484ORNevada: $10.3KNVWyoming: $3,635WYSouth Dakota: $2,362SDIowa: $3,374IAIndiana: $206.1KINOhio: $59.1KOHPennsylvania: $21.9KPANew Jersey: $35.7KNJConnecticut: $17.2KCTCalifornia: $107.2KCAUtah: $20.5KUTColorado: $15.0KCONebraska: $4,509NEMissouri: $24.5KMOKentucky: $6,723KYWest Virginia: $3,364WVVirginia: $146.0KVAMaryland: $20.9KMDDelaware: $1,837DEArizona: $25.8KAZNew Mexico: $8,579NMKansas: $15.4KKSArkansas: $3,043ARTennessee: $25.3KTNNorth Carolina: $37.8KNCSouth Carolina: $27.4KSCDistrict of Columbia: $49.2KDCOklahoma: $13.7KOKLouisiana: $21.1KLAMississippi: $7,902MSAlabama: $19.7KALGeorgia: $39.2KGAHawaii: $4,632HITexas: $172.5KTXFlorida: $152.0KFL
Show the data
Yakym's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Indiana$206.1K
Texas$172.5K
Florida$152.0K
Illinois$149.6K
Virginia$146.0K
New York$138.4K
California$107.2K
Ohio$59.1K
District of Columbia$49.2K
Michigan$39.9K
Georgia$39.2K
North Carolina$37.8K
New Jersey$35.7K
South Carolina$27.4K
Arizona$25.8K
Tennessee$25.3K
Missouri$24.5K
Pennsylvania$21.9K
Louisiana$21.1K
Maryland$20.9K
Utah$20.5K
Alabama$19.7K
Connecticut$17.2K
Washington$16.4K
Kansas$15.4K
Colorado$15.0K
Wisconsin$14.5K
Oklahoma$13.7K
Minnesota$10.5K
Nevada$10.3K
Massachusetts$8,751
New Mexico$8,579
Oregon$8,484
Mississippi$7,902
Idaho$6,940
Kentucky$6,723
Maine$4,954
Hawaii$4,632
Nebraska$4,509
Wyoming$3,635
Iowa$3,374
West Virginia$3,364
Montana$3,298
Arkansas$3,043
South Dakota$2,362
Delaware$1,837
Vermont$1,622
New Hampshire$1,297
Alaska$1,165
Rhode Island$601
North Dakota$572
2,609

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

12%

from Indiana

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.0%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.8%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 4.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 5.2%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 26%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 54%54%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 1.5%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Yakym's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.75: 5.2% between +0.50 and +0.75, 26% between +0.75 and +1.00, 54% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.0%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.8%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.504.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.755.2%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0026%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2554%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.501.5%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Yakym’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Yakym’s own score is +1.06.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$938.5K 1,918 donors
  2. CEO$108.1K 41 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$48.5K 33 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$36.5K 27 donors
  5. HOMEMAKER$25.2K 11 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.1K
  2. AM GENERAL LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AM GENERAL PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP$21.5K 4 donors
  2. MARQUIS MANAGEMENT INC$20.0K 3 donors
  3. CAPITOL TAX PARTNERS$12.1K 3 donors
  4. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL$10.0K 9 donors
  5. INVARIANT$6,000 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Yakym voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Yakym voted against the majority of House Republicans 5 times.

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

5

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 7th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Yakym
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.3%
6th of 221
Party unity
99.5%
97.1%
7th of 221
Show the data
Yakym's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowYakymPeers
Attendance100%96.3%
Party unity99.5%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 Yakym most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes100%
  2. David RouzerR664 shared votes99%
  3. Matt Van EppsR363 shared votes99%
  4. Trent KellyR669 shared votes99%
  5. Andy BarrR626 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Yakym least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD658 shared votes23%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD641 shared votes24%
  4. Frederica WilsonD481 shared votes25%
  5. Gregorio CasarD575 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

Yakym sponsored 32 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 283 others. 9.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 150th of 216).

The bills Yakym 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

Sponsored32 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3232Sponsored, In committee: 3232Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored283 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 283283Cosponsored, In committee: 283283Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3434Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 77Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Yakym sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3232100
Cosponsored2832833476
How to read the blocks

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

9.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 150th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Claudia Tenney29
  2. Max Miller21
  3. Blake Moore19
  4. Mike Carey18
  5. Nathaniel Moran18
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 Yakym’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.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10628Biosimilars Access and Affordability ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 28, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10526To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 501 West Memorial Drive in Muncie, Indiana, as the "Officer Blake A. Reynolds Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 21, 2026
H.R. 10357Digital Asset Tax Certainty ActCosponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeTaxationOrdered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 38 - 5. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 81 times in 90 days. Yakym’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Yakym posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    yakym.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    31

    pages crawled

    81

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    rudyforindiana.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    7

    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 Yakym posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of four adults pose for a photo in a bright dining room, with an elderly man seated in the center and a man beside him holding a dark folder. Other people sit and stand in the background. A round table with glasses, utensils, and a small container is in the foreground. There is text on the folder.
    A group of four adults pose for a photo in a bright dining room, with an elderly man seated in the center and a man beside him holding a dark folder. Other people sit and stand in the background. A round table with glasses, utensils, and a small container is in the foreground. There is text on the folder.View post
  • A gathering in a communal room, with seated older adults and staff around tables while a man speaks at the front. Several people use wheelchairs, and colorful balloons are tied near a wooden support column. A television displays an image in the background. There is some visible text.
    A gathering in a communal room, with seated older adults and staff around tables while a man speaks at the front. Several people use wheelchairs, and colorful balloons are tied near a wooden support column. A television displays an image in the background. There is some visible text.View post
  • A man in a blue polo shirt speaks in a workshop or manufacturing setting, with machinery behind him and a takeaway cup on a counter in front. A quote and attribution appear over the image.
    A man in a blue polo shirt speaks in a workshop or manufacturing setting, with machinery behind him and a takeaway cup on a counter in front. A quote and attribution appear over the image.View post
  • A political campaign-style graphic shows four men standing in front of a gray house under a bright, cloudy sky. Large promotional text is overlaid across the bottom.
    A political campaign-style graphic shows four men standing in front of a gray house under a bright, cloudy sky. Large promotional text is overlaid across the bottom.View post
  • A promotional news graphic featuring an orange electric locomotive on railway tracks, with a person leaning out of its side window. A headline, date, and congressional office branding appear over a dark gradient at the bottom.
    A promotional news graphic featuring an orange electric locomotive on railway tracks, with a person leaning out of its side window. A headline, date, and congressional office branding appear over a dark gradient at the bottom.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 Yakym 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
Y000067
Bioguide
Y000067
FEC candidate ids
H2IN02295

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