Chris Van Hollen
Democrat
· MD Senate · 119th Congress
and Related Agencies (Chair) · Senate Committee on Banking (Chair) · and Investment (Chair) · International Operations (Chair) · and Bilateral International Development (Chair) · Senate Committee on Appropriations · Foreign Operations · and Related Programs · Housing and Urban Development · and Urban Affairs · and Community Development · Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works · and Wildlife · Senate Committee on Foreign Relations · the Pacific · and International Cybersecurity Policy · South Asia · Central Asia · and Counterterrorism · Senate Committee on the Budget
Influence Score
75.3
Highly 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
4.3
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
0.5
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$65,237
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
8.8
/ 10
Revolving door
former staff now working as lobbyists
0.0
/ 3
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
8.3
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
5.6
/ 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
9.3
/ 16
Cluster network breadthhow many coordinated funding networks back this member
6.2
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
9.3
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
7.9
/ 12
Israel-policy PACs behind this score
JSTREETPAC
$1,009 direct
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $310.24M 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 — $620K.
— ◊ —
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 | 49.6 | Moderately exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 66.1 | Moderately exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 49.6 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 75.3 | Highly exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Total money from this network
$55,112
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.
Network
KAINE FOR VIRGINIA
Share from this one network
1.3%
Amount from this network
$20,000
Total from all networks
$1,520,209
Networks contributing
329
— ◊ —
Who funds Hollen
Every funding network we can measure, ranked by influence
$823,230
— ◊ —
Does the money match their power?
Whether their money comes from the industries their committees actually oversee
Money from industries they regulate
98.8%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
2.00×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
100.0%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
2
Money that arrived near votes
$10K
Distinct donors
4
Distinct employers
2
Share of their total fundraising
4.63%
Biggest clusters of timed money
CITADEL SECURITIES
$9K
NORFOLK SOUTHERN
$1K
HOSPITAL
$500
K L GATES LLP
$25
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
LEIDOS
$40K
PARRY LABS
$27K
GALLAGHER EVELIUS JONES LLP
$27K
HOLLAND KNIGHT
$25K
TRISTAR TECHNOLOGY
$20K
CORSTONE
$18K
WILMERHALE
$17K
THEGROUP
$16K
MEI
$16K
MERIDIAM NA
$16K
FOLEY LARDNER LLP
$16K
CIENA HEALTHCARE
$15K
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
$15K
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
$15K
ARNOLD PORTER
$15K
MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP
$15K
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
$14K
2U
$14K
ARENT FOX
$13K
GALLAGHER EVELIUS JONES
$13K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Chris Van Hollen comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
Total outside spending received
$64K
Disclosed outside spending
$63K
Dark-money outside spending
$503
Share that is dark money
0.79%
Dark money tied to their policy areas
$0
Groups hiding their donors
1
By funding network
UNITED WOMEN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE PAC
$63K
NEA ADVOCACY FUND
$2K
CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND
$505
SIERRA CLUB INDEPENDENT ACTION
$10
Groups that hide their donors
— ◊ —
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.
87 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $203K to Chris Van Hollen across 118 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$203K
Shared contributors
87
Contributions
118
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 40 | 54 | $49K |
| 2024 | 1 | 1 | $2K |
| 2026 | 55 | 63 | $152K |
— ◊ —
Chris Van Hollen's file shows clear influence markers across multiple categories for the top funding network, placing them in the upper range of this Congress. The pattern runs above what coincidence would produce, and the methodology page documents what each category requires.
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