Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
Trump’s $1.7 billion slush fund — to pay rioters who attacked police officers on January 6th — is corrupt and unconscionable.
The Congress must stop it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Colorado
John W. Hickenlooper
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
Yes33%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
John W. Hickenlooper
U.S. SenatorDemocratColorado
SoupScore
John W.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 36 sponsored · 287 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
Sen. Ossoff on Trump's budget proposal: "The priorities are all out of whack."
Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
Whether it’s a casino or a prediction market, the house always wins. The CFTC needs to do more to protect consumers.
@hickenlooper.senate.gov & I are urging the CFTC to prohibit margin trading that can result in users losing more money than they bet.
Coloradans are feeling this historic drought. Hear what farmers and ranchers who are on the frontlines of this water crisis are saying:
It’s called the 14th amendment. It’s in our constitution, President Trump.
We know you’re cheap on everything but ballrooms, so we found you the cheapest one.
Read more about Judge Rudolph: www.denvercountycourt.org/denver-count...
Denver County Court Judge André Rudolph was a dedicated public servant who believed deeply in justice and equal treatment under the law. Thinking of his family and friends.
This weekend, 45 million Americans are traveling. They’re paying more at the pump and at the airport. Gas is up 52%. Jet fuel is up 56%. Trump’s illegal war with Iran is the reason.
Tina Peters doesn’t deserve more money in her pocket, you do. (2/2)
Republicans fled town instead of voting on our amendment to stop Trump from giving your tax dollars to election deniers like Tina Peters. (1/2)
The NSF nominee should be put on the record about their plans to lead the world’s top science agency. (2/2)
The NSF is crucial to U.S. leadership in science. The American people deserve a director who isn’t afraid to publicly face questions.
Yet, there hasn’t been a confirmation hearing for the NSF director in over 30 years. (1/2)
Folks who attacked our Capitol and assaulted police officers shouldn’t be rewarded with YOUR taxpayer dollars for their loyalty to Donald Trump.
$30 million.
That's what one Jan 6er hopes to get from the US government.
I spoke to two people who spent time behind bars for Jan 6 -- they welcome Trump's "anti-weaponization" fund and they hope to cash in.
www.cnn.com/2026/05/20/p...
The 13 servicemembers who gave their lives in Iran are American heroes with families and loved ones.
These remarks are disgusting and the president should be ashamed of himself.
Instead of lowering costs, President Trump is creating a $1.8 billion slush fund for people like former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters — who was convicted by a jury of her peers.
(2/2)
Election deniers who break the law are not victims. They are criminals.
The last thing we should do is reward these people with your taxpayer dollars.
(1/2)
Enough with the money for slush funds, bombs, and tax breaks for billionaires.
Republicans created a healthcare emergency by letting ACA subsidies expire, putting coverage at risk for millions of Americans.
We need to get back to lowering costs for working families.
Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
BREAKING: Senate finally advances resolution to end war with Iran. Keep speaking out!
Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
Tina Peters deserves to be in prison, not getting paid by Trump’s new slush fund.
Reposted bySenator John Hickenlooper
Is this what he meant by "The Art of the Deal"?
Kalshi and Polymarket have a history of using influencers as young as 15 to market their platforms to teenagers. They’ve let insiders make huge profits on bets.
We grilled them in a Senate hearing today. We see this for what it is.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive Section 305(b)(2) of the CBA re: Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 1690) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (73-25) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-31) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (62-30) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.