CSIP score +0.95 (approximate range +0.88 to +1.01, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 92 donors and 1,431 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Halbrook sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 8.8% of the 34 bills Halbrook sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Illinois House. 100% of Halbrook’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Illinois, in the top quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Halbrook 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.
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 99% of State House Republicans · ± 0.07
Out of committee
Illinois House average 44% · ranks 112th of 116
From Illinois, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1973rd of 2,521
Party unity
Illinois House average 96.7% · ranks 43rd of 116 · 56 votes against the majority of Illinois House Republicans
Attendance
Illinois House average 92.6% · ranks 72nd of 116 · 1,468 roll calls
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Halbrook, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Halbrook is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Halbrook claims credit less than 96% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 0% of 19 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 764th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Halbrook’s 19 statements in the IL 2025–26 session (19 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Halbrook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 74% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 63% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 13% |
statements classified
19 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 19 |
The thick bar is Halbrook; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Halbrook does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Halbrook used extreme labels in 5.3% of statements, 3.7 times the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Illinois Energy Policy; peers 1.4%.
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 IL 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 IL 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; 17 of them have no statements.
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.
Nov 13, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; target: Illinois Taxpayers · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Illinois Energy Policy · 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 · policy criticism · policy discussion · Transportation and Public Works · target: Illinois TaxpayersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: MadiganSource
Newest first, the IL 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: 19 posts on X.
Economics and Public Finance is what Halbrook talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Peers give it 12%. 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 Halbrook talks about. The bills Halbrook sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Halbrook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 29% | 12% |
| Education | 21% | 15% |
| Energy | 14% | 4% |
| Taxation | 14% | 8% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Halbrook’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.
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.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 29% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Education | 21% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Energy | 14% | 4% | 11% | 3% |
| Taxation | 14% | 8% | 16% | 11% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 4% | 9% | 6% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Halbrook legislates on exactly the areas Halbrook 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 Halbrook sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Halbrook sits at +0.95 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 99% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.88 to +1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 92 donors and 1,431 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 +0.88 to +1.01. From 92 donors and 1,431 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Halbrook, 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 Halbrook’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 Halbrook |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 99% |
| Illinois House | 118 | −0.5 | 98% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 99% |
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 Halbrook 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 Halbrook.
Halbrook reported $8,842 in the 2026 cycle, 26% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.
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 5 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,942 | 33.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,650 | 63.9% |
| Party committees | $250 | 2.8% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $49.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $70.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $110.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $8,842 |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Illinois.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Illinois | $2,942 |
| 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 |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Illinois
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 Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Halbrook voted with the majority of Illinois House Republicans on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 5.9% of 1,468 roll calls. Illinois House on average: 96.7% party unity, 92.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Halbrook voted against the majority of Illinois House Republicans 56 times.
1,468 roll calls Halbrook could vote on in the IL 2025–26 session, compared with Illinois 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 Halbrook voted with the majority of Illinois House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Illinois House Republicans
Party unity 99.8%, Illinois House average 96.7%, ranks 43rd of 116. 1,468 roll calls in the IL 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Halbrook, the thin grey bar the Illinois House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Halbrook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.0% | 92.6% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 96.7% |
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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Halbrook most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Halbrook least often
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.
IL 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Halbrook sponsored 34 bills in the IL 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 56 others. 8.8% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Illinois House average 44%; 112th of 116).
The bills Halbrook sponsored and cosponsored in the IL 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 IL 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 34 | 33 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 56 | 47 | 20 | 10 | 8 |
Ink blocks are bills Halbrook sponsored, ochre blocks bills Halbrook 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
Illinois House average 44%. Ranks 112th of 116.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Halbrook, by number of shared bills in the IL 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 Halbrook’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 1038 | CONGRATS-GREG SAPP | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Blaine Wilhour Oct 2, 2026 |
| HR 1032 | CONGRATS-ST. FRANCIS PARISH | Cosponsor | Sep 21, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Brad Halbrook Sep 29, 2026 |
| HR 1033 | URGES-NOMINATE CENSUS DIRECTOR | Cosponsor | Sep 21, 2026 | Introduced | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Blaine Wilhour Sep 23, 2026 |
| HB 5814 | SPORTS WAGERING-FANTASY MKT | Cosponsor | Sep 14, 2026 | Introduced | Commerce(model) | Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dave Severin Oct 2, 2026 |
| HR 1027 | CONDEMNS SOCIALISM | Cosponsor | Sep 9, 2026 | Introduced | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jennifer Sanalitro Sep 21, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Halbrook’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Halbrook’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 Halbrook 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 Halbrook’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.
1,023 turns, May 21, 2020 to May 12, 2026
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 Halbrook 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
