Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Commerce; Labor and Employment · Source
100%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, the highest of 32 in the Ohio Senate
100% of 45 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Ohio Senate is 55%. Ranks 1st of 32, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills McColley sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Ohio Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 11% of McColley’s statements contain a personal attack, 5.0 times the State Senate Republican average of 2.3%. McColley reported $711.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which McColley sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
100%
Ohio Senate average 55% · ranks 1st of 32
Personal attacks
11%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 13th of 354
Itemized, 2026
$711.1K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 42nd of 936
Extreme labels
2.4%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 60th of 354
From Ohio, 2026
82%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 691st of 860 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.52
More conservative than 75% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McColley, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McColley is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McColley says
McColley attacks opponents personally more than 96% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 11% of 206 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 13th of 354.
An AI model reads each of McColley’s 206 statements in the OH 2025–26 session (206 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the OH 2025–26 session
0%80%
McColley
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion74 statements
36%
37%
188th of 354
Personal attacks23 statements
11%
2%
13th of 354
Credit claiming23 statements
11%
15%
198th of 354
Policy criticism8 statements
4%
9%
221st of 354
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
2%
180th of 354
Show the data
| Row | McColley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 37% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 11% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
206
statements classified
206 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 206 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is McColley; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means McColley does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McColley used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at Amy Acton; peers 1.3%.
- “extreme”2
- “MAGA”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Amy Acton1
- leftists1
- liberal extremists1
- MAGA1
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 OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| 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 | 5 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 15.4% | 7.7% | 7.7% |
| 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 | 5 | — (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 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 17 | 29.4% | 0.0% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 13 | 7.7% | 15.4% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 13 | 23.1% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 15.4% |
| Jul ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 10.5% | 57.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 25 | 16.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 4.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 24 | 20.8% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 16 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
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 OH 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 13 months are hatched here.
In McColley’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 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; target: Acton · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Amy Acton · 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: ActonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Amy ActonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Kamala HarrisSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · target: Amy ActonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: ActonSource
All 206 statements
Newest first, the OH 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: 206 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what McColley talks about most: 34% of policy statements, 2.7 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 McColley talks about. The bills McColley sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McColley talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OH 2025–26 session
0%79%
McColley
Peers
Economics and Public Finance25 statements
34%
12%
Education21 statements
28%
14%
Government Operations and Politics13 statements
18%
17%
Labor and Employment12 statements
16%
3%
Agriculture and Food9 statements
12%
6%
Show the data
| Row | McColley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 34% | 12% |
| Education | 28% | 14% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McColley’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 79%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 34% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
| Education | 28% | 14% | 0% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% | 71% | 12% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 3% | 0% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
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 McColley legislates on exactly the areas McColley 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 McColley sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
McColley sits at +0.52 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 75% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.48 to +0.57, which understates the uncertainty; from 596 donors and 508 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”.
+0.52
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.48 to +0.57. From 596 donors and 508 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McColley, 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 McColley’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 McColley sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Ohio Senate32 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McColley |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 75% |
| Ohio Senate | 32 | +0.4 | 69% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 86% |
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 McColley 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 McColley.
Money
McColley reported $711.1K in the 2026 cycle, 15.4 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 82% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.
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.
$711.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 209 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)50 squares$354.2K
- PACs and other committees50 squares$356.4K
- Party committees$476
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $354.2K | 49.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $356.4K | 50.1% |
| Party committees | $476 | 0.1% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $292.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $679.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $1.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $711.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 82% came from Ohio.
- Ohio$289.1K
- New York$22.6K
- District of Columbia$16.6K
- Florida$15.0K
- Illinois$4,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Ohio | $289.1K |
| New York | $22.6K |
| District of Columbia | $16.6K |
| Florida | $15.0K |
| Illinois | $4,000 |
| Michigan | $2,300 |
| Kentucky | $2,000 |
| Indiana | $1,500 |
| West Virginia | $600 |
| Virginia | $500 |
| 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 |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | 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 |
| 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
209
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
82%
from Ohio
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 Ohio. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$11.4K 9 donors
- COSGROVE JONHENRY LLC$4,000 3 donors
- ARTEX OIL COMPANY$1,500 3 donors
- FC CINCINNATI$760 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OHCA-PAC$15.0K
- VISTRA EMPLOYEE PAC$11.6K
- OHIO ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE PAC$10.2K
- OHIO CONTRACTORS PAC$8,500
- OHIO DENTAL ASSOCIATION PAC$8,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
McColley voted with the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 232 roll calls. Ohio Senate on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, McColley never voted against the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans.
232 roll calls McColley could vote on in the OH 2025–26 session, compared with Ohio 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 McColley voted with the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
0
votes against the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans
Party unity 100%, Ohio Senate average 97.5%, ranks 12th of 31. 232 roll calls in the OH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McColley, the thin grey bar the Ohio Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
McColley
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
17th of 32
Party unity
100%
97.5%
12th of 31
Show the data
| Row | McColley | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.5% |
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 OH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–3 · R 22–0 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–8 · R 22–1 · O 1–0Democrats 1 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 1 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 7–2 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 7 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 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 McColley most often
- Tim SchafferR232 shared votes100%
- Susan ManchesterR231 shared votes100%
- Theresa GavaroneR219 shared votes100%
- Bill ReinekeR232 shared votes100%
- Steve WilsonR209 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McColley least often
- Paula Hicks-HudsonD219 shared votes83%
- Casey WeinsteinD202 shared votes84%
- Beth ListonD227 shared votes84%
- Kent SmithD221 shared votes84%
- Bill DeMoraD225 shared votes84%
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
OH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
McColley sponsored 45 bills in the OH 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 21 others. 100% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Ohio Senate average 55%; 1st of 32).
The bills McColley sponsored and cosponsored in the OH 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 OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 45 | 45 | 45 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 21 | 21 | 21 | 5 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McColley sponsored, ochre blocks bills McColley cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
100%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Ohio Senate average 55%. Ranks 1st of 32.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McColley, by number of shared bills in the OH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bill Reineke9
- Al Landis7
- Steve Huffman7
- Steve Wilson7
- Susan Manchester7
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 McColley’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 450 | Honoring Matthew Dietrich on his retirement from the Ohio Rail Development Commission. | Sponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Oct 19, 2026 |
| SR 438 | Honoring The Toledo Clinic on its One Hundredth Anniversary. | Sponsor | Sep 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Sep 14, 2026 |
| SR 436 | In memory of I. Ray Miller. | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Sep 3, 2026 |
| SR 431 | Honoring the Archbold Fire Department on its One Hundred Fiftieth Anniversary. | Sponsor | Aug 17, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Aug 17, 2026 |
| SR 422 | In memory of Kenneth R. Cox. | Cosponsor | Jul 27, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Jul 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. McColley’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McColley’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 McColley posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 0
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
- XRob_McColley
- Facebookmccolley4ohio
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/rob-mccolley-294b963/
Images McColley posted
No images from McColley’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
203 turns, Jan 22, 2020 to Jun 3, 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 McColley is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- e0d52f86-e997-4299-9e50-972a2c208c20
- Open States
- ocd-person/e0d52f86-e997-4299-9e50-972a2c208c20
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