Vote-Trade Correlations

Trades that landed within 90 days of the member's own vote on a bill touching the same industry, where the member also sits on a committee with jurisdiction over that industry.

A pair on this page is a timing overlap. It is not proof that the vote and the trade are connected, and many members hold managed portfolios they do not direct.

MembersCurrent membersInclude former members

3,039

Trade and vote pairs

Median gap, days

1,672

Traded before the vote

1,367

Traded after the vote

Most pairs, across 57 members:Lisa C. McClain (556)Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (493)Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr. (241)

Traded before the voteTraded after the vote

Showing 2,501–2,550 of 3,039

SortMost recent tradeClosest to the vote Highest conflict score

Member	Party	Trade	Trade date	Bill	Vote	Vote date	Gap	Why this pair	Conflict
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.	R	Bought AMT	Apr 8, 2001	A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications".	yea

How a pair gets on this page

A trade and a vote are paired when three things hold at once: the traded company's line of business matches a subject the bill is tagged with, the member sits on a committee with jurisdiction over that subject, and the two events fall within 90 days of each other. Each row names the shared subject and the committee, so the basis for the pairing is on the page rather than behind it.

Ceremonial and naming bills are excluded. So are companies whose recorded line of business is too general to tie to any subject, and defense-tagged bills, because nothing in the record distinguishes a defense contractor from any other manufacturer. Correlation is not causation, and a pair here is a question worth asking, not an answer.