Tina Smith
Democrat
· MN Senate · 119th Congress
Senate Committee on Agriculture (Chair) · Senate Committee on Banking (Chair) · and Community Development (Chair) · Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe · and Forestry · Risk Management · and Trade · Specialty Crops · and Research · Local Food Systems · and Food Safety and Security · and Food Safety · and Agriculture Security · and Credit · and Urban Affairs · and Investment · Senate Committee on Finance · and Global Competitiveness · Senate Committee on Health · and Pensions · Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
Influence Score
53.3
Moderately exposed
↓ -0.1
vs 118th (53.4)
— ◊ —
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
0.9
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
0.7
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$127,581
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
8.9
/ 10
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
6.2
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
0.5
/ 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
2.4
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
6.7
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
1.8
/ 12
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $60.01M 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 — $120K.
— ◊ —
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 | 70.8 | Highly exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 68.4 | Highly exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 53.4 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 53.3 | Moderately exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Total money from this network
$10,000
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
1.7%
Amount from this network
$7,500
Total from all networks
$447,024
Networks contributing
156
— ◊ —
Who funds Smith
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
0.2%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
2.00×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
0.0%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
1
Money that arrived near votes
$3K
Distinct donors
1
Distinct employers
1
Share of their total fundraising
0.40%
Biggest clusters of timed money
KEY INVESTMENT
$3K
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
$200
MAYO CLINIC
$100
MAYO CLINIC
$50
MAYO CLINIC
$50
MAYO CLINIC
$50
MAYO CLINIC
$50
FRANDSEN FINANCIAL
$25
MAYO CLINIC
$25
MAYO CLINIC
$25
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
CAPITAL
$35K
LINKEDIN
$7K
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE ORG
$7K
ROCKET COMPANIES
$7K
AVENUE SOLUTIONS
$6K
MINISTRY OF SPIRITUAL DIRECTION
$6K
ARIEL INVESTMENTS
$6K
PMG MANAGEMENT
$6K
ROCKET COMPANIES
$6K
AVENUE SOLUTIONS
$5K
CAPITAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT
$5K
THE CAPITAL COMPANIES
$5K
CAPITOL COUNSEL
$4K
MINDSET
$4K
STATE OF MINNESOTA
$4K
HOLLAND KNIGHT
$4K
BUSINESSMAN
$3K
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
$3K
DORSEY WHITNEY LLP
$3K
JACKSON FAMILY WINES
$3K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Tina Smith comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
Total outside spending received
$129K
Disclosed outside spending
$126K
Dark-money outside spending
$2K
Share that is dark money
1.88%
Dark money tied to their policy areas
$0
Groups hiding their donors
2
By funding network
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MINNESOTA POLITICAL ACTION FUND
$735K
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
$523K
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC
$484K
ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER MINNESOTA FEDERAL PAC
$425K
RIGHT NOW USA
$295K
AMERICAS PAC
$283K
VALOR AMERICA
$203K
DEMOCRACY PAC
$178K
HEARTLAND FUND
$146K
PROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECT
$119K
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
$117K
LIUNA MINNESOTA & NORTH DAKOTA/LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA & NORTH DAKOTA
$106K
UNITED WE CAN
$84K
AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION TREASURY FUND
$45K
UNIDOS WE WIN PAC
$24K
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.
4 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $11K to Tina Smith across 6 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$11K
Shared contributors
4
Contributions
6
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | 1 | $100 |
| 2024 | 3 | 5 | $11K |
— ◊ —
Revolving Door
7 former staff members
who worked for Tina Smith or the committees they serve are now registered lobbyists.
| Lobbyist | Former position | Firm | Clients | Filings | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CATHERINE FINLEY | Staff Director, Senate Special Aging Committee; Senior Health Policy Advisor, Se… | THORN RUN PARTNERS | 12 | 119 | 2023–2025 |
| ROBERT EPPLIN | LD Sen. Collins; LA Sen. Smith; Analyst, OMB Budget Review Division; Prof Staff,… | EPPLIN STRATEGIC PLANNING | 4 | 26 | 2023–2025 |
| ROBERT EPPLIN | LD Sen. Collins; LA Sen. Smith; Analyst, OMB Budget Review Division; Prof Staff,… | KED STRATEGIES, LLC | 4 | 34 | 2023–2025 |
| ANJALI TADAVARTHY | Paid Intern - Washington DC Office of Senator Tina Smith | LEWIS-BURKE ASSOCIATES, LLC | 3 | 5 | 2025–2025 |
| MOLLY O'LEARY | US Senator Tina Smith, Legislative Assistant; US Senator Al Franken, Legislative… | SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION | 1 | 6 | 2023–2024 |
| MARCUS SAWYERS | Senior Confidential Advisor: Congressman John Lewis Deputy Director of schedulin… | THE RABEN GROUP | 1 | 3 | 2024–2024 |
| MARY FERNANDES | AAAS/APA Congressional Fellow, (Office of Senator Tina Smith (MN) September 1 20… | JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY | 1 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
— ◊ —
Tina Smith 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