Skip to main content
PTP

Money-Vote Gap

Leaderboard

Two views into the gap between PAC dollars in and votes out. Members ranks (member, industry) cells by how far the member's Yes-rate diverges from the median for their own party in the same chamber. Bills ranks bills by revealed-preference subterfuge — industries lobbying to pass the bill while not appearing in its stated subject tags.Methodology →

#MemberIndustryPAC $Yes / nParty Δ (95% CI)Chamber ΔConfidence
501John Larson
D-CT · House
Banking$150k44% (9)-1[-26, +28]-34vs 78%CI ∋ 0
502Cliff Bentz
R-OR · House
Telecom$165k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
503August Pfluger
R-TX · House
Telecom$85k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
504Brian Schatz
D-HI · Senate
Health insurance$50k63% (155)+1[-8, +7]+11vs 53%CI ∋ 0
505Ann Wagner
R-MO · House
Telecom$50k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
506Ashley Hinson
R-IA · House
Telecom$50k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
507Ben Cline
R-VA · House
Telecom$57k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
508Bernie Moreno
R-OH · Senate
Oil & gas$100k67% (33)+1[-17, +14]+3vs 64%CI ∋ 0
509Christopher Coons
D-DE · Senate
Health insurance$100k62% (166)0[-8, +7]+10vs 53%CI ∋ 0
510Cory Booker
D-NJ · Senate
Health insurance$150k62% (145)0[-8, +7]+10vs 53%CI ∋ 0
511Darin LaHood
R-IL · House
Telecom$80k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
512Deb Fischer
R-NE · Senate
Oil & gas$115k67% (184)+1[-7, +7]+3vs 64%CI ∋ 0
513Ed Markey
D-MA · Senate
Health insurance$150k62% (145)0[-8, +7]+10vs 53%CI ∋ 0
514Lisa Murkowski
R-AK · Senate
Oil & gas$60k66% (276)0[-6, +5]+2vs 64%CI ∋ 0
515Mario Diaz-Balart
R-FL · House
Telecom$75k80% (15)+1[-25, +14]+7vs 73%CI ∋ 0
516Adam Gray
D-CA · House
Oil & gas$50k17% (12)low-n party-64vs 81%Preliminary
517Amy Klobuchar
D-MN · Senate
Food & beverage$50k67% (9)+0[-32, +21]+0vs 67%CI ∋ 0
518Adriano Espaillat
D-NY · House
Real estate$35k67% (6)+0[-37, +23]-16vs 83%CI ∋ 0
519Addison McDowell
R-NC · House
Construction$90k70% (20)+0[-22, +16]+5vs 65%CI ∋ 0
520Addison McDowell
R-NC · House
Auto$75k100% (6)+0[-39, +0]+0vs 100%CI ∋ 0
521Addison McDowell
R-NC · House
Tech$50k87% (30)+0[-17, +8]+4vs 83%CI ∋ 0
522Andrew Garbarino
R-NY · House
Auto$35k100% (6)+0[-39, +0]+0vs 100%CI ∋ 0
523Becca Balint
D-VT · House
Labor unions$85k86% (7)+0[-37, +11]+15vs 71%CI ∋ 0
524Carol Miller
R-WV · House
Health insurance$61k67% (9)+0[-32, +21]+6vs 61%CI ∋ 0
525Celeste Maloy
R-UT · House
Oil & gas$125k81% (47)+0[-13, +9]+0vs 81%CI ∋ 0

Members tab — Party Δ (primary) = member's Yes% − party median Yes% on the same industry's bills (same chamber, same cycle), with Wilson 95% confidence bounds. Chamber Δ (secondary, dim) = member's Yes% − chamber median Yes%. Chamber Δ is partisan-biased when the chamber has a partisan majority; shown for context but ranking uses Party Δ.

Sorting: rows are ranked by the lower bound of |Party Δ| at 95% confidence — i.e. the minimum deviation we can claim given the sample size. When the confidence interval on Party Δ crosses zero, the row is marked CI ∋ 0: the direction of the deviation is not confidently signed and the row ranks below all cells with a confidently-signed deviation. This kills the small-sample noise floor that point-estimate ranking lets through.

Confidence column: CI ∋ 0 means direction not confidently signed (Wilson CI on the deviation crosses zero). Preliminary means the direction IS signed but the cell does not pass Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction across all leaderboard cells — could be a false positive from running ~1500 tests; treat as suggestive. A severity label (Slight / Moderate / High / Extreme) means the cell is BOTH confidently signed AND passes FDR — the rigorous-stats-claim tier.

Min 5 votes per cell, ≥$1 in industry PAC dollars. Min 5 same-party members in the pool for Party Δ; rows below that floor show "low-n party" and rank by Chamber Δ. See docs/audits/mvg-partisan-median-artifact-2026-05-14.md (party-conditional fix) and docs/audits/mvg-wilson-ci-2026-05-15.md (Wilson CI rigor) for the methodology audits.

Bills tab: subterfuge_score = Σ over unstated supporters of (1 + log₁₀(filings)). See methodology for the full audit.