Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 15, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Immigration · Source
29%
of itemized money from South Dakota donors, in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans
29% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2024 cycle came from donors with an address in South Dakota. Ranks 205th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 12 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in South Dakota, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Fitzgerald sits at +0.09 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 88% of State House Republicans. Fitzgerald reported $30.6K in the 2024 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $10.7K).
The measures on which Fitzgerald 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.
From South Dakota, 2024
29%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 205th of 214 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.09
More liberal than 88% of State House Republicans · ± 0.02
Itemized, 2024
$30.6K
State House Republicans’ median $10.7K · ranks 49th of 240
Attendance
97.4%
South Dakota House average 96.6% · ranks 49th of 70 · 638 roll calls
Out of committee
79%
South Dakota House average 81% · ranks 42nd of 69
Party unity
75%
South Dakota House average 76% · ranks 39th of 69 · 74 votes against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Fitzgerald, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Fitzgerald is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Fitzgerald says
Fitzgerald attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 40 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Fitzgerald’s 40 statements in the SD 2025–26 session (40 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 SD 2025–26 session
0%80%
Fitzgerald
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion7 statements
18%
32%
608th of 791
Credit claiming4 statements
10%
13%
400th of 791
Policy criticism3 statements
8%
9%
363rd of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Fitzgerald | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 18% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
40
statements classified
40 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 40 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Fitzgerald; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Fitzgerald does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Fitzgerald used no extreme labels in 40 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
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 SD 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 SD 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 9 of them have no statements.
In Fitzgerald’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.
May 1, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; credit claiming · Source
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 40 statements
Newest first, the SD 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: 40 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Fitzgerald talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Peers give it 18%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Fitzgerald talks about. The bills Fitzgerald sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Fitzgerald talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the SD 2025–26 session
0%35%
Fitzgerald
Peers
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
29%
18%
Immigration2 statements
29%
5%
Agriculture and Food1 statements
14%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
14%
5%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
14%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Fitzgerald | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 18% |
| Immigration | 29% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 4% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 14% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Fitzgerald’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 29% | 18% | 17% | 12% |
| Immigration | 29% | 5% | 3% | 1% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 14% | 11% | 24% | 11% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Fitzgerald legislates on exactly the areas Fitzgerald 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 Fitzgerald sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Fitzgerald sits at +0.09 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 88% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.07 to +0.11, which understates the uncertainty; from 29 donors and 899 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”.
+0.09
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.07 to +0.11. From 29 donors and 899 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Fitzgerald, 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 Fitzgerald’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 Fitzgerald sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
South Dakota House70 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Fitzgerald |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 12% |
| South Dakota House | 70 | +0.1 | 49% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 51% |
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 Fitzgerald 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 Fitzgerald.
Money
Fitzgerald reported $30.6K in the 2024 cycle, 2.9 times the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 29% of itemized individual money came from South Dakota.
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.
$30.6K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 12 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)32 squares$9,800
- PACs and other committees64 squares$19.5K
- Party committees4 squares$1,370
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $9,800 | 32.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $19.5K | 63.5% |
| Party committees | $1,370 | 4.5% |
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 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $7,997 |
| 2022 cycle | $5,840 |
| 2024 cycle | $30.6K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 29% came from South Dakota.
- South Dakota$2,800
- Louisiana$2,000
- Pennsylvania$2,000
- Florida$1,000
- North Carolina$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 |
|---|---|
| South Dakota | $2,800 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,000 |
| Louisiana | $2,000 |
| New York | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Florida | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | 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 |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
12
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
29%
from South Dakota
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 South Dakota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- SD RPAC$4,000
- SD AG LEADERS PAC$2,000
- DEADWOOD TOURISM PAC$1,500
- MORT PAC$1,500
- LAWRENCE COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Fitzgerald voted with the majority of South Dakota House Republicans on 75% of party-line votes and missed 2.5% of 638 roll calls. South Dakota House on average: 76% party unity, 96.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fitzgerald voted against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans 74 times.
638 roll calls Fitzgerald could vote on in the SD 2025–26 session, compared with South Dakota 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 Fitzgerald voted with the majority of South Dakota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
74
votes against the majority of South Dakota House Republicans
Party unity 75%, South Dakota House average 76%, ranks 39th of 69. 638 roll calls in the SD 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Fitzgerald, the thin grey bar the South Dakota House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Fitzgerald
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.4%
96.6%
49th of 70
Party unity
75%
76%
39th of 69
Show the data
| Row | Fitzgerald | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.4% | 96.6% |
| Party unity | 75% | 76% |
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 SD 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 46–15 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 15 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1051 revise property tax levies for school districts and to revise the state aid to general and special education formulas. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 60–1 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 60 yea, 1 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 12, 2026 | HB 1326 appropriate money for the ordinary expenses of the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and common schools. Do Pass | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 44–17 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 44 yea, 17 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Mar 9, 2026 | SB 219 require that a state agency consult with the Aeronautics Commission prior to purchasing, transferring, or disposing of a state owned and operated aircraft. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 61–2 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 61 yea, 2 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 9, 2026 | SB 245 create the homeowner property tax reduction fund, and to transfer moneys to the homeowner property tax reduction fund. Do Pass Amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–4 · R 40–23 · O 1–0Democrats 1 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 40 yea, 23 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 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 Fitzgerald most often
- Trish LadnerR601 shared votes94%
- Curt MassieR622 shared votes89%
- Tim WalburgR609 shared votes88%
- Amber ArlintR617 shared votes88%
- Matt RobyR619 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Fitzgerald least often
- Tina MulallyR550 shared votes53%
- Phil JensenR618 shared votes57%
- Dylan JordanR614 shared votes59%
- Tony RandolphR590 shared votes60%
- Aaron AylwardR572 shared votes63%
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
SD 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Fitzgerald sponsored 68 bills in the SD 2025–26 session; 29 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 79% of sponsored bills got out of committee (South Dakota House average 81%; 42nd of 69).
The bills Fitzgerald sponsored and cosponsored in the SD 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 SD 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 68 | 60 | 39 | 32 | 29 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Fitzgerald sponsored, ochre blocks bills Fitzgerald cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
79%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
South Dakota House average 81%. Ranks 42nd of 69.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Fitzgerald, by number of shared bills in the SD 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carl Perry40
- Randy Deibert27
- Eric Emery24
- Tim Goodwin20
- Scott Moore20
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 Fitzgerald’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SC 820 | honoring Dr. Margaret Becker as the recipient of the 2025 Copic Humanitarian Award. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | S.J. 471 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SC 822 | honoring TKO’s Custom Catering and Capitol Cafe for outstanding service. | Sponsor | Mar 4, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | S.J. 471 Mar 4, 2026 |
| HB 1089 | modify the distributions of revenues collected from severance taxation on new permits. | Sponsor | Feb 20, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Signed by the Governor on 2026-03-30 H.J. 578 Mar 30, 2026 |
| HB 1270 | provide an apprenticeship pathway to practice law in South Dakota. | Sponsor | Feb 4, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Judiciary Deferred to the 41st legislative day , Passed, YEAS 10, NAYS 3 H.J. 27 Feb 23, 2026 |
| SB 211 | prohibit certain billing practices by ambulance service providers and establish reimbursement standards for out-of-network emergency medical services. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | Senate Do Pass Amended , Passed, YEAS 17, NAYS 16 S.J. 380 Feb 24, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Fitzgerald’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Fitzgerald’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 Fitzgerald posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 10
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Fitzgerald posted
No images from Fitzgerald’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Fitzgerald 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
- e03644b8-7ddd-4ae0-a734-6f6e76e735ba
- Open States
- ocd-person/e03644b8-7ddd-4ae0-a734-6f6e76e735ba
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