The fraud and corruption are powerful messaging targets, the public hates dark money, and our climate story improves with a villain in it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 779
Yes31%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 87 sponsored · 209 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Finally, we are where we are because of truly villainous behavior by the fossil fuel industry, through its massive climate denial fraud operation and its associated dark-money political corruption operation.
But 92% of Texans are concerned about the cost of home insurance — a tip-top issue — and 66% already connect the dots to climate change. Let’s communicate on that.
Look at Texas, where electricity generation has gotten cheaper over recent years because low-cost wind and solar surged onto its grid.
Tell that story, or its wildfire sibling out West, and link it to the fraudulent climate denial operation Republicans run with their fossil fuel donors.
Florida has a tottering insurance market, mortgages at risk of becoming unavailable unless they can be dumped on Fannie and Freddie, homes that can’t be sold, and the worst decline in property values of all fifty states.
Add the many expert (often fiduciary) witnesses from my Budget Committee hearings — financial alarms are screaming.
Fed Chair Powell is useless on climate, but even he sees a near future in which entire regions of the country are unmortgageable, with big hits to banking and the economy as a result of this cascade (look up “systemic”).
In some places, it’s unobtainable without massive expense (like a new roof) or even at all, in which case your home value falls because no insurance means no mortgage means good luck finding a buyer.
More powerful in many places is homeowners insurance, a big part of family budgets, one whose cost is skyrocketing.
Our communications should explain this racket to ratepayers. Once they see the scheme, it’s hard to unsee it. Plus, no one likes being scammed.
It’s a purposeful scheme to pay back Trump’s big fossil fuel donors using ratepayer money, hoping ratepayers won’t look past their utility bill and understand why that cost is going up.
That raises the grid price, electricity rates go up, consumers pay more, but fossil fuel interests cash in big time, by billions.
Start now with electricity rates, being purposefully driven up by Trump. Why? Because when they stall clean energy, the grid must reach up the “generation stack” to fossil plants that would not otherwise be running.
Until his very last speech, there was no sense of combat, no talk of villains, no warning of consequences (use of “existential” doesn’t count). So we lost four years.
The Biden administration was particularly bad, hoping to “friendly” its way through climate upheaval with “green jobs” talk, corporate tax incentives and squishy bromides about the environment.
Let me offer a slight rebuttal on climate politics, beginning with us (enviros and Dems) having done a terrible job on climate communication for a long time. A legacy of bad work is not reason to stop work, it’s reason to do better work.
🧵
it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files..."
“If this committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement…
"[Y]ou have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump's actions and cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.”
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History779 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
779 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Final passage | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Bill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
| 2026-01-29 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-27 | S. 3627 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (82-15) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-14 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 98 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2026-01-13 | S.J. Res. 84 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-40) |
| 2026-01-08 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-01-07 | S.J. Res. 86 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (43-50) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-01-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-36) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (50-50) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (69-27) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. 1071 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (77-20) |
| 2025-12-15 | S. 1071 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 1071 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3385 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3386 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-10 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-12-10 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
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.