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 defined by a severe performance anomaly: an overall win rate of 26% (`get_politician_intelligence.profile.win_rate_overall`) masks dramatically higher success in key sectors. In healthcare (82 trades), the win rate is 84.2%, a 58.2-point divergence. In finance (136 trades), the win rate is 70.8%, a 44.8-point divergence. In technology (86 trades), the win rate is 60.0%, a 34.0-point divergence. This high-frequency, poor-performing portfolio (`get_politician_intelligence.profile.trading_styles`) shows no evidence of informational edge, with a -13.7% average excess return (`get_sponsor_profile.profile.trading_style`).
Trades 5y824
Volume$7.1M
Late filing—
Trader typeActive self-dealer
Vector 2 · Donor Funding money in
PAC funding totals $10.14M (`get_donor_industry_breakdown.total_pac_direct_usd`), led by corporate other (24.8%) and tech (19.1%) industries (`get_donor_industry_breakdown.top_industries`). Lobbying spend targeting her committee jurisdictions totals $1.34M (`get_lobbying_around_pol.total_lobbying_spend_on_pols_sectors_usd`), with a 100% lobbying-to-committee alignment score (`get_sponsor_profile.profile.lobbying_to_committee_alignment_score`).
PAC raised$10.1M
Individual—
Donors2,001
Vector 3 · Committee Pressure lobbying around
Strong capture signal from the technology industry, via $1.94M in PAC funding (19.1% of total) and committee jurisdiction over tech policy (`get_donor_industry_breakdown.top_industries[1]`, `get_sponsor_profile.profile.industry_capture_signal`).
technology
$1.94M in tech PAC funding (`get_donor_industry_breakdown.top_industries[1].amount_usd`) and $1.34M in lobbying targeting her committees (`get_lobbying_around_pol.total_lobbying_spend_on_pols_sectors_usd`).
↳ Oversight jurisdiction combined with PAC funding and lobbying
Top influence channels
PAC Funding
corporate_other
$10.1M
Lobbying Targeting Committees
DRONEUP
$1.3M
12 MONTHS PAST · 3 MONTHS FUTURE
Activity timeline · 357 votes (12mo) · 200 on passage · 95% with party on passage votes · 1 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
Recent high-profile votes show support for procedural motions and passage of bills like HR.1689, with opposition to HR.261 on passage (`get_voting_record.recent_high_profile_votes`).
Loading intelligence layer…