Ed Case
Democrat
· HI-1 · 119th Congress
House Committee on Appropriations · and Related Agencies · Veterans Affairs · House Committee on Natural Resources · and Public Lands · and Wildlife
Influence Score
46.8
Least exposed
↓ -5.0
vs 118th (51.8)
— ◊ —
This score measures financial influence across twelve categories. Each bar shows how this member compares to all others in Congress. Longer bars mean more exposure.
Score breakdown — twelve categories
Contributionsmoney from PACs (political action committees) and individual donors
3.5
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
0.1
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$1,874
Outside groups that spent to help elect this member — this drives the outside-spending bar above
Lobbyinghow hard lobbyists push the committees this member sits on
2.6
/ 10
Revolving door
former staff now working as lobbyists
0.0
/ 3
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
6.3
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
3.6
/ 6
Stock tradesbuying stocks in industries they regulate
1.0
/ 1
Dark moneyfunding from groups that hide their donors
< 0.1
/ 2
Outbound money distributionmoney this member sends out to the party and to colleagues
9.9
/ 16
Cluster network breadthhow many coordinated funding networks back this member
4.0
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
3.3
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
3.1
/ 12
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $133.34M in lobbying from FARA-registered firms representing South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia. This exposure is weighted at 0.2% of face value in the score — $267K.
— ◊ —
Score across four congresses
Score and tier for each Congress. Members are ranked against others in the same Congress, so tiers are comparable across rows. Raw scores reflect different data availability per Congress.
| Congress | Score | Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 116th · 2019-2021 | 35.8 | Least exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 41.1 | Least exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 51.8 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 46.8 | Least exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Total money from this network
$43,500
Number of funding networks contributing
1
— ◊ —
Where most of the money comes from
What share of their combined contributions and outside spending comes from a single network. Party committees are excluded.
Share from this one network
2.3%
Amount from this network
$29,000
Total from all networks
$1,282,279
Networks contributing
198
— ◊ —
Who funds Case
Every funding network we can measure, ranked by influence
— ◊ —
Does the money match their power?
Whether their money comes from the industries their committees actually oversee
Money from industries they regulate
94.4%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
1.50×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
98.6%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
4
Money that arrived near votes
$4K
Distinct donors
4
Distinct employers
3
Share of their total fundraising
2.97%
Biggest clusters of timed money
NISGA A DATA SYSTEMS
$1K
PACIFIC TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIO
$1K
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
$1K
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII
$1K
BANK OF HAWAII
$250
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
WASHINGTON HARBOUR
$18K
BLACKSTONE
$17K
ATS COMMUNICATIONS
$10K
TEXAS CRUDE ENERGY
$8K
ANDURIL INDUSTRIES
$7K
BESSEMER VENTURE CAPITAL
$7K
DOWLING
$7K
SILBEY STRATEGIES
$7K
TRIDENT RESEARCH
$7K
FORTRESS INVESTMENT
$7K
ATS COMMUNICATIONS
$7K
ONEBRIEF
$7K
PETERSON MANAGEMENT
$7K
TRIDENT RESEARCH
$6K
PACIFIC TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
$6K
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
$6K
FCE
$6K
GREAT HILL
$6K
GREYLOCK
$6K
HENRY CROWN AND
$6K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Ed Case comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
Total outside spending received
$2K
Disclosed outside spending
$2K
Dark-money outside spending
$8
Share that is dark money
0.37%
Dark money tied to their policy areas
$0
Groups hiding their donors
1
By funding network
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF HAWAII
$5K
TOGETHER WE THRIVE
$750
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE PAC , SERVING WA, AK, ID, HI, IN, KY
$417
ENVIRONMENT AMERICA ACTION FUND
$388
DEMOCRACY PAC
$124
SIERRA CLUB INDEPENDENT ACTION
$10
Groups that hide their donors
1 smaller group under $500
$8
Likely donors behind the dark money supporting this member
Inferred
Donors who fund the disclosed PACs in the same network as the hidden groups above. "Coverage" is how many of that network's disclosed groups a donor funds — the more they fund, the more likely they also back the hidden group.
NEVADANS FOR STEVEN HORSFORD
$80K
TITUS FOR CONGRESS
$80K
SUSIE LEE FOR CONGRESS
$79K
GEORGE SOROS
$525.74M
SMP
$81.00M
BLACKPAC
$47.25M
AB PAC
$25.50M
HMP
$15.00M
HOUSE MAJORITY PAC
$15.00M
CARE IN ACTION PAC
$6.60M
— ◊ —
Pro-Israel network donors
This counts contributions to this member from individuals whose FEC filings also show contributions to one of the 16 pro-Israel political action committees tracked by the Index. It is a measure of donor overlap — not a claim about why any individual gave, and not part of the influence score.
25 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $27K to Ed Case across 28 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$27K
Shared contributors
25
Contributions
28
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 23 | 24 | $24K |
| 2024 | 2 | 2 | $1K |
| 2026 | 2 | 2 | $2K |
— ◊ —
Ed Case ranks among the least exposed members of this Congress relative to their colleagues. Money may flow, but the votes do not track the top funding networks. Least exposed is a relative position, not a finding of no exposure.
Data: FEC (Federal Election Commission) filings · 118th–119th Congress · lobbying disclosures · VoteView recorded votes
All findings derived programmatically from public records · No prior knowledge required
All findings derived programmatically from public records · No prior knowledge required