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
876Tom Barrett
R-MI · House
Transportation$122k88% (8)+0[-35, +10]+0vs 88%CI ∋ 0
877Jim Costa
D-CA · House
Chemicals$50k80% (5)low-n party-20vs 100%Preliminary
878Mark DeSaulnier
D-CA · House
Education$70k57% (7)+0[-32, +27]+0vs 57%CI ∋ 0
879Mark DeSaulnier
D-CA · House
Lawyers & lobbyists$60k59% (17)+0[-23, +19]-12vs 71%CI ∋ 0
880Mark Messmer
R-IN · House
Agriculture$235k76% (17)+0[-23, +14]+0vs 76%CI ∋ 0
881Mark Messmer
R-IN · House
Labor unions$175k43% (7)+0[-27, +32]-28vs 71%CI ∋ 0
882Mark Pocan
D-WI · House
Labor unions$856k86% (7)+0[-37, +11]+15vs 71%CI ∋ 0
883John Barrasso
R-WY · Senate
Transportation$50k54% (128)+0[-9, +8]-11vs 65%CI ∋ 0
884John Barrasso
R-WY · Senate
Coal & mining$50k67% (30)low-n party+7vs 60%Preliminary
885John Garamendi
D-CA · House
Labor unions$430k86% (7)+0[-37, +11]+15vs 71%CI ∋ 0
886John Garamendi
D-CA · House
Transportation$100k75% (8)+0[-34, +18]-13vs 88%CI ∋ 0
887John Garamendi
D-CA · House
Electric utilities$50k25% (40)+0[-11, +15]-55vs 80%CI ∋ 0
888John Garamendi
D-CA · House
Education$30k57% (7)+0[-32, +27]+0vs 57%CI ∋ 0
889John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Labor unions$300k55% (22)+0[-20, +18]+0vs 55%CI ∋ 0
890John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Banking$150k48% (40)low-n party-22vs 70%Preliminary
891John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Oil & gas$100k30% (73)low-n party-34vs 64%Preliminary
892John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Real estate$100k67% (6)low-n party+3vs 65%Preliminary
893John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Renewable energy$50k30% (47)low-n party-23vs 53%Preliminary
894John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Tech$50k59% (41)low-n party-1vs 60%Preliminary
895John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Pharmaceutical$50k52% (44)low-n party+8vs 44%Preliminary
896John Hickenlooper
D-CO · Senate
Telecom$50k79% (14)low-n party+13vs 66%Preliminary

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.