Bonnie Watson Coleman
Democrat
· NJ-12 · 119th Congress
House Committee on Appropriations · and Related Agencies · Health and Human Services · Housing and Urban Development · and Housing and Urban Development · House Committee on Homeland Security · and Recovery · and Accountability · House Committee on the Budget
Influence Score
62.0
Moderately exposed
↓ -5.5
vs 118th (67.5)
— ◊ —
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
3.2
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
< 0.1
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$29
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
7.5
/ 10
Revolving door
former staff now working as lobbyists
0.0
/ 3
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
6.9
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
3.2
/ 6
Stock tradesbuying stocks in industries they regulate
0.0
/ 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
12.1
/ 16
Cluster network breadthhow many coordinated funding networks back this member
3.8
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
5.3
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
7.6
/ 12
Israel-policy PACs behind this score
JSTREETPAC
$5,500 direct
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $281.03M 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 — $562K.
— ◊ —
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 | 62.2 | Moderately exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 64.4 | Moderately exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 67.5 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 62.0 | Moderately exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Network
UNITED WE CAN
Total money from this network
$37,500
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
$25,500
Total from all networks
$1,108,573
Networks contributing
192
— ◊ —
Who funds Coleman
Every funding network we can measure, ranked by influence
$553,149
— ◊ —
Does the money match their power?
Whether their money comes from the industries their committees actually oversee
Money from industries they regulate
99.4%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
1.50×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
55.6%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
7
Money that arrived near votes
$14K
Distinct donors
8
Distinct employers
6
Share of their total fundraising
2.63%
Biggest clusters of timed money
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
$7K
BLOOMBERG
$2K
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
$2K
KEAN UNIVERSITY
$1K
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
$1K
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
$1K
THOMAS EDISON STATE UNIVERSITY
$1K
APPLE
$500
LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA COMERFORD
$500
MERCER COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
$500
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
BEIGENE
$13K
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
$11K
GHO VENTURES
$11K
RWJBARNABAS HEALTH
$10K
WINNING STRATEGIES WASHINGTON
$9K
WINNING STRATEGIES WASHINGTON
$9K
NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HEALTH
$8K
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
$7K
SCUDIERY
$7K
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
$7K
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
$7K
SCUDIERY
$7K
WINNING STRATEGIES WAHINGTON
$6K
ENGINEERED DESIGN
$6K
GTS
$6K
ISCHEMIX
$6K
MILBANK TWEED
$6K
STANFORD CHILDREN S HEALTH
$6K
TRIS PHARMA
$6K
TONIO BURGOS AND ASSOCIATES
$5K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Bonnie Watson Coleman comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
Total outside spending received
$11K
Disclosed outside spending
$11K
Dark-money outside spending
$8
Share that is dark money
0.07%
Dark money tied to their policy areas
$0
Groups hiding their donors
1
By funding network
DEMOCRACY PAC
$195
NEA ADVOCACY FUND
$68
SIERRA CLUB INDEPENDENT ACTION
$40
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.
37 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $213K to Bonnie Watson Coleman across 118 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$213K
Shared contributors
37
Contributions
118
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 19 | 53 | $115K |
| 2024 | 21 | 51 | $91K |
| 2026 | 4 | 14 | $8K |
— ◊ —
Bonnie Watson Coleman sits in the middle of this Congress on the index. There is a measured sponsor relationship, but the vote-alignment signal is weaker — money flows; the votes do not follow in lockstep.
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