Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
$1,000
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats
The median for State House Democrats is $40.4K. Ranks 1995th of 2,082, where 1st raised the most. 10 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Democrats. 100% of Webb’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Maine, in the top tenth of State House Democrats. Webb voted against the majority of Maine House Democrats 39 times; party unity 95.0%, in the bottom half of the Maine House (average 95.9%).
The measures on which Webb sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$1,000
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1995th of 2,082
From Maine, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Attendance
99.5%
Maine House average 94.9% · ranks 34th of 149 · 804 roll calls
Party unity
95.0%
Maine House average 95.9% · ranks 109th of 149 · 39 votes against the majority of Maine House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.54
More conservative than 63% of State House Democrats · ± 0.07
Statements
14
14 posts on X
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Webb, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Webb is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Webb says
Webb claims credit less than 95% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0% of 14 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 729th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Webb’s 14 statements in the ME 2025–26 session (14 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ME 2025–26 session
0%80%
Webb
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion3 statements
21%
39%
617th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
717th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
14%
729th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Webb | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 21% | 39% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
14
statements classified
14 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 14 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Webb; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Webb does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Webb used no extreme labels in 14 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the ME 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the ME 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; 14 of them have no statements.
In Webb’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 14 statements
Newest first, the ME 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: 14 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Webb talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 6.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. 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 Webb talks about. The bills Webb sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Webb talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ME 2025–26 session
0%100%
Webb
Peers
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
100%
15%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
10%
Commerce0 statements
0%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Webb | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 100% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Webb’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 100% | 15% | 0% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 4% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% | 2% | 4% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 8% | 2% | 9% |
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 Webb legislates on exactly the areas Webb 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 Webb sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Webb sits at −0.54 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 63% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.60 to −0.47, which understates the uncertainty; from 19 donors and 299 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”.
−0.54
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.60 to −0.47. From 19 donors and 299 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Webb, 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 Webb’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 Webb sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Maine House152 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Webb |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 63% |
| Maine House | 152 | −0.3 | 38% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 29% |
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 Webb 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 Webb.
Money
Webb reported $1,000 in the 2026 cycle, 2.5% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Maine.
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.
$1,000
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 10 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $1,000 | 100.0% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $1,000 |
| 2026 cycle | $1,000 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Maine.
- Maine$1,000
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Maine | $1,000 |
| Alaska | 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 |
| 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 |
10
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Maine
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 Maine. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$400 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Webb voted with the majority of Maine House Democrats on 95.0% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 804 roll calls. Maine House on average: 95.9% party unity, 94.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Webb voted against the majority of Maine House Democrats 39 times.
804 roll calls Webb could vote on in the ME 2025–26 session, compared with Maine 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 Webb voted with the majority of Maine House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
39
votes against the majority of Maine House Democrats
Party unity 95.0%, Maine House average 95.9%, ranks 109th of 149. 804 roll calls in the ME 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Webb, the thin grey bar the Maine House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Webb
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
94.9%
34th of 149
Party unity
95.0%
95.9%
109th of 149
Show the data
| Row | Webb | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 94.9% |
| Party unity | 95.0% | 95.9% |
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 ME 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 64–6 · R 7–59 · I 1–0Democrats 64 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 7 yea, 59 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover | |
| Apr 29, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 11–57 · R 54–12 · I 0–1Democrats 11 yea, 57 nay; Republicans 54 yea, 12 nay; Independents 0 yea, 1 nay | close vote · party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 555 An Act To Create A Separate Department Of Child And Family Services Acc Maj Ought Not to Pass Rep | Yea | With majority | pass | D 71–4 · R 2–67 · I 2–1Democrats 71 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 2 yea, 67 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | close vote |
| Apr 14, 2026 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 74–1 · R 13–54 · I 3–0Democrats 74 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 54 nay; Independents 3 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 127 An Act To Strengthen Legislative Oversight Of Government Agencies And Programs By Reaffirming The Legislature'S Access To Confidential Records suspension of house rule 515 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 6–69 · R 67–0 · I 1–2Democrats 6 yea, 69 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Webb most often
- Holly EatonD433 shared votes96%
- Marc MalonD776 shared votes95%
- Mike RayD799 shared votes94%
- Lynn CopelandD729 shared votes94%
- Flavia DeBritoD763 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Webb least often
- Marygrace CiminoR800 shared votes12%
- Barbara BagshawR797 shared votes12%
- Quentin ChapmanR757 shared votes12%
- Mike LanceR754 shared votes12%
- Reagan PaulR776 shared votes12%
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
ME 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Webb sponsored 3 bills in the ME 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 39 others.
The bills Webb sponsored and cosponsored in the ME 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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 39 | 39 | 32 | 29 | 21 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Webb sponsored, ochre blocks bills Webb cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Webb, by number of shared bills in the ME 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Sophie Warren14
- Valli Geiger10
- Holly Eaton10
- Melanie Sachs10
- Gerry Runte9
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 Webb’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LD 2103 | An Act Requiring Hospitals To Adopt Cybersecurity Plans | Cosponsor | Apr 2, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by Governor Apr 13, 2026 |
| LD 2077 | An Act To Reduce The Cost Of Purchasing A Home By Providing Grants To Reduce Mortgage Rates | Cosponsor | Apr 2, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Housing and Community Development(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 2123 | An Act To Improve Dental Care Access For Children By Modifying The Mainecare Reimbursement Methodology For The Provision Of Anesthesia For Certain Dental Services | Cosponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by Governor Apr 15, 2026 |
| LD 838 | An Act To Explore Public Financing And Ownership Of Electric Transmission And Distribution Infrastructure | Cosponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Energy(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 2078 | An Act To Establish The Electricity Cost Fairness Refundable Tax Credit | Sponsor | Mar 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Webb’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Webb’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 Webb posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
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
Images Webb posted
No images from Webb’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Webb is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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
- f905d6bf-dd0b-4637-94ba-381e14083f6e
- Open States
- ocd-person/f905d6bf-dd0b-4637-94ba-381e14083f6e
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