Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Environmental Protection · Source
$614.6K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State Senate Democrats
The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 41st of 746, where 1st raised the most. 251 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. Becker sits at −1.00 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 89% of State Senate Democrats. The policy areas Becker talks about and legislates on agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Becker 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
$614.6K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 41st of 746
CSIP ideology
−1.00
More liberal than 89% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Party unity
99.8%
California Senate average 98.7% · ranks 9th of 39 · 4 votes against the majority of California Senate Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.53
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 149th of 228
From California, 2026
96%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 254th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Attendance
95.2%
California Senate average 93.8% · ranks 22nd of 39 · 3,673 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Becker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Becker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Becker says
Becker stresses bipartisanship less than 62% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 1.4% of 70 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 208th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Becker’s 70 statements in the CA 2025–26 session (70 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Becker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion47 statements
67%
43%
26th of 329
Credit claiming18 statements
26%
16%
66th of 329
Policy criticism11 statements
16%
10%
87th of 329
Personal attacks2 statements
3%
2%
85th of 329
Bipartisanship1 statements
1%
3%
208th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Becker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 67% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 26% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 16% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
70
statements classified
70 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 70 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Becker; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Becker does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Becker used no extreme labels in 70 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 21.9% | 73.2% | 0.0% | 29.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 53.8% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 6 | — (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 ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 CA 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%. 20 months are hatched here; 16 of them have no statements.
In Becker’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources · 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 · policy discussion · Energy · Environmental Protection · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Environmental Protection · target: TrumpSource
All 70 statements
Newest first, the CA 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: 70 posts on X.
Policy
Emergency Management is what Becker talks about most: 17% of policy statements, 4.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 149th of 228).
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 Becker talks about. The bills Becker sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Becker talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Becker
Peers
Emergency Management8 statements
17%
4%
Health8 statements
17%
17%
Environmental Protection7 statements
15%
4%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues6 statements
13%
8%
Energy6 statements
13%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Becker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 17% | 4% |
| Health | 17% | 17% |
| Environmental Protection | 15% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 8% |
| Energy | 13% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Becker’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Democrats. 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 Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 17% | 4% | 8% | 1% |
| Health | 17% | 17% | 14% | 15% |
| Environmental Protection | 15% | 4% | 9% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 13% | 8% | 9% | 5% |
| Energy | 13% | 4% | 16% | 3% |
0.53
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 149th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Becker legislates on exactly the areas Becker 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 Becker sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Becker sits at −1.00 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 89% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.04 to −0.96, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,347 donors and 876 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”.
−1.00
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.04 to −0.96. From 1,347 donors and 876 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Becker, 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 Becker’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 Becker sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
California Senate39 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Becker |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 11% |
| California Senate | 39 | −0.7 | 18% |
| 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 Becker 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 Becker.
Money
Becker reported $614.6K in the 2026 cycle, 11.1 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 96% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
$614.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 251 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)52 squares$318.4K
- PACs and other committees48 squares$296.2K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $318.4K | 51.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $296.2K | 48.2% |
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 | $1.3M |
| 2022 cycle | $795.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $648.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $614.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 96% came from California.
- California$306.9K
- Massachusetts$5,100
- Colorado$1,600
- Utah$1,250
- Maryland$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| California | $306.9K |
| Massachusetts | $5,100 |
| Colorado | $1,600 |
| Utah | $1,250 |
| Vermont | $1,000 |
| Maryland | $1,000 |
| Hawaii | $750 |
| Wisconsin | $500 |
| Texas | $350 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
251
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
96%
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$102.4K 54 donors
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER$29.1K 16 donors
- RETIRED$14.7K 8 donors
- ATTORNEY$13.2K 14 donors
- CONSULTANT$11.8K 7 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS SMALL CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE$15.0K
- CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS PAC SMALL CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE$12.8K
- BAY AREA LEGISLATIVE LEADERS PAC$11.8K
- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS PAC (IBEW PAC)$11.8K
- UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA ACTION FUND SMALL CONTRIBUTOR COMMITTEE$11.8K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- SUNRUN, INC.$16.4K 51 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Becker voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 4.7% of 3,673 roll calls. California Senate on average: 98.7% party unity, 93.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Becker voted against the majority of California Senate Democrats 4 times.
3,673 roll calls Becker could vote on in the CA 2025–26 session, compared with California 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 Becker voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
4
votes against the majority of California Senate Democrats
Party unity 99.8%, California Senate average 98.7%, ranks 9th of 39. 3,673 roll calls in the CA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Becker, the thin grey bar the California Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Becker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.2%
93.8%
22nd of 39
Party unity
99.8%
98.7%
9th of 39
Show the data
| Row | Becker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.2% | 93.8% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 98.7% |
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 CA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 29–0 · R 0–4Democrats 29 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–5 · R 0–9Democrats 22 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 9 nay | party crossover | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–1 · R 4–4Democrats 25 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 30–0 · R 10–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | AB 2694 Public postsecondary education: community colleges: statewide baccalaureate degree program. 3rd Reading AB2694 Alvarez et al. By Cabaldon | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 6–1Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 1 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 Becker most often
- Mike McGuireD3,486 shared votes100%
- John LairdD3,479 shared votes100%
- Sasha PérezD3,365 shared votes100%
- Monique LimónD3,294 shared votes100%
- Eloise ReyesD2,289 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Becker least often
- Marie Alvarado-GilR3,027 shared votes73%
- Kelly SeyartoR3,211 shared votes74%
- Tony StricklandR3,261 shared votes75%
- Brian JonesR3,140 shared votes75%
- Shannon GroveR3,168 shared votes76%
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
CA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Becker sponsored 47 bills in the CA 2025–26 session; 22 became law. Cosponsored 117 others. 94% of sponsored bills got out of committee (California Senate average 88%; 20th of 39).
The bills Becker sponsored and cosponsored in the CA 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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 47 | 47 | 37 | 28 | 22 |
| Cosponsored | 117 | 115 | 110 | 82 | 74 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Becker sponsored, ochre blocks bills Becker cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
94%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
California Senate average 88%. Ranks 20th of 39.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Becker, by number of shared bills in the CA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Scott Wiener38
- Henry Stern36
- Dave Cortese28
- Jesse Arreguín26
- Ben Allen26
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 Becker’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SJR 19 | Relative to federal grants. | Sponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Introduced. Referred to Com. on RLS. Aug 13, 2026 |
| SR 139 | Relative to the County Welfare Directors Association of California's Centennial Anniversary. | Sponsor | Aug 11, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | From committee: Ordered to third reading. Aug 20, 2026 |
| SCR 197 | Relative to California Youth Homelessness Outreach, Prevention, and Education (HOPE) Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 222, Statutes of 2026. Sep 3, 2026 |
| SR 122 | Relative to Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. | Cosponsor | Jul 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5318.) Aug 10, 2026 |
| SCR 187 | Relative to Father's Day. | Cosponsor | Jun 15, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 143, Statutes of 2026. Jul 2, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 26 times in 90 days. Becker’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Becker’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 Becker posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 31
pages crawled
26changes in 90 days
- 7
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 Becker posted
No images from Becker’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
188 turns, Aug 26, 2021 to Aug 31, 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 Becker 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
- c71137b2-3fc3-48bf-b0ad-6c29aff98268
- Open States
- ocd-person/c71137b2-3fc3-48bf-b0ad-6c29aff98268
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