The median for State House Republicans is $33.7K. Ranks 262nd of 2,521, where 1st raised the most. 171 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 70% of Fiefia’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Utah, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Fiefia missed 16% of 832 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Utah House (average 90.7%).
The measures on which Fiefia 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.
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 262nd of 2,521
From Utah, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2055th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Attendance
Utah House average 90.7% · ranks 61st of 71 · 832 roll calls
Party unity
Utah House average 89% · ranks 15th of 71 · 14 votes against the majority of Utah House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 172nd of 504
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.06
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Fiefia, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Fiefia is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Fiefia attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 178 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 446th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Fiefia’s 178 statements in the UT 2025–26 session (178 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 UT 2025–26 session
| Row | Fiefia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 40% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 13% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
178 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 178 |
The thick bar is Fiefia; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Fiefia does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Fiefia used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 39% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Communism; 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 UT 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 70.6% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 53.8% | 61.5% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.7% | 20.0% | 26.7% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 32 | 0.0% | 31.3% | 46.9% | 3.1% | 6.3% | 3.1% |
| Dec ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 11.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% | 15.0% | 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 | 7 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 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 ’26 | 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 ’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) |
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 UT 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%. 16 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 21, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 2, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Chadgs13 · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “communist” aimed at Communism · 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 · target: Chadgs13Source
Newest first, the UT 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: 178 posts on X.
Science, Technology, Communications is what Fiefia talks about most: 56% of policy statements, 23.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.57 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 172nd of 504).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Fiefia talks about. The bills Fiefia sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the UT 2025–26 session
| Row | Fiefia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 56% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Families | 15% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 6% |
The thick bar is the share of Fiefia’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 62%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 56% | 2% | 29% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% | 12% | 12% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Families | 15% | 4% | 19% | 2% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 8% | 6% | 10% | 4% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 172nd of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Fiefia legislates on exactly the areas Fiefia 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 Fiefia sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Fiefia sits at +0.39 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 58% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.34 to +0.45, which understates the uncertainty; from 333 donors and 253 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 +0.34 to +0.45. From 333 donors and 253 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Fiefia, 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 Fiefia’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 Fiefia |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 58% |
| Utah House | 72 | +0.3 | 65% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 77% |
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 Fiefia 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 Fiefia.
Fiefia reported $192.8K in the 2026 cycle, 5.7 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 70% of itemized individual money came from Utah.
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 171 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) | $141.5K | 73.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $51.4K | 26.6% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $107.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $192.8K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 70% came from Utah.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Utah | $99.7K |
| California | $21.0K |
| Nevada | $10.5K |
| New York | $10.0K |
| Hawaii | $250 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Utah
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 Utah. 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.
Fiefia voted with the majority of Utah House Republicans on 95.3% of party-line votes and missed 16% of 832 roll calls. Utah House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fiefia voted against the majority of Utah House Republicans 14 times.
832 roll calls Fiefia could vote on in the UT 2025–26 session, compared with Utah 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 Fiefia voted with the majority of Utah House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Utah House Republicans
Party unity 95.3%, Utah House average 89%, ranks 15th of 71. 832 roll calls in the UT 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Fiefia, the thin grey bar the Utah House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Fiefia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 84% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 95.3% | 89% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the UT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 44–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 44 yea, 1 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | HCR 2 Concurrent Resolution Authorizing Adult Sentencing and Supervision Length Guidelines and Juvenile Disposition Guidelines House/ concurs with Senate amendment | Yea | With majority | pass | D 12–0 · R 52–0Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 3–11 · R 50–2Democrats 3 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–0 · R 57–1Democrats 14 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 50–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 1 nay | became law |
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 Fiefia most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Fiefia 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.
UT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Fiefia sponsored 9 bills in the UT 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 6 others. 78% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Utah House average 70%; 26th of 67).
The bills Fiefia sponsored and cosponsored in the UT 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 UT 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
Ink blocks are bills Fiefia sponsored, ochre blocks bills Fiefia 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
Utah House average 70%. Ranks 26th of 67.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Fiefia, by number of shared bills in the UT 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 Fiefia’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 206 | Nicotine Product Advertising Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Introduced | Health(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 438 | Artificial Intelligence Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 286 | Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| SB 267 | Software in Education Amendments | Cosponsor | Feb 6, 2026 | Became law | Education(model) | Governor Signed Mar 18, 2026 |
| HB 408 | Data Sharing Amendments | Sponsor | Jan 28, 2026 | Became law | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Governor Signed Mar 23, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Fiefia’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Fiefia’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 Fiefia 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 Fiefia’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.
13 turns, Feb 2, 2026 to Mar 6, 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 Fiefia 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
