CSIP score −0.20 (approximate range −0.21 to −0.18, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 121 donors and 1,186 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Burns sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Burns voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 65 times; party unity 88%, in the bottom tenth of the Pennsylvania House (average 95.1%). 100% of Burns’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the top tenth of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Burns sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 96% of State House Democrats · ± 0.01
Party unity
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 184th of 203 · 65 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
From Pennsylvania, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 590th of 2,082
Out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 83rd of 171
Attendance
Pennsylvania House average 99.9% · ranks 96th of 203 · 1,497 roll calls
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Burns, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Burns is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Burns says
No statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Burns sits at −0.20 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 96% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.21 to −0.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 121 donors and 1,186 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 −0.21 to −0.18. From 121 donors and 1,186 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Burns, 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 Burns’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 Burns sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Burns |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 96% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 50% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 44% |
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 Burns 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 Burns.
Money
Burns reported $89.8K in the 2026 cycle, 2.2 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance 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. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 11 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)14 squares$12.5K
- PACs and other committees86 squares$77.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $12.5K | 13.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $77.3K | 86.1% |
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.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $382.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $281.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $4.1M |
| 2026 cycle | $89.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$12.5K
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $12.5K |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,300 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- FRIENDS OF MATT BRADFORD$11.9K
- KEYSTONE STRATEGIC ADVOCACY LLC$7,160
- FRIENDS OF ARVIND VENKAT$5,000
- CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PAC$4,500
- PAA - PAC$4,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Burns voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 88% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Burns voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 65 times.
1,497 roll calls Burns could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania House. 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 Burns voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 88%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 184th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Burns, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Burns | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 88% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | 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 Burns most often
- Josh SiegelD725 shared votes97%
- Dan MillerD725 shared votes97%
- Brian MunroeD1,497 shared votes96%
- Ryan BizzarroD1,497 shared votes96%
- Anita KulikD1,497 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Burns least often
- Wendy FinkR1,497 shared votes44%
- Scott BargerR1,497 shared votes45%
- Stephenie ScialabbaR821 shared votes49%
- Jamie WalshR1,497 shared votes51%
- Stephanie BorowiczR1,497 shared votes53%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Burns sponsored 16 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 16 others. 38% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 83rd of 171).
The bills Burns sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 2025–26 session, 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 16 | 16 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 16 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Burns sponsored, ochre blocks bills Burns cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 83rd of 171.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Burns, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe Ciresi10
- Jim Haddock10
- Ed Neilson10
- Ben Sanchez9
- José Giral8
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 Burns’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2855 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons and for use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary Oct 14, 2026 |
| HR 621 | A Resolution urging the Congress of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense to strengthen domestic content requirements for defense systems. | Cosponsor | Sep 21, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Reported as amended Sep 29, 2026 |
| HB 2686 | An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in liquid fuels and fuels tax, further providing for definitions. | Sponsor | Jul 1, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Finance Jul 1, 2026 |
| HB 2227 | An Act designating a bridge, identified as Bridge Key 68687, carrying Pennsylvania Route 271 over a tributary of Blacklick Creek in Blacklick Township, Cambria County, as the Martin J. Kupchella Memorial Bridge; designating a bridge, identified as Bridge Key 69488, carrying State Route 3005 over Nor | Sponsor | Jun 26, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Act No. 80 of 2026 Oct 22, 2026 |
| HB 2496 | An Act amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, in general provisions, providing for pause on data center proposals. | Cosponsor | Jun 17, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Housing and Community Development(model) | Re-referred to Rules & Executive Nominations Jun 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Burns’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Burns’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 Burns posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
1changes 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
Images Burns posted
No images from Burns’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.
State floor speeches
17 turns, Apr 27, 2020 to May 5, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 Burns is most unusual among State 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
- a60da669-bae3-4e1d-a241-370a7ad2c769
- Open States
- ocd-person/a60da669-bae3-4e1d-a241-370a7ad2c769
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 (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; 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.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
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