Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics · Source
5.3×
the State Senate Republican rate of extreme labels
6.7% of 746 statements use an extreme label (50 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 1.3%. Ranks 14th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Cindy Holscher.
An AI model reads each of Masterson’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 28% of Masterson’s statements claim credit, 1.8 times the State Senate Republican average of 15%. 100% of Masterson’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Kansas, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Masterson sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Extreme labels
6.7%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 14th of 354
Credit claiming
28%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 55th of 354
From Kansas, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Policy discussion
54%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 72nd of 354
Bipartisanship
3.4%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 85th of 354
CSIP ideology
+0.29
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Masterson, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Masterson is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Masterson says
Masterson attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 0.8% of 746 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 149th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Masterson’s 746 statements in the KS 2025–26 session (746 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the KS 2025–26 session
0%80%
Masterson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion402 statements
54%
37%
72nd of 354
Credit claiming211 statements
28%
15%
55th of 354
Policy criticism94 statements
13%
9%
102nd of 354
Bipartisanship25 statements
3%
2%
85th of 354
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
149th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Masterson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 28% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 13% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
746
statements classified
746 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 746 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Masterson; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Masterson does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Masterson used extreme labels in 6.7% of statements, 5.3 times the peer average. 50 statements, most often aimed at Cindy Holscher; peers 1.3%.
- “radical”26
- “woke”12
- “extreme”6
- “MAGA”2
- “communist”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Cindy Holscher7
- Democrats5
- radical left5
- Laura Kelly3
- Cindy2
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 KS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 53.8% | 15.4% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 66.7% | 8.3% | 58.3% | 8.3% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 61.1% | 5.6% | 38.9% | 5.6% |
| Jun ’25 | 33 | 6.1% | 24.2% | 63.6% | 9.1% | 21.2% | 3.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 45.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 10.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 26.9% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 11.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 21.1% | 39.5% | 7.9% | 23.7% | 2.6% |
| Oct ’25 | 35 | 2.9% | 20.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 37.1% | 2.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 40.0% | 3.3% | 33.3% | 13.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 21.6% | 67.6% | 0.0% | 32.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 80.7% | 1.8% | 33.3% | 5.3% |
| Feb ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 50.0% | 4.8% | 42.9% | 9.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 62.2% | 4.4% | 51.1% | 11.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 19.5% | 65.8% | 12.2% | 29.3% | 12.2% |
| May ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.5% | 0.0% | 41.9% | 12.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 48 | 2.1% | 8.3% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 6.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 52.9% | 2.0% | 25.5% | 3.9% |
| Aug ’26 | 37 | 2.7% | 2.7% | 43.2% | 2.7% | 10.8% | 8.1% |
| Sep ’26 | 61 | 1.6% | 4.9% | 54.1% | 0.0% | 6.6% | 9.8% |
| Oct ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 3.8% | 49.1% | 3.8% | 1.9% | 1.9% |
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 KS 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Masterson’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Cindy · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Cindy Holscher · Source
Examples by category
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 · target: CindySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · extreme label “radical” aimed at Cindy Holscher · target: Cindy HolscherSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PhilSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Chuck SchumerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Gavin NewsomSource
All 746 statements
Newest first, the KS 2025–26 session
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: 746 posts on X.
Policy
Taxation is what Masterson talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 170th of 226).
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 Masterson talks about. The bills Masterson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Masterson talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the KS 2025–26 session
0%37%
Masterson
Peers
Taxation93 statements
23%
7%
Education79 statements
20%
14%
Economics and Public Finance63 statements
16%
12%
Government Operations and Politics62 statements
15%
17%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues52 statements
13%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Masterson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 23% | 7% |
| Education | 20% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 17% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Masterson’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 37%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 23% | 7% | 33% | 10% |
| Education | 20% | 14% | 11% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 11% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 17% | 11% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 5% | 11% | 3% |
0.45
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 170th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Masterson legislates on exactly the areas Masterson 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 Masterson sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Masterson sits at +0.29 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 62% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.25 to +0.32, which understates the uncertainty; from 141 donors and 579 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”.
+0.29
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.25 to +0.32. From 141 donors and 579 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Masterson, 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 Masterson’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 Masterson sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Kansas Senate39 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Masterson |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 38% |
| Kansas Senate | 39 | +0.2 | 72% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 65% |
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 Masterson 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 Masterson.
Money
Masterson reported $18.5K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Kansas.
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.
$18.5K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)11 squares$2,000
- PACs and other committees89 squares$16.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,000 | 10.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $16.5K | 89.2% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $78.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $164.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $18.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Kansas.
- Kansas$2,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Kansas | $2,000 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
1
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Kansas
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 Kansas. 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.
- PAC OF KANSAS OPHTHALMOLOGISTS$4,000
- EVERGY EMPLOYEE PAC$2,000
- KANSAS OPTOMETRIC PAC$2,000
- SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS INC KANSAS STATE PAC$2,000
- KANSANS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PAC$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the KS 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Masterson sponsored 25 bills in the KS 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 28% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Kansas Senate average 18%; 10th of 40).
The bills Masterson sponsored and cosponsored in the KS 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 KS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 25 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Masterson sponsored, ochre blocks bills Masterson cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
28%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Kansas Senate average 18%. Ranks 10th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Masterson, by number of shared bills in the KS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Chase Blasi12
- Dinah Sykes10
- Brad Starnes4
- Renee Erickson4
- Virgil Peck3
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 Masterson’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 1626 | Providing for the adjournment sine die of the 2026 regular session of the Legislature. | Sponsor | Apr 10, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Introduced Apr 10, 2026 |
| SR 1732 | Commending Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and acknowledging the patriotic commitment of all Kansas employers who support their employees serving in the National Guard and Reserve. | Sponsor | Mar 10, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled on Friday, March 13, 2026 Mar 13, 2026 |
| SCR 1622 | Providing for the adjournment of the senate and the house of representatives for a period of time during the 2026 regular session of the legislature. | Sponsor | Feb 18, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Enrolled and presented to Secretary of State on Thursday, February 26, 2026 Feb 26, 2026 |
| SB 418 | Enacting the by-right housing development act to provide a streamlined permit approval process for by-right housing developments, allowing third-party review of new residential construction development documents and inspection of improvements, requiring political subdivisions to allow certain buildi | Sponsor | Jan 28, 2026 | Became law | Housing and Community Development(model) | Enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, March 30, 2026 Apr 9, 2026 |
| SCR 1620 | Recognizing the seriousness of the national debt and the threat to national security that such debt poses. | Sponsor | Jan 28, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Died on Calendar Apr 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Masterson’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Masterson’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 Masterson posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
7changes 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 Masterson posted
No images from Masterson’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Masterson is most unusual among State Senate 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
- b4774ff4-de16-4716-8956-65ecc740eb8c
- Open States
- ocd-person/b4774ff4-de16-4716-8956-65ecc740eb8c
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