Skip to content

Democrat · Pennsylvania House, district 16

Serving since Jan 6, 2009PA 2025–26 session

Portrait of Rob Matzie, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
81%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top tenth of the Pennsylvania House

81% of 36 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Pennsylvania House is 40%. Ranks 13th of 171, where 1st is the highest share.

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

At a glance

6 measures against the Pennsylvania House. Matzie reported $229.6K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). Matzie sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 83% of State House Democrats.

The measures on which Matzie sits furthest from the middle of the Pennsylvania House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Out of committee

81%

Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 13th of 171

Itemized, 2026

$229.6K

State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 242nd of 2,082

CSIP ideology

−0.39

More conservative than 83% of State House Democrats · ± 0.03

Party unity

99.4%

Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 70th of 203 · 3 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats

From Pennsylvania, 2026

97%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 710th of 1,983 State House Democrats

Attendance

100%

Pennsylvania House average 99.9% · ranks 96th of 203 · 1,497 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Matzie says

No statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Matzie sits at −0.39 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 83% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.42 to −0.37, which understates the uncertainty; from 421 donors and 1,198 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.39

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.42 to −0.37. From 421 donors and 1,198 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Matzie −0.4State House Democrats −0.6Pennsylvania House −0.3All State House +0.1

The outlined dot is Matzie, 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 Matzie’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 Matzie sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State House Democratsmedian −0.6Matzie −0.4Pennsylvania Housemedian −0.3All State Housemedian +0.1
Show the data
Matzie's CSIP score of −0.39 placed against State House Democrats, Pennsylvania House, All State House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Matzie
State House Democrats2392−0.683%
Pennsylvania House203−0.347%
All State House5324+0.137%
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 Matzie 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 Matzie.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Matzie reported $229.6K in the 2026 cycle, 5.7 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 97% 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.

Election cycle
$229.6K

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 9 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): $13.8K (6.0%)Individuals (itemized): $13.8K (6.0%)Individuals (itemized): $13.8K (6.0%)Individuals (itemized): $13.8K (6.0%)Individuals (itemized): $13.8K (6.0%)Individuals (itemized): $13.8K (6.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)PACs and other committees: $215.8K (94.0%)
  • Individuals (itemized)6 squares$13.8K
  • PACs and other committees94 squares$215.8K
Show the data
Sources of Matzie's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$13.8K6.0%
PACs and other committees$215.8K94.0%
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.

2020 cycle: $158.6K$158.6K20202022 cycle: $761.0K$761.0K20222024 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20242026 cycle: $229.6K$229.6K2026State House Democrats median $40.4K
Show the data
Matzie's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$158.6K
2022 cycle$761.0K
2024 cycle$2.3M
2026 cycle$229.6K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 97% came from Pennsylvania.

  1. Pennsylvania$13.3K
  2. Massachusetts$481

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $481MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $13.3KPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Matzie's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Pennsylvania$13.3K
Massachusetts$481
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
9

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

97%

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.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. KEYSTONE SENIORS PAC$25.0K
  2. STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION 449 PAC FUND$25.0K
  3. IBEW PAC VOLUNTARY FUND$16.0K
  4. LOCAL 66 PAC CLUB$10.0K
  5. THE DT PAC$6,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Matzie voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 99.4% 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, Matzie voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 3 times.

1,497 roll calls Matzie 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 Matzie 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.

3

votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats

Party unity 99.4%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 70th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Matzie
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
96th of 203
Party unity
99.4%
95.1%
70th of 203
Show the data
Matzie's attendance and party unity against Pennsylvania House.
RowMatziePeers
Attendance100%99.9%
Party unity99.4%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

Key votes
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
YeaWith majoritypassD 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 naybecame 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
YeaWith majoritypassD 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 naybecame 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
YeaWith majoritypassD 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 naybecame 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
YeaWith majoritypassD 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 naybecame 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
YeaWith majoritypassD 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nayparty 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 Matzie most often

  1. Ryan BizzarroD1,497 shared votes100%
  2. Matt BradfordD1,497 shared votes100%
  3. Jim ProkopiakD1,497 shared votes100%
  4. Eddie PashinskiD1,497 shared votes100%
  5. Tina DavisD1,497 shared votes100%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Matzie least often

  1. Wendy FinkR1,497 shared votes40%
  2. Scott BargerR1,497 shared votes42%
  3. Stephenie ScialabbaR821 shared votes45%
  4. Jamie WalshR1,497 shared votes47%
  5. Stephanie BorowiczR1,497 shared votes50%
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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Matzie sponsored 36 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 51 others. 81% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 13th of 171).

The bills Matzie 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

Sponsored36 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3636Sponsored, In committee: 3636Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 2828Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored51 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 5151Cosponsored, In committee: 5151Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3232Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Matzie sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored36362800
Cosponsored51513200
How to read the blocks

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

81%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 13th of 171.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Matzie, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Carol Hill-Evans40
  2. Ben Sanchez37
  3. Ed Neilson29
  4. Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz26
  5. Bob Freeman25
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 Matzie’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
HB 2847An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for reimbursements for physical examinations of firefighters; and establishing the Firefighter Physical Examination Reimbursement Fund.CosponsorOct 7, 2026In committeeHealth(model)Referred to Veterans Affairs & Emergency Preparedness Oct 7, 2026
HR 639A Resolution designating August 15, 2026, as "One Million Degrees Day" in Pennsylvania in recognition of a significant milestone in higher education and its impact on the Commonwealth's workforce, economy and communities.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedAdopted Oct 20, 2026
HB 2480An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties.CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeLabor and Employment(model)Removed from table Oct 7, 2026
HR 621A Resolution urging the Congress of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense to strengthen domestic content requirements for defense systems.CosponsorSep 21, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National Security(model)Reported as amended Sep 29, 2026
HB 2685An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, in tax credit and tax benefit administration, further providing for definitions and providing for tax credits relating to economic development.SponsorJun 30, 2026In committeeTaxation(model)Referred to Finance Jun 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that has not changed in 90 days. Matzie’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    www.pahouse.com/Matzie

    Last crawled Oct 1, 2026

    1

    pages crawled

    0

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    robmatzie.com

    Last crawled Oct 1, 2026

    3

    pages crawled

    3

    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 Matzie posted

No images from Matzie’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

161 turns, May 28, 2020 to May 5, 2026

Floor speeches

Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.

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 Matzie is most unusual among Pennsylvania House, 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
a7b2e50f-90a6-4f35-b1fb-c33406dc4277
Open States
ocd-person/a7b2e50f-90a6-4f35-b1fb-c33406dc4277

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

Back to top