Party unity 85%, in the bottom 5% of the Iowa House (average 96.0%). 822 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
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 Rinker voted with the majority of Iowa House Republicans; it is ranked within the Iowa House. The count covers every roll call where Rinker voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Iowa House. Rinker missed 23% of 822 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of the Iowa House (average 91.8%). Rinker reported $14.2K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Rinker sits furthest from the middle of the Iowa 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
Iowa House average 96.0% · ranks 95th of 98 · 45 votes against the majority of Iowa House Republicans
Attendance
Iowa House average 91.8% · ranks 89th of 98 · 822 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1765th of 2,521
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 62% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
From Iowa, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1350th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Out of committee
Iowa House average 13% · ranks 50th of 98
Peer group: Iowa House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rinker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rinker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Rinker says
No statements for the IA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the IA 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Rinker sits at +0.28 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 62% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.24 to +0.32, which understates the uncertainty; from 135 donors and 507 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 +0.24 to +0.32. From 135 donors and 507 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Rinker, 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 Rinker’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 Rinker sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Rinker |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 38% |
| Iowa House | 99 | +0.4 | 38% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 66% |
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 Rinker 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 Rinker.
Money
Rinker reported $14.2K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 95% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
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 62 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)81 squares$11.5K
- PACs and other committees5 squares$700
- Party committees14 squares$2,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $11.5K | 81.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $700 | 4.9% |
| Party committees | $2,000 | 14.1% |
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 | $4,708 |
| 2022 cycle | $247.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $302.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $14.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 95% came from Iowa.
- Iowa$10.9K
- Pennsylvania$600
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 |
|---|---|
| Iowa | $10.9K |
| Pennsylvania | $600 |
| 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 |
| Michigan | 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 |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | 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 Iowa
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 Iowa. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- DES MOINES COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$2,000
- ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY - ADM PAC$250
- HY-VEE, INC. EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$250
- IOWA CHIROPRACTIC SOCIETY PAC$200
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Rinker voted with the majority of Iowa House Republicans on 85% of party-line votes and missed 23% of 822 roll calls. Iowa House on average: 96.0% party unity, 91.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rinker voted against the majority of Iowa House Republicans 45 times.
822 roll calls Rinker could vote on in the IA 2025–26 session, compared with Iowa 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 Rinker voted with the majority of Iowa House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Iowa House Republicans
Party unity 85%, Iowa House average 96.0%, ranks 95th of 98. 822 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Rinker, the thin grey bar the Iowa House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Rinker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 77% | 91.8% |
| Party unity | 85% | 96.0% |
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 IA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2026 | HF 2801 A bill for an act modifying the major economic growth attraction program, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–15 · R 59–2Democrats 16 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 639 A bill for an act creating a specialty business court, and including effective date provisions. Shall amendment H-8456 be adopted? | Did not vote | — | fail | D 0–27 · R 8–50Democrats 0 yea, 27 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 50 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 2770 A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the justice system, providing fees, and including applicability provisions. Shall amendment H-8451, to amendment H-8414, be adopted? | Did not vote | — | pass | D 27–0 · R 55–3Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 3 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2480 A bill for an act relating to the taxation and regulation of alternative nicotine products and vapor products, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Did not vote | — | pass | D 14–13 · R 53–5Democrats 14 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2465 A bill for an act relating to agriculture, including by providing for the powers and duties of the department of agriculture and land stewardship, including the promotion and regulation of commodities and products, the regulation of the transportation of agricultural items, the use of agricultural l Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–3 · R 59–1Democrats 22 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 1 nay | became law · 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 Rinker most often
- Matt WindschitlR491 shared votes94%
- Shannon LathamR544 shared votes93%
- Ann MeyerR626 shared votes93%
- Travis SitzmannR610 shared votes93%
- Jane BloomingdaleR619 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Rinker least often
- Elinor LevinD594 shared votes58%
- Angel RamirezD339 shared votes59%
- Beth Wessel-KroeschellD602 shared votes61%
- Aime WichtendahlD539 shared votes61%
- Dave JacobyD564 shared votes61%
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
IA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Rinker sponsored 39 bills in the IA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 10% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Iowa House average 13%; 50th of 98).
The bills Rinker sponsored and cosponsored in the IA 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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 39 | 39 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Rinker sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rinker 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
Iowa House average 13%. Ranks 50th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rinker, by number of shared bills in the IA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Eddie Andrews6
- Bill Gustoff6
- Bob Henderson5
- Steven Holt5
- David Young5
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 Rinker’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 114 | A resolution honoring the Iowans who were killed in or survived the attack on the USS Indianapolis on July 30, 1945. | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution adopted. Apr 8, 2026 |
| HF 2569 | A bill for an act relating to recovery of costs for the demolition of abandoned buildings by cities. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Introduced, referred to Local Government. Feb 17, 2026 |
| HF 2459 | A bill for an act relating to liability of persons performing housing or rental inspections for a municipality. | Sponsor | Feb 16, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Introduced, referred to Local Government. Feb 16, 2026 |
| HF 2412 | A bill for an act relating to prior authorization exemptions for certain health care providers for specific health care services. | Sponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Introduced, referred to Commerce. Feb 11, 2026 |
| HF 2374 | A bill for an act relating to Iowa’s delta waterfowl special registration plates, providing fees, and making appropriations. | Sponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Introduced, referred to Transportation. Feb 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Rinker’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Rinker’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 Rinker posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
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 Rinker posted
No images from Rinker’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
4 turns, Mar 4, 2026 to Oct 2, 2026
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 Rinker is most unusual among Iowa 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
- aec12ca2-6ad3-4026-9f01-7a691566c6fc
- Open States
- ocd-person/aec12ca2-6ad3-4026-9f01-7a691566c6fc
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