0% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Minnesota. Ranks 2291st of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 39 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 Minnesota, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 22% of Schultz’s statements criticize a policy, 2.4 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. 0% of the 54 bills Schultz sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Minnesota House.
The measures on which Schultz sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Minnesota, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2291st of 2,335 State House Republicans
Policy criticism
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 86th of 791
Out of committee
Minnesota House average 4.4% · ranks 114th of 131
Personal attacks
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 131st of 791
Party unity
Minnesota House average 97.5% · ranks 25th of 133 · 23 votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Schultz, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Schultz is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Schultz claims credit less than 70% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 5.0% of 338 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 556th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Schultz’s 338 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (338 posts on X) 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 State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MN 2025–26 session
| Row | Schultz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 42% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 22% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
338 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 338 |
The thick bar is Schultz; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Schultz does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Schultz used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, above the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at Amy Klobuchar; peers 1.4%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the MN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 7.1% |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 17 | 11.8% | 23.5% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 44.4% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 21.1% | 31.6% | 5.3% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 28 | 14.3% | 3.6% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Jan ’26 | 39 | 15.4% | 2.6% | 35.9% | 2.6% | 2.6% | 2.6% |
| Feb ’26 | 44 | 4.5% | 27.3% | 43.2% | 2.3% | 9.1% | 2.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 23.1% | 42.3% | 3.9% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 39 | 5.1% | 23.1% | 56.4% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
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 MN 2025–26 session, 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%. 10 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; Taxation; Energy; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Immigration; Health; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Democrat Party · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at radical socialists, Amy Klobuchar · target: Amy KlobucharSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · target: Kendal Killian, Ilhan OmarSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Minnesota DemocratsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Liberal judgesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Gov. WalzSource
Newest first, the MN 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 338 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Schultz talks about most: 26% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 152nd of 504).
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 Schultz talks about. The bills Schultz sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
| Row | Schultz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 18% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 11% |
| Health | 15% | 10% |
| Immigration | 15% | 5% |
The thick bar is the share of Schultz’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State 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.
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 State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 18% | 9% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 18% | 11% | 7% | 11% |
| Health | 15% | 10% | 7% | 10% |
| Immigration | 15% | 5% | 5% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 152nd of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Schultz legislates on exactly the areas Schultz 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 Schultz sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Schultz sits at +0.44 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 65% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.39 to +0.49, which understates the uncertainty; from 96 donors and 477 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 +0.39 to +0.49. From 96 donors and 477 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Schultz, 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 Schultz’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Schultz |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 65% |
| Minnesota House | 133 | −0.4 | 94% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 81% |
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 Schultz 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 Schultz.
Schultz reported $29.7K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 0% of itemized individual money came from Minnesota.
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 39 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $17.4K | 58.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $10.4K | 34.8% |
| Party committees | $2,000 | 6.7% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $32.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $21.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $29.7K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 0% came from Minnesota.
No itemized donors with an address.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | 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 Minnesota
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Minnesota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Schultz voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 295 roll calls. Minnesota House on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schultz voted against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans 23 times.
295 roll calls Schultz could vote on in the MN 2025–26 session, compared with Minnesota 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 Schultz voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Minnesota House average 97.5%, ranks 25th of 133. 295 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Schultz, the thin grey bar the Minnesota House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Schultz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.5% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2026 | HF 1849 Term limits provided for governor and lieutenant governor, and constitutional amendment proposed. Niska Motion Suspension of Rules | Yea | With majority | fail | D 0–67 · R 64–2Democrats 0 yea, 67 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 2354 Medical assistance fraud governing provisions added and modified, attorney general provided subpoena and enforcement authority, criminal penalties provided, conforming changes made, and money appropriated. Passage, as amended | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 51–16Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 16 nay | party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 5149 Law enforcement access to sensitive locations restricted, civil remedies established, concealing identity crime modified, scope of use of force investigations expanded, access to certain information limited. Long motion Suspension of Rules | Nay | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 0–63Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 63 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 4612 Omnibus Health and Human Services supplemental appropriations Repassage, as amended by Conference | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 41–26Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 26 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 334 Human Services Systems Modernization Advisory Council and Legislative Commission on Human Services Systems; creation Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 67–0Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Schultz most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Schultz least often
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.
MN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Schultz sponsored 54 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 159 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota House average 4.4%; 114th of 131).
The bills Schultz sponsored and cosponsored in the MN 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.
Counts for the MN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 54 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 159 | 159 | 13 | 3 | 3 |
Ink blocks are bills Schultz sponsored, ochre blocks bills Schultz 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
Minnesota House average 4.4%. Ranks 114th of 131.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Schultz, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Schultz’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HF 5143 | Affirmative action requirements for state agencies repealed. | Sponsor | May 13, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Author added Gordon May 14, 2026 |
| HF 5134 | Temporary moratorium on imposition of the motor fuels tax established, transfers made, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Author added Backer May 13, 2026 |
| HF 5096 | Exception to commonality of powers requirement added. | Sponsor | Apr 28, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Elections Finance and Government Operations Apr 28, 2026 |
| HF 5084 | Preborn child given recognized right to life, and constitutional amendment proposed. | Cosponsor | Apr 27, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Authors added Rarick and Fogelman May 14, 2026 |
| HF 5045 | Photo ID required to register to vote and to vote, SAVE Minnesota Act established, proof of citizenship to vote required, voter identification card created, provisional ballots established, driver's license requirements modified, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Elections Finance and Government Operations Apr 20, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Schultz’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Schultz’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 Schultz posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Schultz’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
272 turns, Jan 26, 2023 to May 17, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Schultz is most unusual among State 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
