The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 57th of 746, where 1st raised the most. 203 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Williams sits at −0.98 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats. 7.1% of the 28 bills Williams sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Pennsylvania Senate.
The measures on which Williams sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 57th of 746
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Out of committee
Pennsylvania Senate average 24% · ranks 41st of 49
From Pennsylvania, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 178th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Attendance
Pennsylvania Senate average 98.9% · ranks 14th of 50 · 502 roll calls
Party unity
Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4% · ranks 31st of 50 · 42 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Williams, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Williams is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Williams says
No statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the PA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Williams sits at −0.98 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.02 to −0.94, which understates the uncertainty; from 648 donors and 934 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 −1.02 to −0.94. From 648 donors and 934 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Williams, 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 Williams’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 Williams sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Williams |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 12% |
| Pennsylvania Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 4% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 5% |
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 Williams 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 Williams.
Money
Williams reported $513.4K in the 2026 cycle, 9.3 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 203 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)26 squares$132.6K
- PACs and other committees66 squares$341.3K
- Party committees8 squares$39.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $132.6K | 25.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $341.3K | 66.5% |
| Party committees | $39.4K | 7.7% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $53.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2024 cycle | $41.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $513.4K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$131.0K
- Maryland$695
- North Carolina$500
- Massachusetts$300
- California$100
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $131.0K |
| Maryland | $695 |
| North Carolina | $500 |
| Massachusetts | $300 |
| California | $100 |
| 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 |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Pennsylvania
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$43.3K 32 donors
- ATTORNEY$11.0K 9 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LOCAL 66 PAC CLUB$60.0K
- AFSCME COUNCIL 13 POLITICAL & LEGISLATIVE$53.5K
- IBEW LOCAL 5$53.5K
- PA DEMOCRATIC PARTY$39.4K
- GREATER PA CARPENTERS PAC$25.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Williams voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats on 95.2% of party-line votes and missed none of 502 roll calls. Pennsylvania Senate on average: 93.4% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Williams voted against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats 42 times.
502 roll calls Williams could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Williams voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Democrats
Party unity 95.2%, Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4%, ranks 31st of 50. 502 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Williams, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 95.2% | 93.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2187 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in administrative organization, further providing for criminal history background checks of employees and contractors with access to Federal tax information. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 558 An Act amending the act of April 6, 1951 (P.L.69, No.20), known as The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, in creation of leases, statute of frauds and mortgaging of leaseholds, providing for rental applications. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 13–14Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 14 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 1098 An Act amending the act of November 22, 1978 (P.L.1166, No.274), referred to as the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Law, providing for Investigation and Prosecution of Internet Crimes Against Children Program. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 807 An Act amending the act of November 6, 1987 (P.L.381, No.79), known as the Older Adults Protective Services Act, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in administration, further providing for investigations of reports of need for protective services, for immunity from civil a FINAL PASSAGE | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 15–8 · R 27–0Democrats 15 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2437 An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in unconventional gas well fee, further providing for Statewide initiatives. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–1 · R 27–0Democrats 22 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Williams most often
- Amanda CappellettiD499 shared votes94%
- Nikil SavalD502 shared votes93%
- Tim KearneyD499 shared votes93%
- Sharif StreetD502 shared votes92%
- Maria CollettD499 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Williams least often
- Jarrett ColemanR502 shared votes64%
- Dawn KeeferR502 shared votes64%
- Doug MastrianoR496 shared votes64%
- Scott HutchinsonR502 shared votes68%
- Chris GebhardR502 shared votes68%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Williams sponsored 28 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 262 others. 7.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania Senate average 24%; 41st of 49).
The bills Williams sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 28 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 262 | 262 | 15 | 7 | 7 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Williams sponsored, ochre blocks bills Williams cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania Senate average 24%. Ranks 41st of 49.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Williams, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jay Costa223
- Art Haywood214
- John Kane206
- Carolyn Comitta186
- Tina Tartaglione178
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 Williams’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 965 | An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for Maternal Health Monitoring Pilot Program. | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | First consideration Oct 19, 2026 |
| SR 399 | A Resolution designating the month of October 2026 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in Pennsylvania. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Rules & Executive Nominations Oct 15, 2026 |
| SR 387 | A Resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as "Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month" in Pennsylvania. | Cosponsor | Oct 8, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Rules & Executive Nominations Oct 8, 2026 |
| SR 389 | A Resolution recognizing October 10, 2026, as "Period Action Day" in Pennsylvania. | Cosponsor | Oct 8, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Rules & Executive Nominations Oct 8, 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. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Became law | Labor and Employment(model) | Act No. 111 of 2026 Oct 22, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 20 times in 90 days. Williams’s official site had 11 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Williams’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 Williams posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 11
pages crawled
20changes in 90 days
- 4
pages crawled
2changes 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
- XSenWilliamsPA
- XLindseyForPA
- FacebookSenWilliamsPA
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/SenWilliamsPA/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/LindseyforPA/
Images Williams posted
No images from Williams’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
147 turns, Feb 5, 2020 to Jun 25, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Williams is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- bc64322a-faaf-4b33-b6c2-cf5059f4121c
- Open States
- ocd-person/bc64322a-faaf-4b33-b6c2-cf5059f4121c
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