Tim Scott
Republican
· SC Senate · 119th Congress
Senate Committee on Banking (Chair) · and Urban Affairs (Chair) · and Investment (Chair) · Natural Resources (Chair) · and Infrastructure (Chair) · Senate Special Committee on Aging (Chair) · Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe · and Community Development · Senate Committee on Finance · and Global Competitiveness · Senate Committee on Health · and Pensions · Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Influence Score
88.0
Most exposed
— ◊ —
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
8.8
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
5.1
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$7,523,117
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
10.0
/ 10
Revolving door
former staff now working as lobbyists
0.0
/ 3
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
5.2
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
1.5
/ 6
Stock tradesbuying stocks in industries they regulate
0.0
/ 1
Dark moneyfunding from groups that hide their donors
0.0
/ 2
Outbound money distributionmoney this member sends out to the party and to colleagues
11.7
/ 16
Cluster network breadthhow many coordinated funding networks back this member
9.8
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
8.7
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
9.6
/ 12
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $95.74M 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 — $191K.
— ◊ —
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 | 65.5 | Moderately exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 75.8 | Highly exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 54.6 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 88.0 | Most exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Total money from this network
$123,602
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
0.9%
Amount from this network
$36,500
Total from all networks
$3,859,040
Networks contributing
698
— ◊ —
Who funds Scott
Every funding network we can measure, ranked by influence
$9,069,649
— ◊ —
Does the money match their power?
Whether their money comes from the industries their committees actually oversee
Money from industries they regulate
97.6%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
2.00×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
47.9%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
44
Money that arrived near votes
$183K
Distinct donors
91
Distinct employers
35
Share of their total fundraising
1.26%
Biggest clusters of timed money
BEEMOK CAPITAL
$21K
GOLDENTREE ASSET MANAGEMENT
$17K
SHERMAN FINANCIAL
$13K
CREDIT ONE BANK
$12K
FISHER INVESTMENTS
$10K
CAROLINA BANK
$7K
CREDIT ONE BANK
$7K
FORTRESS INVESTMENT
$7K
GENWORTH FINANCIAL
$7K
SHERMAN FINANCIAL
$7K
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
NOT PROVIDED
$602K
HOMEMAKER
$540K
HOMEMAKER
$188K
GOLDMAN SACHS
$125K
ENTREPRENEUR
$79K
HOME
$76K
GOLDMAN SACHS
$74K
FENNELL
$64K
VISA
$58K
COINBASE
$56K
BLACKSTONE
$51K
BLACKSTONE
$50K
SABIN METAL
$43K
SHERMAN FINANCIAL
$43K
METLIFE
$41K
CAPITAL
$41K
ARCHER AUTO
$41K
US BRICK
$40K
CHARLES INGRAM LUMBER
$40K
PENN MUTUAL
$40K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Tim Scott comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
By funding network
NATIONAL VICTORY ACTION FUND
$3.40M
OPPORTUNITY MATTERS FUND, INC.
$2.00M
ELBERT GUILLORY'S AMERICA
$521K
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR A SAFER AMERICA PAC
$519K
HONORING AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT PAC
$462K
AMERICAN ENERGY ACTION FUND
$204K
OPPORTUNITY MATTERS FUND ACTION
$200K
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CONGRESSIONAL FUND
$108K
SLF PAC
$100K
ELECT REPUBLICANS
$8K
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY VICTORY FUND (EVERYTOWN VICTORY FUND)
$862
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FUND INC.
$106
— ◊ —
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.
297 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $1.03M to Tim Scott across 1,746 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$1.03M
Shared contributors
297
Contributions
1,746
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 254 | 1,244 | $864K |
| 2024 | 65 | 471 | $165K |
| 2026 | 3 | 31 | $1K |
— ◊ —
Tim Scott ranks among the most exposed members of this Congress — the top tier on the index. The markers run across several of the twelve categories for the same funding network: contributions, outside spending, lobbying inside the policy areas this member regulates, vote alignment, and contribution timing among them. The score measures financial exposure in the public record; it is not a finding of intent or wrongdoing.
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