100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Michigan. Ranks 392nd of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 114 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 Michigan, 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.
At a glance
6 measures against the Michigan House. Alexander sits at +0.51 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 75% of State House Republicans. Alexander reported $75.8K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Alexander sits furthest from the middle of the Michigan House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
Michigan House average 93.2% · ranks 14th of 110 · 21 votes against the majority of Michigan House Republicans
From Michigan, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 75% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 687th of 2,521
Out of committee
Michigan House average 32% · ranks 33rd of 107
Attendance
Michigan House average 99.9% · ranks 55th of 110 · 752 roll calls
Peer group: Michigan House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Alexander, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Alexander is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Alexander says
No statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the MI 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Alexander sits at +0.51 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 75% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.47 to +0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 264 donors and 599 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 +0.47 to +0.55. From 264 donors and 599 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Alexander, 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 Alexander’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 Alexander sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Alexander |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 75% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 73% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 87% |
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 Alexander 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 Alexander.
Money
Alexander reported $75.8K in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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 114 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)45 squares$34.2K
- PACs and other committees55 squares$41.7K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $34.2K | 45.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $41.7K | 55.0% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $56.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $64.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $61.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $75.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$34.2K
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $34.2K |
| 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 |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$7,295 38 donors
- OWNER$6,408 19 donors
- FARMER$2,507 10 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$3,750
- MICHIGAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION MIBANKPAC STATE$3,100
- MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY GROWERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,000
- BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,750
- REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF MICHIGAN$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BRIGHT SPARK STRATEGIES$457 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Alexander voted with the majority of Michigan House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 752 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Alexander voted against the majority of Michigan House Republicans 21 times.
752 roll calls Alexander could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Alexander voted with the majority of Michigan House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Michigan House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 14th of 110. 752 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Alexander, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Alexander | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6302 Education: school districts; requirement to display an American flag in classrooms; provide for. Amends sec. 1347 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1347). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #374 Yeas 76 Nays 27 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–26 · R 56–1Democrats 20 yea, 26 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6259 Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for criminal sexual conduct; modify. Amends sec. 16y, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.16y). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6261'26, HB 6262'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #375 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6260 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; modify. Amends sec. 520b of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520b). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #376 Yeas 79 Nays 24 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–23 · R 56–1Democrats 23 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6282 Public employees and officers: ethics; moratorium on former legislators accepting employment with an entity that receives a grant from the utility consumer participation board; provide for. Creates new act. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #373 Yeas 88 Nays 15 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–14 · R 56–1Democrats 32 yea, 14 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6262 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; modify. Amends sec. 520d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520d). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #378 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
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 Alexander most often
- Joe PavlovR752 shared votes97%
- Parker FairbairnR752 shared votes97%
- Jerry NeyerR752 shared votes97%
- J.R. RothR735 shared votes97%
- Jay DeBoyerR752 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Alexander least often
- Dylan WegelaD752 shared votes46%
- Veronica PaizD652 shared votes57%
- Carrie RheingansD732 shared votes58%
- Emily DievendorfD725 shared votes58%
- Steve CarraR752 shared votes59%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Alexander sponsored 32 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 486 others. 41% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan House average 32%; 33rd of 107).
The bills Alexander sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 32 | 32 | 13 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 486 | 486 | 271 | 24 | 24 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Alexander sponsored, ochre blocks bills Alexander 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
Michigan House average 32%. Ranks 33rd of 107.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Alexander, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- David Martin126
- Doug Wozniak122
- Joseph Fox116
- Angela Rigas112
- Tom Kunse109
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 Alexander’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 6421 | Law enforcement: other; eligible criteria for recruits; modify. Amends secs. 9, 9b, 9c & 9d of 1965 PA 203 (MCL 28.609 et seq.). | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/29/2026 Sep 30, 2026 |
| HB 6387 | Environmental protection: permits; continuing jurisdiction of courts over permit denials affecting inland lake level management; provide for. Amends sec. 30723 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.30723). | Sponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Water Resources Development(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
| HB 6409 | Natural resources: fishing; illegal taking of sturgeon; revise penalty for. Amends sec. 48738 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.48738). | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
| HR 368 | A resolution to declare October 2026 as Italian-American Appreciation Month in the state of Michigan. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | adopted Sep 23, 2026 |
| HR 370 | A resolution to urge the United States Congress to pass legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to develop a regional management framework for double-crested cormorants. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | referred to Committee on Natural Resources and Tourism Sep 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Alexander’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Alexander’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 Alexander 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 Alexander posted
No images from Alexander’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 Alexander is most unusual among Michigan House, 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
- fc7627d7-6c08-49e7-9edc-6f419443ffaa
- Open States
- ocd-person/fc7627d7-6c08-49e7-9edc-6f419443ffaa
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