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
101Dave Min
D-CA · House
Education$150k71% (7)+14[-21, +35]+14vs 57%CI ∋ 0
102Darrell Issa
R-CA · House
Labor unions$2.2M57% (7)+14[-18, +41]-14vs 71%CI ∋ 0
103Delia Ramirez
D-IL · House
Education$50k43% (7)-14[-41, +18]-14vs 57%CI ∋ 0
104Donald Norcross
D-NJ · House
Education$80k43% (7)-14[-41, +18]-14vs 57%CI ∋ 0
105Ed Case
D-HI · House
Financial services$50k48% (29)+14[-3, +32]-35vs 83%CI ∋ 0
106Jim Costa
D-CA · House
Education$100k71% (7)+14[-21, +35]+14vs 57%CI ∋ 0
107Lisa McClain
R-MI · House
Labor unions$200k29% (7)-14[-35, +21]-42vs 71%CI ∋ 0
108Marie Perez
D-WA · House
Education$100k71% (7)+14[-21, +35]+14vs 57%CI ∋ 0
109Shelley Moore Capito
R-WV · Senate
Auto$100k79% (34)+14[-2, +24]+16vs 63%CI ∋ 0
110Cindy Hyde-Smith
R-MS · Senate
Real estate$50k50% (8)-13[-42, +15]-14vs 65%CI ∋ 0
111Deb Fischer
R-NE · Senate
Real estate$125k77% (30)+14[-4, +25]+13vs 65%CI ∋ 0
112Andy Barr
R-KY · House
Banking$50k73% (22)-13[-34, +1]-5vs 78%CI ∋ 0
113Blake Moore
R-UT · House
Tech$100k100% (7)+13[-22, +13]+17vs 83%CI ∋ 0
114Brian Babin
R-TX · House
Tech$120k100% (7)+13[-22, +13]+17vs 83%CI ∋ 0
115Cynthia Lummis
R-WY · Senate
Defense & aerospace$50k45% (11)-13[-37, +14]-22vs 67%CI ∋ 0
116Craig Goldman
R-TX · House
Tech$125k100% (7)+13[-22, +13]+17vs 83%CI ∋ 0
117Daniel Meuser
R-PA · House
Transportation$50k75% (8)-13[-47, +5]-13vs 88%CI ∋ 0
118Darren Soto
D-FL · House
Telecom$190k73% (15)+13[-12, +29]+0vs 73%CI ∋ 0
119Dusty Johnson
R-SD · House
Tech$50k100% (7)+13[-22, +13]+17vs 83%CI ∋ 0
120Laurel Lee
R-FL · House
Tech$50k100% (7)+13[-22, +13]+17vs 83%CI ∋ 0
121Mario Diaz-Balart
R-FL · House
Transportation$200k75% (8)-13[-47, +5]-13vs 88%CI ∋ 0
122Shelley Moore Capito
R-WV · Senate
Defense & aerospace$50k45% (11)-13[-37, +14]-22vs 67%CI ∋ 0
123Jim Costa
D-CA · House
Electric utilities$130k38% (40)+13[-1, +28]-42vs 80%CI ∋ 0
124Brad Knott
R-NC · House
Telecom$95k67% (15)-12[-38, +5]-6vs 73%CI ∋ 0
125Chuck Edwards
R-NC · House
Telecom$50k67% (15)-12[-38, +5]-6vs 73%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.