Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
59%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top tenth of the Michigan House
59% of 32 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Michigan House is 32%. Ranks 11th of 107, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Thompson sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Michigan House. 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 State House Republicans. The policy areas Thompson talks about and legislates on agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of State House Republicans. Thompson reported $125.0K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Thompson sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, 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
59%
Michigan House average 32% · ranks 11th of 107
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.66
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 55th of 504
Itemized, 2026
$125.0K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 417th of 2,521
Personal attacks
4.5%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 177th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.51
More conservative than 75% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Policy discussion
25%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 493rd of 791
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Thompson, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Thompson is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Thompson says
Thompson attacks opponents personally more than 77% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 4.5% of 714 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 177th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Thompson’s 714 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (714 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Thompson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion175 statements
25%
32%
493rd of 791
Credit claiming66 statements
9%
13%
413th of 791
Policy criticism63 statements
9%
9%
312th of 791
Personal attacks32 statements
4%
3%
177th of 791
Bipartisanship12 statements
2%
2%
304th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Thompson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 25% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
714
statements classified
714 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 714 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Thompson; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Thompson does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Thompson used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 29% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at MAGAVoice; peers 1.4%.
- “far left”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGAVoice1
- MEA1
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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 102 | 2.9% | 17.6% | 26.5% | 2.0% | 7.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 24 | 4.2% | 8.3% | 12.5% | 8.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 69 | 10.1% | 1.5% | 18.8% | 0.0% | 8.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 85 | 2.4% | 5.9% | 24.7% | 1.2% | 8.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 33 | 3.0% | 3.0% | 36.4% | 3.0% | 21.2% | 3.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 49 | 6.1% | 10.2% | 30.6% | 0.0% | 8.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 4.8% | 38.1% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 29 | 3.5% | 17.2% | 24.1% | 3.5% | 6.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 26.1% | 8.7% | 30.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 23 | 4.3% | 8.7% | 26.1% | 4.3% | 8.7% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 40 | 5.0% | 12.5% | 15.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 10 | 10.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 22 | 4.5% | 4.5% | 31.8% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 13.8% | 34.5% | 0.0% | 10.3% | 3.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 20.7% | 24.1% | 0.0% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 47 | 6.4% | 6.4% | 19.1% | 2.1% | 8.5% | 2.1% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 18 | 11.1% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 11 | 9.1% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 11 | 18.2% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
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 MI 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Thompson’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.
Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Ronna McDaniel · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Education; extreme label “far left” aimed at MEA · 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: Ronna McDanielSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: AbdulSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Mike RogersSource
All 714 statements
Newest first, the MI 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: 714 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Thompson talks about most: 22% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 55th of 504).
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 Thompson talks about. The bills Thompson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Thompson talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Thompson
Peers
Health39 statements
22%
10%
Education29 statements
17%
15%
Government Operations and Politics28 statements
16%
18%
Economics and Public Finance26 statements
15%
12%
Taxation14 statements
8%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Thompson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 22% | 10% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 18% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 12% |
| Taxation | 8% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Thompson’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 22% | 10% | 27% | 10% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 11% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 18% | 5% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 12% | 2% | 2% |
| Taxation | 8% | 8% | 12% | 11% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 55th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Thompson legislates on exactly the areas Thompson 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 Thompson sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Thompson sits at +0.51 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 75% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.46 to +0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 279 donors and 561 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”.
+0.51
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.46 to +0.55. From 279 donors and 561 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Thompson, 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 Thompson’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 Thompson sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Michigan House110 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Thompson |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 75% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 72% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 86% |
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 Thompson 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 Thompson.
Money
Thompson reported $125.0K in the 2026 cycle, 3.7 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 94% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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.
$125.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 64 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)19 squares$23.5K
- PACs and other committees49 squares$60.8K
- Party committees32 squares$40.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $23.5K | 18.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $60.8K | 48.7% |
| Party committees | $40.6K | 32.5% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $305.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $602.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $125.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 94% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$22.1K
- Georgia$1,400
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $22.1K |
| Georgia | $1,400 |
| 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 |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | 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 |
| 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
64
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
94%
from Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$9,071 16 donors
- OWNER$1,481 3 donors
- .$370 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE$40.6K
- TGIF VICTORY FUND$5,000
- BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$4,000
- HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$4,000
- DTE ENERGY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Thompson voted with the majority of Michigan House Republicans on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed none of 704 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Thompson voted against the majority of Michigan House Republicans 14 times.
704 roll calls Thompson could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Thompson voted with the majority of Michigan House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
14
votes against the majority of Michigan House Republicans
Party unity 99.0%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 44th of 110. 704 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Thompson, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Thompson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
55th of 110
Party unity
99.0%
93.2%
44th of 110
Show the data
| Row | Thompson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 99.0% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2026 | HB 5648 Education: graduation requirements; credit for working certain trades; provide for. Amends sec. 1278a of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1278a) & adds sec. 1279i. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #354 Yeas 59 Nays 39 Excused 0 Not Voting 12 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 2–39 · R 57–0Democrats 2 yea, 39 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 0 nay | much discussed |
| Aug 26, 2026 | HB 6243 Property: land sales; prohibition of purchase of residential property by certain businesses; modify. Amends secs. 3 & 7 of 2026 PA 32 (MCL 125.853 & 1125.857). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #356 Yeas 83 Nays 15 Excused 0 Not Voting 12 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–13 · R 55–2Democrats 28 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 26, 2026 | HB 5359 Individual income tax: credit; credit for certain motor fuel retail dealers; provide for. Amends 1967 PA 281 (MCL 206.1 - 206.847) by adding secs. 279 & 679. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #359 Yeas 77 Nays 21 Excused 0 Not Voting 12 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–16 · R 52–5Democrats 25 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 5 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 26, 2026 | HB 5452 Criminal procedure: sentencing; sunset on certain costs that may be imposed upon criminal conviction; modify. Amends sec. 1k, ch. IX of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 769.1k). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #355 Yeas 84 Nays 14 Excused 0 Not Voting 12 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–13 · R 56–1Democrats 28 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 26, 2026 | HB 5356 Vehicles: title; requirements for transfer of title by a dealer; provide for. Amends 14, 41a, 78, 217, 217c, 233, 233a, 233b, 234, 238, 239, 240, 248, 248a, 248j, 249, 250, 258, 801b, 806 & 810a of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.14 et seq.) & adds sec. 9b. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #358 Yeas 82 Nays 16 Excused 0 Not Voting 12 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 29–12 · R 53–4Democrats 29 yea, 12 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 4 nay | 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 Thompson most often
- Jason WoolfordR704 shared votes98%
- Joe PavlovR704 shared votes98%
- Jerry NeyerR704 shared votes98%
- Cam CavittR704 shared votes98%
- Greg MarkkanenR704 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Thompson least often
- Dylan WegelaD704 shared votes45%
- Veronica PaizD604 shared votes56%
- Steve CarraR704 shared votes57%
- Emily DievendorfD677 shared votes58%
- Tonya PhillipsD667 shared votes59%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Thompson sponsored 32 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 252 others. 59% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan House average 32%; 11th of 107).
The bills Thompson sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 32 | 32 | 19 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 252 | 252 | 150 | 23 | 22 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Thompson sponsored, ochre blocks bills Thompson cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
59%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan House average 32%. Ranks 11th of 107.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Thompson, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Tom Kunse81
- Jason Woolford76
- Greg Alexander67
- Jaime Greene65
- Kathy Schmaltz65
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 Thompson’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 6286 | Torts: negligence; negligence claims against freight brokers; allow. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980. | Cosponsor | Aug 27, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | bill electronically reproduced 08/27/2026 Sep 1, 2026 |
| HB 6287 | Records: birth; certificate of birth requirements; modify. Amends secs. 2831, 2872 & 2891 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.2831 et seq.). | Cosponsor | Aug 27, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | per Rule 40 referred to Committee on Government Operations Sep 1, 2026 |
| HB 6282 | Public employees and officers: ethics; moratorium on former legislators accepting employment with an entity that receives a grant from the utility consumer participation board; provide for. Creates new act. | Cosponsor | Aug 27, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Oct 1, 2026 |
| HB 6308 | State: symbol; euchre; designate as the official state game. Creates new act. | Cosponsor | Aug 27, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | bill electronically reproduced 08/27/2026 Sep 1, 2026 |
| HB 6155 | Health occupations: nurses; intravenous therapy procedures; allow licensed practical nurses to perform under certain circumstances. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 17227. | Sponsor | Jul 3, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | bill electronically reproduced 07/03/2026 Jul 14, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Thompson’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Thompson’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 Thompson posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 4
pages crawled
1changes 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 Thompson posted
No images from Thompson’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Thompson is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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
- ea1e2bf8-dd08-4785-a7f7-48e7c9e8a53c
- Open States
- ocd-person/ea1e2bf8-dd08-4785-a7f7-48e7c9e8a53c
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