Agreement 0.37 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State Senate Republicans is 0.52. Ranks 202nd of 226, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Freeman’s statements matches the mix in the bills Freeman sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State Senate Republicans.
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 100% of Freeman’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Indiana, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans. Freeman voted against the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans 126 times; party unity 84%, in the bottom quarter of the Indiana Senate (average 91.0%).
The measures on which Freeman 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 202nd of 226
From Indiana, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Party unity
Indiana Senate average 91.0% · ranks 40th of 50 · 126 votes against the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans
Out of committee
Indiana Senate average 67% · ranks 16th of 49
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 57% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.06
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 402nd of 936
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Freeman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Freeman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Freeman attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 121 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 272nd of 354.
An AI model reads each of Freeman’s 121 statements in the IN 2025–26 session (121 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the IN 2025–26 session
| Row | Freeman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 34% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
121 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 121 |
The thick bar is Freeman; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Freeman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Freeman used no extreme labels in 121 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 IN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 64.3% | 7.1% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 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 ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 7 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| 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 | 2 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 IN 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%. 18 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.
Sep 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Education · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
Newest first, the IN 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: 121 posts on X.
Transportation and Public Works is what Freeman talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 4.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.37 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 202nd 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 Freeman talks about. The bills Freeman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the IN 2025–26 session
| Row | Freeman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 29% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 12% |
| Education | 20% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% |
| Taxation | 7% | 7% |
The thick bar is the share of Freeman’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.
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 63%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 29% | 6% | 3% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 12% | 57% | 10% |
| Education | 20% | 14% | 2% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
| Taxation | 7% | 7% | 1% | 10% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 202nd of 226.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Freeman legislates on exactly the areas Freeman 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 Freeman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Freeman sits at +0.40 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 57% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.35 to +0.46, which understates the uncertainty; from 110 donors and 732 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 +0.35 to +0.46. From 110 donors and 732 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Freeman, 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 Freeman’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 Freeman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 57% |
| Indiana Senate | 50 | +0.3 | 68% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 75% |
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 Freeman 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 Freeman.
Freeman reported $67.0K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.
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 19 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $44.7K | 66.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $22.3K | 33.3% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $281.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $77.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $437.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $67.0K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Indiana.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Indiana | $44.7K |
| 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 |
| 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 Indiana
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 Indiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Freeman voted with the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans on 84% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 790 roll calls. Indiana Senate on average: 91.0% party unity, 94.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Freeman voted against the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans 126 times.
790 roll calls Freeman could vote on in the IN 2025–26 session, compared with Indiana Senate. 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 Freeman voted with the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Indiana Senate Republicans
Party unity 84%, Indiana Senate average 91.0%, ranks 40th of 50. 790 roll calls in the IN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Freeman, the thin grey bar the Indiana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Freeman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.7% | 94.7% |
| Party unity | 84% | 91.0% |
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 IN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 37–0Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 37 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 5–5 · R 32–5Democrats 5 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 32 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 40–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 40 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 39–1Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 10–0 · R 35–5Democrats 10 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 35 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Freeman most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Freeman 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.
IN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Freeman sponsored 74 bills in the IN 2025–26 session; 39 became law. Cosponsored 73 others. 80% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Indiana Senate average 67%; 16th of 49).
The bills Freeman sponsored and cosponsored in the IN 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 IN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 74 | 74 | 59 | 43 | 39 |
| Cosponsored | 73 | 73 | 71 | 31 | 11 |
Ink blocks are bills Freeman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Freeman 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
Indiana Senate average 67%. Ranks 16th of 49.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Freeman, by number of shared bills in the IN 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 Freeman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 68 | Memorializing Reverend Jesse Jackson. | Cosponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senators Alexander, Alting, Baldwin, Bassler, Becker, Bohacek, Bray, Brown L, Buchanan, Buck, Busch, Byrne, Carrasco, Charbonneau, Clark, Crider, Deery, Dernulc, Donato, Doriot, Freeman, Garten, Gaskill, Glick, Goode, Holdman, Johnson T, Koch, Leising, Maxwell, McKinley, Mishler, Niemeyer, Raatz, Rogers, Schmitt, Tomes, Walker G, Walker K, Young M added as coauthors Feb 26, 2026 |
| SCR 26 | Memorializing Lee Hamilton. | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Senators Alexander, Alting, Baldwin, Bassler, Becker, Bohacek, Bray, Brown L, Buchanan, Buck, Busch, Byrne, Carrasco, Charbonneau, Clark, Crider, Deery, Dernulc, Donato, Doriot, Ford J.D., Freeman, Garten, Gaskill, Glick, Goode, Holdman, Hunley, Jackson L, Johnson T, Koch, Leising, Maxwell, McKinley, Mishler, Niemeyer, Niezgodski, Pol, Qaddoura, Raatz, Randolph, Rogers, Schmitt, Spencer, Taylor G, Tomes, Walker G, Walker K, Young M added as coauthors Feb 26, 2026 |
| SR 63 | Honoring Candace Hall upon her retirement from the Indiana Senate. | Cosponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senators Alexander, Alting, Baldwin, Bassler, Becker, Bohacek, Bray, Brown L, Buchanan, Buck, Busch, Byrne, Carrasco, Charbonneau, Clark, Crider, Deery, Donato, Ford J.D., Freeman, Garten, Gaskill, Glick, Goode, Holdman, Hunley, Jackson L, Johnson T, Koch, Leising, Maxwell, McKinley, Mishler, Niemeyer, Niezgodski, Pol, Qaddoura, Raatz, Randolph, Rogers, Schmitt, Spencer, Taylor G, Walker G, Walker K, Yoder, Young M added as coauthors Feb 24, 2026 |
| SCR 25 | Celebrating the legacy of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. | Cosponsor | Feb 19, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Returned to the Senate Feb 24, 2026 |
| SR 57 | Honoring Sgt. Bill Spalding upon his retirement. | Cosponsor | Feb 19, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senators Alexander, Alting, Baldwin, Bassler, Becker, Bohacek, Brown L, Buchanan, Buck, Busch, Byrne, Carrasco, Charbonneau, Clark, Crider, Deery, Dernulc, Donato, Doriot, Ford J.D., Freeman, Garten, Gaskill, Glick, Goode, Holdman, Hunley, Jackson L, Johnson T, Koch, Leising, Maxwell, McKinley, Mishler, Niemeyer, Niezgodski, Pol, Qaddoura, Raatz, Randolph, Rogers, Schmitt, Spencer, Taylor G, Tomes, Walker G, Walker K, Yoder, Young M added as coauthors Feb 19, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Freeman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Freeman’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 Freeman posts with a vision model.
Official site
iga.in.gov/legislative/2022/legislators/legislator_aaron_freeman_1Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
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 Freeman’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.
321 turns, Jan 14, 2020 to Feb 27, 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 Freeman 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
