Corruption Risk · 4-Vector Breakdown
Corruption isn't just trade-based. Here's the four ways political pressure can flow, scored independently from the public record.
Vector 1 · Personal Enrichment trade-based
The politician's trading is dominated by municipal bond purchases across only 3 distinct tickers, with a top-5 ticker concentration of 100% and zero late filings, reflecting a conservative, fixed-income-oriented approach. However, the equity portfolio shows a severe anomaly: a 100% win rate in technology on 224 trades, outperforming the overall 32% win rate by 68 points, alongside significant outperformance in healthcare (69.2% win rate on 206 trades) and industrials (80% on 80 trades). Despite a 'POOR_PERFORMER' style tag, these sector-specific win rates suggest acute, non-public information advantages in committee-aligned sectors.
Trades 5y1,314
Volume$12.7M
Late filing—
Trader typeMixed
Vector 2 · Donor Funding money in
PAC funding totals $13.84M over 5 years, with corporate_other comprising 33.2% ($4.6M) and defense 11.1% ($1.54M). Individual contributions are $4.79M, indicating a mid-to-large donor profile. Lobbying targeting the politician's committees totals $1.34M, with 100% alignment to committee jurisdictions (get_sponsor_profile.lobbying_to_committee_alignment_score).
PAC raised$13.8M
Individual—
Donors1,810
Vector 3 · Committee Pressure lobbying around
Defense industry via PAC donations ($1.54M, 11.1% of total) and lobbying ($180,000 from DRONEUP) targeting aerospace committee jurisdiction, despite no defense committee seat.
technology
100% win rate on 224 trades vs. 32% overall, avg return 8.17% (PRE-COMPUTED SECTOR ANOMALIES[0])
↳ anomalous win rate
defense
$1.54M defense PAC donations (11.1% of total) and $180,000 lobbying from DRONEUP targeting aerospace (get_donor_industry_breakdown.top_industries[1].amount_usd, get_lobbying_around_pol.top_lobbying_clients_targeting_pols_committees[0].total_spend)
↳ PAC donations without committee seat
Top influence channels
PAC donations
corporate_other
$13.8M
Lobbying spend targeting committees
DRONEUP
$1.3M
12 MONTHS PAST · 3 MONTHS FUTURE
Activity timeline · 357 votes (12mo) · 200 on passage · 90% with party on passage votes · 2 against
Votes/wk (top band)
with party
against party
present / unknown
Vote markers (passage only)
yea (with party)
nay (with party)
against party
Trades
buy
sell
Bills sponsored
★ introduced
Predictions / pipeline
model fire
committee bill
🔮 GOVGREED FORECAST · 30-DAY WINDOW
Predicted next trades · 25 active
Recent Activity
📋 COMMITTEE BILL PIPELINE
Bills moving through their committees · 2 active
Each row links a bill in their committee jurisdiction to the public companies its passage would affect — the upstream signal for a future trade.
Voting Pattern
Voting record shows 100% attendance on 75 recent votes, with 33 yea and 37 nay votes, indicating active participation but no clear partisan lean from the raw count; recent high-profile votes include yea on HR.2493 and S.1020, and nay on HR.261 (get_voting_record).
Loading intelligence layer…