100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Indiana. Ranks 392nd of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 45 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 Indiana, 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.
6 measures against State House Republicans. Smaltz sits at +0.49 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 73% of State House Republicans. Smaltz reported $72.8K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Smaltz 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.
Attendance
Indiana House average 91.6% · ranks 11th of 100 · 908 roll calls
From Indiana, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 73% of State House Republicans · ± 0.07
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 710th of 2,521
Out of committee
Indiana House average 46% · ranks 36th of 99
Party unity
Indiana House average 95.2% · ranks 45th of 100 · 15 votes against the majority of Indiana House Republicans
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Smaltz, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Smaltz is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Smaltz attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 48 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Smaltz’s 48 statements in the IN 2025–26 session (48 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 IN 2025–26 session
| Row | Smaltz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 69% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 56% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
48 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 48 |
The thick bar is Smaltz; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Smaltz does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Smaltz used no extreme labels in 48 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 IN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 77.8% | 22.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.8% | 5.9% | 64.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 53.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 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 ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 IN 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%. 19 months are hatched here; none has any statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 23, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Housing and Community Development · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 2, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
Newest first, the IN 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: 48 posts on X.
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Smaltz talks about most: 39% of policy statements, 3.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.54 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 253rd 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 Smaltz talks about. The bills Smaltz sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the IN 2025–26 session
| Row | Smaltz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 39% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 12% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Health | 15% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Smaltz’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 43%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 39% | 11% | 13% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 12% | 4% | 2% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Health | 15% | 10% | 18% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 253rd of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Smaltz legislates on exactly the areas Smaltz 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 Smaltz sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Smaltz sits at +0.49 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 73% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.41 to +0.56, which understates the uncertainty; from 77 donors and 593 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 +0.41 to +0.56. From 77 donors and 593 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Smaltz, 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 Smaltz’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 Smaltz |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 73% |
| Indiana House | 100 | +0.4 | 75% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 85% |
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 Smaltz 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 Smaltz.
Smaltz reported $72.8K in the 2026 cycle, 2.2 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Indiana.
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 45 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) | $5,150 | 7.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $64.5K | 88.6% |
| Party committees | $3,163 | 4.3% |
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 | $56.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $66.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $139.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $72.8K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Indiana.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Indiana | $5,150 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 Indiana
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 Indiana. 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.
Smaltz voted with the majority of Indiana House Republicans on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 908 roll calls. Indiana House on average: 95.2% party unity, 91.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Smaltz voted against the majority of Indiana House Republicans 15 times.
908 roll calls Smaltz could vote on in the IN 2025–26 session, compared with Indiana 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 Smaltz voted with the majority of Indiana House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Indiana House Republicans
Party unity 98.0%, Indiana House average 95.2%, ranks 45th of 100. 908 roll calls in the IN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Smaltz, the thin grey bar the Indiana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Smaltz | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.1% | 91.6% |
| Party unity | 98.0% | 95.2% |
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 IN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–29 · R 62–2 · I 0–1Democrats 0 yea, 29 nay; Republicans 62 yea, 2 nay; Independents 0 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 29–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 29 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 30–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 26–3 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 26 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 30–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 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 Smaltz most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Smaltz 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.
IN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Smaltz sponsored 16 bills in the IN 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 45 others. 56% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Indiana House average 46%; 36th of 99).
The bills Smaltz sponsored and cosponsored in the IN 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 IN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 16 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 45 | 45 | 32 | 17 | 7 |
Ink blocks are bills Smaltz sponsored, ochre blocks bills Smaltz 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
Indiana House average 46%. Ranks 36th of 99.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Smaltz, by number of shared bills in the IN 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 Smaltz’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 51 | Honoring Officer Brian Elliott | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | First reading: adopted Feb 25, 2026 |
| HR 50 | Reaffirming the commitment of sister ties between Indiana and Taiwan. | Cosponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | International Affairs(model) | Authored by Representative Lauer Feb 23, 2026 |
| HCR 23 | Congratulating Michelin North America, Inc., upon the occasion of the 65th anniversary of its BFGoodrich tire production facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. | Cosponsor | Feb 18, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Returned to the House Feb 24, 2026 |
| HR 31 | Memorializing Robert Hall Weir. | Cosponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | First reading: adopted Feb 10, 2026 |
| HR 28 | Recognizing the seriousness of the U.S. national debt and its threat to national security. | Cosponsor | Feb 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Representative Borders added as coauthor Feb 18, 2026 |
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Smaltz’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Smaltz’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 Smaltz posts with a vision model.
Official site
iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/legislators/legislator_ben_smaltz_1118Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
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 Smaltz’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.
105 turns, Jan 21, 2020 to Feb 27, 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 Smaltz 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
