Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration · Source
35%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Rhode Island Senate
35% of 466 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Rhode Island Senate is 42%. Ranks 30th of 38, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Mack sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Rhode Island Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against the Rhode Island Senate. Mack reported $23.9K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats (median $55.5K). 89% of Mack’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Rhode Island, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Mack sits furthest from the middle of the Rhode Island Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
35%
Rhode Island Senate average 42% · ranks 30th of 38
Itemized, 2026
$23.9K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 503rd of 746
From Rhode Island, 2026
89%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 457th of 714 State Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.58
More conservative than 62% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Attendance
98.1%
Rhode Island Senate average 96.4% · ranks 21st of 38 · 912 roll calls
Party unity
96.8%
Rhode Island Senate average 94.6% · ranks 19th of 38 · 44 votes against the majority of Rhode Island Senate Democrats
Peer group: Rhode Island Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Mack, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mack is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Mack says
Mack stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 15 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 294th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Mack’s 15 statements in the RI 2025–26 session (15 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the RI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Mack
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion9 statements
60%
43%
69th of 329
Policy criticism5 statements
33%
10%
12th of 329
Credit claiming2 statements
13%
16%
173rd of 329
Personal attacks1 statements
7%
2%
35th of 329
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
294th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Mack | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 60% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 33% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
15
statements classified
15 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 15 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Mack; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Mack does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Mack used no extreme labels in 15 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the RI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 7.1% | 35.7% | 64.3% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the RI 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 21 months are hatched here; 20 of them have no statements.
In Mack’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; credit claiming; target: McKee · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · credit claiming · target: McKeeSource
All 15 statements
Newest first, the RI 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 15 posts on X.
Policy
Housing and Community Development is what Mack talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 6.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.7%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Mack talks about. The bills Mack sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Mack talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the RI 2025–26 session
0%49%
Mack
Peers
Housing and Community Development4 statements
44%
7%
Health2 statements
22%
17%
Immigration2 statements
22%
4%
Emergency Management1 statements
11%
4%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Mack | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 44% | 7% |
| Health | 22% | 17% |
| Immigration | 22% | 4% |
| Emergency Management | 11% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Mack’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 49%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 44% | 7% | 14% | 5% |
| Health | 22% | 17% | 22% | 15% |
| Immigration | 22% | 4% | 3% | 1% |
| Emergency Management | 11% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Mack legislates on exactly the areas Mack talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Mack sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Mack sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 62% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.62 to −0.53, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,466 donors and 774 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”.
−0.58
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.62 to −0.53. From 1,466 donors and 774 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mack, 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 Mack’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 Mack sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Rhode Island Senate38 · median −0.8
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mack |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 62% |
| Rhode Island Senate | 38 | −0.8 | 63% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 27% |
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 Mack 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 Mack.
Money
Mack reported $23.9K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 89% of itemized individual money came from Rhode Island.
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.
$23.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 151 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)98 squares$23.5K
- PACs and other committees2 squares$400
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $23.5K | 98.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $400 | 1.7% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $46.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $44.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $27.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $23.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 89% came from Rhode Island.
- Rhode Island$21.0K
- New York$1,180
- Massachusetts$1,095
- Connecticut$20
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 |
|---|---|
| Rhode Island | $21.0K |
| New York | $1,180 |
| Massachusetts | $1,095 |
| Connecticut | $20 |
| 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 |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | 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 |
151
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
89%
from Rhode Island
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 Rhode Island. 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.
- IBEW LOCAL 99 PAC (INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS)$100
- INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS RI PAC$100
- PANNONE LOPES DEVEREAUX & O'GARA LLC RI STATE PAC$100
- RI FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COPE PAC$100
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BROWN UNIVERSITY$654 5 donors
- THUNDERMIST$175 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Mack voted with the majority of Rhode Island Senate Democrats on 96.8% of party-line votes and missed 1.9% of 912 roll calls. Rhode Island Senate on average: 94.6% party unity, 96.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mack voted against the majority of Rhode Island Senate Democrats 44 times.
912 roll calls Mack could vote on in the RI 2025–26 session, compared with Rhode Island Senate. 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 Mack voted with the majority of Rhode Island Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
44
votes against the majority of Rhode Island Senate Democrats
Party unity 96.8%, Rhode Island Senate average 94.6%, ranks 19th of 38. 912 roll calls in the RI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Mack, the thin grey bar the Rhode Island Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Mack
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.1%
96.4%
21st of 38
Party unity
96.8%
94.6%
19th of 38
Show the data
| Row | Mack | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.1% | 96.4% |
| Party unity | 96.8% | 94.6% |
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 RI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 33–0 · R 4–0Democrats 33 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 28–5 · R 4–0Democrats 28 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 31–1 · R 0–4Democrats 31 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 33–0 · R 4–0Democrats 33 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 33–0 · R 3–1Democrats 33 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 3 yea, 1 nay | became law |
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 Mack most often
- Jonathon AcostaD883 shared votes98%
- Meghan KallmanD878 shared votes97%
- Dawn EuerD790 shared votes97%
- Pam LauriaD878 shared votes97%
- Bridget ValverdeD777 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mack least often
- Elaine MorganR826 shared votes76%
- Jessica de la CruzR881 shared votes80%
- Thomas PaolinoR874 shared votes82%
- Gordon RogersR894 shared votes82%
- Lou RaptakisD866 shared votes89%
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
RI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Mack sponsored 466 bills in the RI 2025–26 session; 54 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 35% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Rhode Island Senate average 42%; 30th of 38).
The bills Mack sponsored and cosponsored in the RI 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 RI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 466 | 466 | 161 | 55 | 54 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Mack sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mack cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
35%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Rhode Island Senate average 42%. Ranks 30th of 38.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Mack, by number of shared bills in the RI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Meghan Kallman223
- Alana DiMario211
- Jonathon Acosta188
- Bridget Valverde183
- Pam Lauria173
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 Mack’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 3370 | AN ACT RELATING TO TAXATION -- PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION | Sponsor | Jun 9, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | 06/26/2026 Effective without Governor's signature Jun 26, 2026 |
| SR 3351 | SENATE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF JUNE 2026 AS "PRIDE MONTH" IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 4, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/04/2026 Senate read and passed Jun 4, 2026 |
| SR 3341 | SENATE RESOLUTION HONORING REV. DR. BERNARD LAFAYETTE JR. FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/02/2026 Senate read and passed Jun 2, 2026 |
| SB 3337 | AN ACT RELATING TO TAXATION -- PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION | Sponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | 06/26/2026 Effective without Governor's signature Jun 26, 2026 |
| SB 3339 | AN ACT RELATING TO ELECTIONS -- CONDUCT OF ELECTION AND VOTING EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES | Sponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | 06/22/2026 Signed by Governor Jun 22, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Mack’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Mack’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 Mack posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 24
pages crawled
17changes 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
- XMackDistrict6
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/tiara.tyshae
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/MackDistrict6/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/tiara_mack/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/mackdistrict6
Images Mack posted
No images from Mack’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
9 turns, May 7, 2026 to Jun 11, 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 Mack is most unusual among Rhode Island Senate, 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
- b3d5296c-05df-46f5-9a93-4caf96121a84
- Open States
- ocd-person/b3d5296c-05df-46f5-9a93-4caf96121a84
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