federal legislators includes representatives (HOR) and senators.
one could be tempted to think that on a fptp system the representative actually represents his district and not his party, something that should be clearer on a senatorial level.
However, there are no limits to political donations in the US afaik, which I guess means the rich and powerful ones can invest as much as they can to denigrate the other side, usually a democrat (correct me if wrong).
I don’t know if there are like party federal committees that raise money nationally for or against abortion, death penalty, tariffs… and then each party decides how to allocate that money. I don’t know if there are staffers in each party that decide which candidate is compliant enough to follow blindly what the federal committee decides and is not going to be a dangerous maverick because he actually has an independent moral compass.
Is it possible for local candidates to run against their own party and actually win? Like a republican that lost his party’s nomination for a district, then becomes an independent and actually wins against his former party?
Or are HOR races much more local than I imagine and each representative campaigns exclusively on local issues, raises money only in the constituency to be invested exclusively in the district’ election?
Do candidates have to give back the money that was given as a donation that wasn’t actually used to try to win an election?
Can a politician actually pretend to raise money for a campaign and then simply pocket it?
I have the feeling that most members in the HOR are careerists that usually go with the motions and repeat the official position of their party and only selected individuals are brave or reckless enough to say out loud and clearly what they believe in (extreme example, Marjorie Taylor Greene). Most representatives, when pressed upon a problematic issue will first give you an elusive answer, then contact their party for instructions about what the correct answer is. This applies to both democrats and republicans.
I have no idea if federal senators are also mostly followers and not leaders.
Theoretically each candidate can vote however they like for each vote.
The leaders of each party in each house of Congress can do things with committee assignments that increase or decrease a senator/representatives influence. Buck the party line too often and you can be neutered as far as influence over writing laws. Leadership is elected by the lawmakers of their party though, so if they lean too hard or force too many unpopular votes they can be removed from leadership.
In practice they tend to want to work with each other and get along. Inter party fights are embarrassing. Some lawmakers from states outside the norm ideologically can get away with voting against the party by pointing to their constituents and usually leadership takes this into account before deciding whether to hold a vote.
Joe manchin was a Democrat from West Virginia. He famously voted against several of Bidens environmental bills to favor coal mining. John Tester was a Democrat from Montana who neutered parts of the ACA under Obama. In both cases the Democratic president needed every single democratic senator to agree or the vote wouldn’t pass because their was no chance of Republicans crossing the isle.
Republicans allow much less ideological diversity through their primaries, so even a Republican like Scott Brown from Massachusetts was a solid conservative.