Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works · Source
2.0×
the State House Republican rate of policy discussion
64% of 481 statements discuss policy (310 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 32%. Ranks 34th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Brown’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. The policy areas Brown talks about and legislates on agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of State House Republicans. Brown voted against the majority of New York House Republicans 121 times; party unity 79%, in the bottom tenth of the New York House (average 92.9%).
The measures on which Brown sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
64%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 34th of 791
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.71
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 19th of 504
Party unity
79%
New York House average 92.9% · ranks 140th of 149 · 121 votes against the majority of New York House Republicans
Policy criticism
17%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 135th of 791
From New York, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.23
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: State House 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).
What Brown says
Brown attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 481 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 462nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Brown’s 481 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (481 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Brown
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion310 statements
64%
32%
34th of 791
Policy criticism83 statements
17%
9%
135th of 791
Credit claiming83 statements
17%
13%
232nd of 791
Bipartisanship6 statements
1%
2%
366th of 791
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
3%
462nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 64% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 17% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
481
statements classified
481 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 481 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Brown; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Brown does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Brown used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 29% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at Zohran Mamdani; peers 1.4%.
- “extreme”2
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Zohran Mamdani2
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 17.1% | 57.1% | 2.9% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 63 | 0.0% | 15.9% | 65.1% | 1.6% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 66 | 0.0% | 12.1% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 57 | 0.0% | 14.0% | 59.7% | 0.0% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 50.0% | 3.1% | 21.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 11.5% | 84.6% | 0.0% | 26.9% | 3.9% |
| Aug ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 76.2% | 2.4% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 67.5% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 28 | 7.1% | 17.9% | 60.7% | 3.6% | 14.3% | 3.6% |
| Nov ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 71.4% | 4.8% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the NY 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%. 10 months are hatched here; 8 of them have no statements.
In Brown’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 25, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: George Santos · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Zohran Mamdani; target: Eric Adams · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: George SantosSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Zohran Mamdani · target: Eric AdamsSource
All 481 statements
Newest first, the NY 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 481 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Brown talks about most: 24% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 19th of 504).
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.
What Brown talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
0%35%
Brown
Peers
Health74 statements
24%
10%
Crime and Law Enforcement48 statements
16%
11%
Transportation and Public Works45 statements
15%
4%
Education34 statements
11%
15%
Water Resources Development19 statements
6%
1%
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 24% | 10% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 16% | 11% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 15% | 4% |
| Education | 11% | 15% |
| Water Resources Development | 6% | 1% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Brown’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 24% | 10% | 16% | 10% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 16% | 11% | 14% | 11% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 15% | 4% | 5% | 6% |
| Education | 11% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Water Resources Development | 6% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
0.71
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 19th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Ideology
Brown sits at +0.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 71% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.20 to +0.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 512 donors and 856 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
+0.23
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.20 to +0.25. From 512 donors and 856 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.
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 Brown sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
New York House150 · median −0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Brown |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 29% |
| New York House | 150 | −0.5 | 69% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 61% |
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 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.
Money
Brown reported $22.7K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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.
$22.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 56 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)85 squares$19.3K
- PACs and other committees15 squares$3,350
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $19.3K | 85.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,350 | 14.8% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $86.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $62.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $70.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $22.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from New York.
- New York$19.3K
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 |
|---|---|
| New York | $19.3K |
| 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 |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| 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 |
56
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from New York
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 New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,300 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- SUFFOLK COUNTY PBA PAC$1,300
- LAWPAC OF NEW YORK$1,000
- FRIENDS OF ANTHONY MANETTA$275
- NELSON & POPE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$275
- NYLCV GIVES GREEN - PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- TOWN OF HUNTINGTON$325 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Brown voted with the majority of New York House Republicans on 79% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 2,019 roll calls. New York House on average: 92.9% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Brown voted against the majority of New York House Republicans 121 times.
2,019 roll calls Brown could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York House. 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 Brown voted with the majority of New York House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
121
votes against the majority of New York House Republicans
Party unity 79%, New York House average 92.9%, ranks 140th of 149. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Brown, the thin grey bar the New York House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Brown
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.0%
93.9%
56th of 149
Party unity
79%
92.9%
140th of 149
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.0% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 79% | 92.9% |
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 NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10001 Provides for a license to sell liquor at retail for consumption on certain premises Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 85–2 · R 43–0Democrats 85 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10655 Relates to the compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers and employees; repealer Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 64–23 · R 30–13Democrats 64 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 66–21 · R 30–13Democrats 66 yea, 21 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Brown most often
- Mike ReillyR1,918 shared votes95%
- Matt SlaterR1,902 shared votes94%
- Josh JensenR1,974 shared votes94%
- Mike TannousisR1,767 shared votes94%
- Joe DeStefanoR1,889 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Brown least often
- Jeffrey DinowitzD1,997 shared votes81%
- Deborah GlickD1,856 shared votes81%
- Noah BurroughsD1,998 shared votes82%
- Linda RosenthalD1,979 shared votes82%
- Erik DilanD1,541 shared votes82%
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
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Brown sponsored 122 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 497 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York House average 20%; 108th of 148).
The bills Brown sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 122 | 122 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 497 | 497 | 46 | 29 | 12 |
How to read the blocks
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.
11%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York House average 20%. Ranks 108th of 148.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Brown, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe DeStefano227
- Dave McDonough211
- Steve Hawley104
- Brian Manktelow100
- Joe Angelino93
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 Brown’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 11713 | Includes certain violations involving children as qualifying offenses for the purpose of imposing bail | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | REFERRED TO CODES Sep 16, 2026 |
| A 11730 | Establishes a Medicaid fraud tip board and Medicaid fraud tip reward fund | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | REFERRED TO HEALTH Sep 16, 2026 |
| A 11731 | Relates to the handling of tips received through the office of the Medicaid inspector general's Medicaid fraud hotline | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | REFERRED TO HEALTH Sep 16, 2026 |
| A 11726 | Provides for the protection of children from excessive amplified sound | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | REFERRED TO EDUCATION Sep 16, 2026 |
| A 11645 | Enacts the "just energy transition act" | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | REFERRED TO ENERGY Jul 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Brown’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
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.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 3
pages crawled
6changes 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
- XNYAssemblyBrown
- XAssemblyKeith
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/AssemblymanKeithBrown/
- Instagramassemblymankeithbrown
- Instagramkeithbrownforassembly
Images Brown posted
No images from Brown’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
609 turns, Jan 19, 2021 to Jun 5, 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 Brown is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- c54d76b7-c535-44f9-b534-d20d689f594e
- Open States
- ocd-person/c54d76b7-c535-44f9-b534-d20d689f594e
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