Research status
- Evidence confidence
- 86%
- Score coverage
- 44%
- Recommendation
- Not recommended
- Last reviewed
- 2026-07-25
Official ballot record · Published research
Stacie McGinn
Republican candidate for NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT 42.
Stacie McGinn's public campaign material contains 4 validated values-conflict signals and 0 positive alignment signals under the approved methodology.
Campaign finance
NCSBE reports $422,735.46 in election-cycle receipts, $147,173.48 in expenditures, and $275,868.1 cash on hand through 06/30/2026.
Open finance source ↗Campaign links
Funding composition
Where the money comes from
Named individual contributions$120,213.06 · 28.4%
Unitemized individual contributions$1,522.4 · 0.4%
Party committees$500 · 0.1%
Loans and other receipts$300,500 · 71.1%
No named source in the processed filing crossed the project's material-concern threshold.
View the complete official filing ↗
Personal donations are not attributed to a donor's employer. Independent expenditures are reported separately from money received by the campaign.
Evidence-gated scorecard
How this candidate measures up
Worker-policy alignment
No sufficiently specific, validated worker-policy position is published.
Evidence confidence: 0%Record reliability
No comparable governing record exists; this does not reduce the candidate's score.
Evidence confidence: 0%Funding independence
Official filings show party and other political-committee receipts equal to approximately 0.1% of the displayed funding breakdown. This does not infer donor motive.
Evidence confidence: 90%Democracy and ethics
Conflict evidence: Supports mandatory state and local cooperation with ICE and benefit exclusions based on immigration status. Opposes taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for prisoners. Supports removing DEI programs and concepts from public schools. Publishes a punitive law-enforcement platform without accompanying accountability safeguards. Applied under the approved civil-rights and democratic-safety rules.
Evidence confidence: 90%Transparency
The reviewed profile publishes 5 source-linked evidence items and labels candidate statements separately from official records.
Evidence confidence: 85%not applicable
Promises: Published candidate commitments are shown as statements.
Record: No comparable governing record is available.
The absence of a governing record is labeled as a risk and is not scored as a failure.
0/10 answered
Questionnaire participation is not treated as positive or negative evidence during the launch period.
Developing campaign
Reported receipts exceed $100,000. Organization and competitiveness still require separate evidence.
Risks and uncertainty
What remains uncertain
High-risk: Mandatory ice cooperation
Supports mandatory state and local cooperation with ICE and benefit exclusions based on immigration status.
High-risk: Anti trans policy
Opposes taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for prisoners.
Material: Curriculum censorship
Supports removing DEI programs and concepts from public schools.
Material: Police power without accountability
Publishes a punitive law-enforcement platform without accompanying accountability safeguards.
Church state scrutiny
Uses faith-centered campaign language; church-state positions require review.
No governing record
No comparable legislative, executive, or judicial record is available. Campaign commitments are not treated as accomplishments.
Evidence record
What the sources establish
high conflict
Values conflict
Supports mandatory state and local cooperation with ICE and benefit exclusions based on immigration status.
“Supports mandatory state and local cooperation with ICE and benefit exclusions based on immigration status.”
high conflict
Values conflict
Opposes taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for prisoners.
“Opposes taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for prisoners.”
material conflict
Values conflict
Supports removing DEI programs and concepts from public schools.
“Supports removing DEI programs and concepts from public schools.”
material conflict
Values conflict
Publishes a punitive law-enforcement platform without accompanying accountability safeguards.
“Publishes a punitive law-enforcement platform without accompanying accountability safeguards.”
Requires further review
Coverage warning
Uses faith-centered campaign language; church-state positions require review.
“Uses faith-centered campaign language; church-state positions require review.”