15% of 301 statements criticize a policy (45 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 9.5%. Ranks 83rd of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Brown’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 85% of Brown’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Missouri, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans. 12% of the 58 bills Brown sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the Missouri Senate.
The measures on which Brown 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.
Policy criticism
State Senate Republicans average 9.5% · ranks 83rd of 354
From Missouri, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 651st of 860 State Senate Republicans
Out of committee
Missouri Senate average 11% · ranks 10th of 33
Personal attacks
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 109th of 354
Extreme labels
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 110th of 354
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.08
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Brown, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Brown is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Brown criticizes policies more than 76% of State Senate Republicans. Policy criticism in 15% of 301 statements, against 9.5% for the average State Senate Republican; 83rd of 354.
An AI model reads each of Brown’s 301 statements in the MO 2025–26 session (301 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 MO 2025–26 session
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 35% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 15% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
statements classified
301 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 301 |
The thick bar is Brown; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Brown does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Brown used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, below the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at left; peers 1.3%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the MO 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 66 | 0.0% | 39.4% | 53.0% | 7.6% | 15.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| 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% | 11.1% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 22.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 51 | 13.7% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 2.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 8.6% | 25.7% | 0.0% | 25.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 52.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 MO 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%. 13 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 2, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at left · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: I Sang DixieSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: white supremacistsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: @PostcardstopaSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: I Sang DixieSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Chris LonsdaleSource
Newest first, the MO 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: 301 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Brown talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 130th 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 Brown talks about. The bills Brown sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MO 2025–26 session
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 44% | 17% |
| Taxation | 25% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% |
| Education | 10% | 14% |
| Environmental Protection | 6% | 2% |
The thick bar is the share of Brown’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 48%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 44% | 17% | 21% | 12% |
| Taxation | 25% | 7% | 17% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
| Education | 10% | 14% | 9% | 10% |
| Environmental Protection | 6% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 130th of 226.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Brown legislates on exactly the areas Brown 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 Brown sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Brown sits at +0.48 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 68% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.40 to +0.56, which understates the uncertainty; from 485 donors and no 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 +0.40 to +0.56. From 485 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Brown, 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 Brown’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 Brown |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 67% |
| Missouri Senate | 33 | +0.5 | 52% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 81% |
Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Brown 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 Brown.
Brown reported $110.2K in the 2026 cycle, 2.4 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 85% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.
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 53 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) | $47.7K | 43.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $62.5K | 56.7% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $267.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $110.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $110.2K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 85% came from Missouri.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Missouri | $40.4K |
| Massachusetts | $4,800 |
| Arkansas | $2,400 |
| Colorado | $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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
| 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 Missouri
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 Missouri. 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.
No roll-call votes for the MO 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Brown sponsored 58 bills in the MO 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 1 other. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Missouri Senate average 11%; 10th of 33).
The bills Brown sponsored and cosponsored in the MO 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 MO 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 58 | 58 | 7 | 6 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Brown sponsored, ochre blocks bills Brown 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
Missouri Senate average 11%. Ranks 10th of 33.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Brown, by number of shared bills in the MO 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 Brown’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SJR 117 | Modifies provisions relating to state revenue | Sponsor | Jan 29, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Second Read and Referred S Economic and Workforce Development Committee Feb 5, 2026 |
| SB 1587 | Increases the number of associate circuit judges in Franklin County in the 20th Judicial District | Sponsor | Jan 22, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Voted Do Pass S Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee Mar 11, 2026 |
| SB 1586 | Modifies provisions relating to solid waste management | Sponsor | Jan 22, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Environmental Protection(model) | Voted Do Pass H Fiscal Review May 15, 2026 |
| SB 1193 | Prohibits expenditures by state departments for certain diversity initiatives | Sponsor | Jan 7, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Second Read and Referred S Government Efficiency Committee Jan 27, 2026 |
| SB 897 | Enacts provisions relating to prior authorization of health care services | Sponsor | Jan 7, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Hearing Conducted S Insurance and Banking Committee Mar 3, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Brown’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Brown’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 Brown posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
No images from Brown’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.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Brown 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
