Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Immigration · Source
$330.1K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State House Democrats
The median for State House Democrats is $40.4K. Ranks 166th of 2,082, where 1st raised the most. 710 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Knight sits at −0.86 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 81% of State House Democrats. Knight missed 13% of 1,359 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Rhode Island House (average 90.9%).
The measures on which Knight sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$330.1K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 166th of 2,082
CSIP ideology
−0.86
More liberal than 81% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Attendance
87%
Rhode Island House average 90.9% · ranks 61st of 74 · 1,359 roll calls
Out of committee
46%
Rhode Island House average 39% · ranks 16th of 74
From Rhode Island, 2026
81%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1501st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Extreme labels
0%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 543rd of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Knight, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Knight is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Knight says
Knight attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 247 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 376th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Knight’s 247 statements in the RI 2025–26 session (247 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the RI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Knight
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion117 statements
47%
39%
259th of 764
Credit claiming51 statements
21%
14%
225th of 764
Policy criticism10 statements
4%
10%
521st of 764
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
3%
542nd of 764
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
3%
376th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Knight | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 21% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
247
statements classified
247 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 247 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Knight; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Knight does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Knight used no extreme labels in 247 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 | 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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’25 | 8 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 3 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 5 | — (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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 8 | — (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 | 5 | — (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 | 8 | — (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 | 9 | — (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 | 25 | 0.0% | 4.0% | 24.0% | 4.0% | 16.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 18.8% | 68.8% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.1% | 0.0% | 17.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.4% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 54 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.8% | 0.0% | 20.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 14 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| 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%. 14 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
In Knight’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Keith Hoffmann · 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 · target: Keith HoffmannSource
All 247 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: 247 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Knight talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 5.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 169th of 503).
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 Knight talks about. The bills Knight sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Knight talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the RI 2025–26 session
0%46%
Knight
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement49 statements
42%
8%
Government Operations and Politics30 statements
26%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues28 statements
24%
10%
Immigration17 statements
15%
4%
Law12 statements
10%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Knight | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 42% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 24% | 10% |
| Immigration | 15% | 4% |
| Law | 10% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Knight’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 46%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 42% | 8% | 23% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 15% | 11% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 24% | 10% | 8% | 4% |
| Immigration | 15% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Law | 10% | 2% | 7% | 2% |
0.59
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 169th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Knight legislates on exactly the areas Knight 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 Knight sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Knight sits at −0.86 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 81% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.90 to −0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 815 donors and 1,028 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”.
−0.86
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.90 to −0.81. From 815 donors and 1,028 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Knight, 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 Knight’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 Knight sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Rhode Island House74 · median −0.7
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Knight |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 19% |
| Rhode Island House | 74 | −0.7 | 34% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 9% |
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 Knight 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 Knight.
Money
Knight reported $330.1K in the 2026 cycle, 8.2 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 81% 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.
$330.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 710 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)99 squares$325.7K
- PACs and other committees1 squares$4,375
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $325.7K | 98.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $4,375 | 1.3% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $22.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $31.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $60.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $330.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from Rhode Island.
- Rhode Island$262.7K
- Massachusetts$17.8K
- Idaho$6,500
- New York$6,475
- Virginia$4,450
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 | $262.7K |
| Massachusetts | $17.8K |
| Idaho | $6,500 |
| New York | $6,475 |
| Virginia | $4,450 |
| District of Columbia | $4,125 |
| Colorado | $3,550 |
| New Jersey | $3,525 |
| Connecticut | $3,150 |
| Wyoming | $3,000 |
| Minnesota | $2,000 |
| Missouri | $1,700 |
| North Carolina | $1,120 |
| Florida | $950 |
| Washington | $922 |
| Vermont | $675 |
| California | $500 |
| Pennsylvania | $425 |
| Hawaii | $400 |
| Maine | $350 |
| Alabama | $350 |
| Georgia | $250 |
| New Hampshire | $200 |
| South Carolina | $150 |
| Ohio | $100 |
| Maryland | $100 |
| Texas | $100 |
| Illinois | $72 |
| New Mexico | $50 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
710
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
81%
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.
- PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 51 PAC$750
- INDEPENDENT CONSTABLE ASSOCIATION PAC$400
- RI STATE ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS$375
- PROVIDENCE FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 799 IAFF (INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS)$250
- RI LABORER'S POLITICAL LEAGUE$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BROWN UNIVERSITY$6,125 5 donors
- ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY$3,050 6 donors
- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND$2,750 5 donors
- BROWN UNIVERSITY HEALTH$2,600 6 donors
- SELF-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY$2,400 6 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Knight voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 13% of 1,359 roll calls. Rhode Island House on average: 94.0% party unity, 90.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Knight voted against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats 12 times.
1,359 roll calls Knight could vote on in the RI 2025–26 session, compared with Rhode Island 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 Knight voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
12
votes against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats
Party unity 98.8%, Rhode Island House average 94.0%, ranks 31st of 74. 1,359 roll calls in the RI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Knight, the thin grey bar the Rhode Island House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Knight
Peers
Rank
Attendance
87%
90.9%
61st of 74
Party unity
98.8%
94.0%
31st of 74
Show the data
| Row | Knight | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 87% | 90.9% |
| Party unity | 98.8% | 94.0% |
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 RI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | HR 8351 JOINT RESOLUTION CREATING A SPECIAL JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO STUDY RHODE ISLAND'S EDUCATION FUNDING FORMULA AND EDUCATION FINANCE SYSTEM PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT | Yea | With majority | pass | D 52–0 · R 9–0 · I 1–0Democrats 52 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 9 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | SB 3358 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CRANSTON TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION, IMPROVEMENT, RENOVATION AND REPAIR OF FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT BY THE ISSUANCE OF NOT MORE THAN $8,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR IN CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 55–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 55 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 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 Knight most often
- Robert CravenD1,076 shared votes99%
- Susan DonovanD1,166 shared votes99%
- Joseph McNamaraD1,150 shared votes99%
- Marvin AbneyD1,113 shared votes99%
- Mary Ann Shallcross-SmithD1,097 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Knight least often
- Bob QuattrocchiR955 shared votes73%
- Sherry RobertsR1,068 shared votes73%
- David PlaceR1,143 shared votes76%
- Paul SantucciR1,138 shared votes77%
- Mike ChippendaleR1,148 shared votes77%
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
Knight sponsored 137 bills in the RI 2025–26 session; 32 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 46% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Rhode Island House average 39%; 16th of 74).
The bills Knight 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 | 137 | 137 | 63 | 32 | 32 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Knight sponsored, ochre blocks bills Knight cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
46%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Rhode Island House average 39%. Ranks 16th of 74.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Knight, by number of shared bills in the RI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jennifer Boylan58
- June Speakman53
- Carol McEntee42
- Justine Caldwell41
- Matthew Dawson38
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 Knight’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 8635 | HOUSE RESOLUTION HONORING REPRESENTATIVE JULIE A. CASIMIRO FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/11/2026 House read and passed Jun 11, 2026 |
| HR 8616 | HOUSE RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING "WORLD REFUGEE DAY" AND RECOGNIZING THE WORK OF DORCAS INTERNATIONAL OF PROVIDENCE ON JUNE 20TH OF 2026, IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 4, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/04/2026 House read and passed Jun 4, 2026 |
| HR 8572 | HOUSE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CONDOLENCES ON THE PASSING OF DAVID SUNLEY FRERICHS | Sponsor | May 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 05/21/2026 House read and passed May 21, 2026 |
| HR 8557 | HOUSE RESOLUTION CREATING A SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO STUDY PRIMARY CARE MEDICINE IN RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | May 15, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | 05/28/2026 Committee recommended measure be held for further study May 28, 2026 |
| HR 8556 | HOUSE RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY 2026 AS "JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH" IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 05/14/2026 House read and passed May 14, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Knight’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Knight’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 Knight posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.rilegislature.gov/representatives/knight/Pages/Biography.aspxLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 12
pages crawled
14changes 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 Knight posted
No images from Knight’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
10 turns, Mar 5, 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 Knight is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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
- cef11d28-cbbb-4ffd-b8f2-23c71e73f1b3
- Open States
- ocd-person/cef11d28-cbbb-4ffd-b8f2-23c71e73f1b3
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