Party unity 88%, in the bottom tenth of the Iowa Senate (average 95.7%). 589 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
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 Bisignano voted with the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats; it is ranked within the Iowa Senate. The count covers every roll call where Bisignano voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Iowa Senate. Bisignano sits at −0.36 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 88% of State Senate Democrats. 1.6% of the 64 bills Bisignano sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Iowa Senate.
The measures on which Bisignano sits furthest from the middle of the Iowa Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Iowa Senate average 95.7% · ranks 45th of 49 · 31 votes against the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 88% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Out of committee
Iowa Senate average 11% · ranks 41st of 48
From Iowa, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 567th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Attendance
Iowa Senate average 93.9% · ranks 29th of 49 · 589 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 431st of 746
Peer group: Iowa Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Bisignano, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Bisignano is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Bisignano says
No statements for the IA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the IA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Bisignano sits at −0.36 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.39 to −0.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 140 donors and 885 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 −0.33. From 140 donors and 885 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Bisignano, 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 Bisignano’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 Bisignano sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Bisignano |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 88% |
| Iowa Senate | 49 | +0.4 | 29% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 38% |
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 Bisignano 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 Bisignano.
Money
Bisignano reported $38.9K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 81% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
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 48 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)14 squares$5,470
- PACs and other committees86 squares$33.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $5,470 | 14.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $33.4K | 85.9% |
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 | $59.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $80.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $66.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $38.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from Iowa.
- Iowa$4,412
- Minnesota$275
- New Jersey$115
- Texas$100
- Washington$75
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 |
|---|---|
| Iowa | $4,412 |
| Minnesota | $275 |
| New Jersey | $115 |
| Texas | $100 |
| Washington | $75 |
| Oregon | $50 |
| Ohio | $50 |
| Alabama | $50 |
| Massachusetts | $45 |
| Vermont | $25 |
| North Dakota | $25 |
| Michigan | $25 |
| Pennsylvania | $25 |
| California | $25 |
| Utah | $25 |
| Missouri | $25 |
| Virginia | $25 |
| Delaware | $25 |
| District of Columbia | $25 |
| Nebraska | $20 |
| Maine | $12 |
| New Hampshire | $10 |
| Illinois | $5 |
| Colorado | $1 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Iowa
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 Iowa. 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.
- TRUCK PAC IOWA (FORMERLY MOTOR CARRIERS PAC)$3,000
- RPAC IOWA - REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,500
- IOWA DEVELOPERS PAC$2,000
- NEXTERA ENERGY, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,000
- CEDAR RAPIDS DEVELOPMENT GROUP PAC$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Bisignano voted with the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats on 88% of party-line votes and missed 4.9% of 589 roll calls. Iowa Senate on average: 95.7% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bisignano voted against the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats 31 times.
589 roll calls Bisignano could vote on in the IA 2025–26 session, compared with Iowa 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 Bisignano voted with the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Iowa Senate Democrats
Party unity 88%, Iowa Senate average 95.7%, ranks 45th of 49. 589 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Bisignano, the thin grey bar the Iowa Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Bisignano | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.0% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 88% | 95.7% |
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 IA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2026 | HF 2801 A bill for an act modifying the major economic growth attraction program, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Nay | With majority | pass | D 2–13 · R 26–6Democrats 2 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 26 yea, 6 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 3, 2026 | SF 2472 A bill for an act relating to state and local government taxes, fees, financial authority, and budgets, by modifying property assessment provisions, divisions of revenue, and funding from the secure an advanced vision for education fund, establishing a program for first-time homebuyers, modifying an Shall the bill pass? | Did not vote | — | pass | D 11–1 · R 30–0Democrats 11 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 3, 2026 | HF 2788 A bill for an act relating to abortions including definitions, informed consent, dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs, and other abortion-related provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–11 · R 30–0Democrats 0 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 2765 A bill for an act providing for the regulation of mining, making penalties applicable, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 31–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 1036 A bill for an act relating to human trafficking, including screening children, civil statutes of limitations, an annual stakeholder meeting and report, depositions of victims, restitution, restorative facilities and protective services, and investigation and prosecution, and including effective date Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–0 · R 31–0Democrats 14 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 31 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 Bisignano most often
- Sarah GarriottD507 shared votes94%
- Izaah KnoxD527 shared votes94%
- Janet PetersenD505 shared votes94%
- Matt BlakeD535 shared votes94%
- Zach WahlsD270 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Bisignano least often
- Julian GarrettR219 shared votes68%
- Dan ZumbachR486 shared votes68%
- Jack WhitverR507 shared votes69%
- Adrian DickeyR543 shared votes70%
- Dave RowleyR269 shared votes70%
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
IA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Bisignano sponsored 64 bills in the IA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 1.6% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Iowa Senate average 11%; 41st of 48).
The bills Bisignano sponsored and cosponsored in the IA 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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 64 | 64 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Bisignano sponsored, ochre blocks bills Bisignano 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
Iowa Senate average 11%. Ranks 41st of 48.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Bisignano, by number of shared bills in the IA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Molly Donahue53
- Janet Petersen51
- Tom Townsend50
- Bill Dotzler50
- Cindy Winckler49
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 Bisignano’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SF 2360 | A bill for an act relating to partial payments of property taxes and including applicability provisions. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Subcommittee: Dawson, Bisignano, and Gruenhagen. Feb 24, 2026 |
| SF 2350 | A bill for an act relating to the use of automatic registration plate readers, and providing penalties. | Sponsor | Feb 16, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Subcommittee: Schultz, Blake, and Bousselot. Feb 17, 2026 |
| SR 106 | A resolution recognizing and honoring the Animal Rescue League of Iowa on its centennial anniversary. | Sponsor | Feb 12, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Introduced, referred to Rules and Administration. Feb 12, 2026 |
| SF 2327 | A bill for an act relating to the requirements for authorized electronic monitoring in nursing facilities, and providing penalties. | Sponsor | Feb 12, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Subcommittee: Rozenboom, Bisignano, and Schultz. Feb 16, 2026 |
| SF 2272 | A bill for an act providing for a veterans’ benefits and services poster for employers to display in the workplace. | Sponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Subcommittee: Reichman, Costello, and Townsend. Feb 12, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Bisignano’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Bisignano’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 Bisignano posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes 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 Bisignano posted
No images from Bisignano’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
42 turns, Jan 12, 2026 to May 3, 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 Bisignano is most unusual among Iowa Senate, 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
- be302cfd-09b1-4a29-974d-479aa24469eb
- Open States
- ocd-person/be302cfd-09b1-4a29-974d-479aa24469eb
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