Industry · industry

Construction & Engineering

13 members of Congress were measured in construction & engineering. 5 of them are above their own peer group — same chamber, same party, same third of the party by DW-NOMINATE — on both the share of their money that comes from this industry and how often they vote its way. They are ranked below by the index, the geometric mean of those two residuals. Members measured here with no such alignment, and members below the coverage floor, are not listed; neither is a zero.

Read the dollars and the roll-call count beside each figure, not just the index: some pairs clear the floor on small sums or few votes.

Measured alignments, ranked

Residuals are standard deviations from the peer-group mean.

#	Member	Seat	Index	Money	Votes	Direct PAC $	Roll calls	Peers
1	Shelley Moore Capito	Senate · WV · R	0.77	+1.10	+0.54	$62,625	8	13
2	Susan M. Collins	Senate · ME · R	0.48	+0.43	+0.54	$57,500	8	13
3	Dan Sullivan	Senate · AK · R	0.33	+0.20	+0.54	$47,000	8	13
4	John R. Curtis	Senate · UT · R	0.15	+0.04	+0.54	$7,500	8	13
5	Pete Ricketts	Senate · NE · R	0.09	+0.01	+0.54	$30,000	8	13

What this does not mean

It is a statistical association between contributions received and votes cast, relative to comparable legislators. It is not a finding of corruption, bribery, or any other crime, and this site makes no such allegation about any person named on it. Accepting lawful contributions from an industry whose position you already hold is ordinary politics: a legislator from a farm state who votes for farm programmes and takes agribusiness money may simply be representing their constituents. Causation cannot be read off this data in either direction. A high index is a reason to look more closely at a relationship, and nothing more than that.

How this is calculated · ← Back to the index · All officials · All industries
Sources: FEC bulk filings, Voteview roll calls, govinfo BILLSTATUS. Updated 2026-10-12.