Some really stomach churning stuff in here. And to think the Republican health care "plan" is to give these guys a massive government subsidy.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Ron Wyden
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 782
Yes26%
No72%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ron Wyden
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Ron's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 73 sponsored · 334 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Instead of addressing the real problems facing families, Republicans are inserting themselves between families and their doctors as they make the most personal and private decisions. I will never back down from fighting this sick and calculated attempt to erase trans Americans.
RFK’s retribution tour is going to kill children
SCOOP: American Academy of Pediatrics loses HHS funding after criticizing RFK Jr. Research included reducing sudden infant deaths and identifying autism early. Me and @Paigecunningham.Bsky.Social
www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/...
Senate News: Republicans are trying to sneak a provision into their latest government funding bill that would make it easier to sell off public lands and national parks, and may have the votes to do it. If you care about protecting your public lands, now’s the time to make it known.
I’ve got a bill to force the Treasury Department to turn over that key file so that investigators can follow the money. I’m going to keep at it. More news to come.
My investigation is focused on following the money on Epstein’s trafficking operation. The Treasury Department has its own Epstein file -- thousands of bank records that make up a roadmap of his finances. Secretary Bessent has refused to turn it over.
There’s a big deadline coming up on Friday, when the DOJ is required by law to release its Epstein files. But that’s not going to be the end of it. We need a lot more answers about Epstein’s trafficking ring, and everybody involved ought to be brought to justice.
Here’s what I want to know: is the failure to question these key Epstein co-conspirators simply an inexplicable oversight? Or has the DOJ left them alone because they’re sitting on a mountain of evidence that would embarrass Trump and other powerful people if it came to light?
To this day, Indyke and Kahn still control Epstein’s $100 million estate portfolio. And it’s not just the money. They also have possession of thousands of Epstein’s emails, bank documents, photographs, calendar items and flight logs.
So today I’m asking the question nobody else seems to be asking: why has the DOJ never questioned Indyke and Kahn?
Indyke and Kahn are core Epstein henchmen, and the FBI has apparently never bothered to talk to them. It’s also important to remember that Pam Bondi was Florida Attorney General during the time of these crimes, and seemingly never pursued any investigation.
Indyke and Kahn even took millions each from Epstein’s accounts shortly before his arrest and after his death. Here’s the real head scratcher: it appears neither Indyke nor Kahn have EVER BEEN QUESTIONED in connection with any criminal investigation of Epstein’s crimes.
Indyke and Kahn’s work for Epstein made them rich. Forensic analyses and evidence presented in lawsuits that my investigators reviewed indicate that Epstein paid them both well upwards of $10 million. The real figure might be double that amount.
They structured big cash withdrawals from Epstein's accounts to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement and authorized thousands of suspicious wire transfers. Evidence also shows that Kahn may have concocted a sham marriage to keep one of Epstein's victims in the US illegally.
According to unsealed bank records that my investigative team reviewed, Indyke and Kahn even had authority over Epstein’s bank accounts. They oversaw virtually every aspect of the financial infrastructure that paid for Epstein’s sex trafficking.
These men weren’t just doing Epstein’s taxes and managing his affairs. The evidence shows they were DIRECTLY involved with the operation of his trafficking network.
We know who some of Epstein’s key accomplices were. Darren Indyke was his in-house lawyer. Richard Kahn was his accountant. Read a lot more about them here:
If you ask me, it makes no sense that only two people, Epstein himself and Ghislaine Maxwell, have faced prosecution for this massive, international sex trafficking network that involved hundreds of millions of dollars and upward of 1,000 women and girls.
My investigators are back with more on our follow the money investigation into Epstein.
Here’s a thread for anyone interested in learning about another major Epstein mystery:
My staff have seen some of that file. It shows who paid Epstein and where his money was going. Getting this file released publicly is the key to getting justice for Epstein's victims, and holding his associates accountable. And that's why I'll continue to follow the money.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History782 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
782 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-16 | S. Con. Res. 22 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (36-62) |
| 2025-09-16 | S.J. Res. 60 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-47) |
| 2025-09-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2025-09-15 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-09-11 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-10 | S. 2296 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | S. Res. 377 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-09-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-09-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-43) |
| 2025-09-04 | S. 2296 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | YES | ✕ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-09-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-09-02 | S. 2296 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-23) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | — | — | Nomination Confirmed (72-22) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-35) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-42) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (78-17) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-19) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-08-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-41) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-08-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
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.