Follow the Money
How lobby dollars flow to votes. This page correlates pro-Israel lobby funding with Congressional voting patterns — revealing the relationship between money and allegiance that defines American foreign policy.
Politicians who received $500K+ in lobby money voted with the lobby 90% of the time.
Funding Tier vs. Average Allegiance Score
As lobby funding increases, so does the average allegiance score. Each tier shows how many members fall within that funding range and their average loyalty to lobby interests.
Money vs. Loyalty Distribution
Dividing funded members into quadrants by funding level (median: $114K) and allegiance (threshold: 50).
Strongest Money-to-Vote Correlation
Members receiving $200K+ with allegiance scores of 70+. These members demonstrate the clearest relationship between lobby funding and voting behavior.
| # | Name | State | Party | Lobby $ | Allegiance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Haley Stevens Representative | Michigan | D | $36.3M | 97 |
| 2 | George Latimer Representative | New York | D | $19.2M | 97 |
| 3 | Glenn Ivey Representative | Maryland | D | $7.3M | 97 |
| 4 | Adam Schiff Senator | California | D | $5.6M | 97 |
| 5 | Shontel Brown Representative | Ohio | D | $5.1M | 97 |
| 6 | Sarah Elfreth Representative | Maryland | D | $4.2M | 93 |
| 7 | Don Davis Representative | North Carolina | D | $4.1M | 93 |
| 8 | Adriano Espaillat Representative | New York | D | $3.7M | 93 |
| 9 | Valerie Foushee Representative | North Carolina | D | $3.5M | 93 |
| 10 | Mark Messmer Representative | Indiana | R | $2.9M | 93 |
State-by-State Lobby Spending
| # | State | Total Lobby $ | Members | Avg Allegiance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michigan | $41.4M | 15 | 73 |
| 2 | New York | $35.8M | 28 | 80 |
| 3 | California | $20.1M | 53 | 70 |
| 4 | Maryland | $13.4M | 10 | 76 |
| 5 | North Carolina | $9.2M | 16 | 69 |
| 6 | Texas | $9.1M | 39 | 67 |
| 7 | Ohio | $8.6M | 17 | 73 |
| 8 | Florida | $8.4M | 29 | 71 |
| 9 | New Jersey | $6.1M | 13 | 73 |
| 10 | Illinois | $4.9M | 19 | 72 |
| 11 | Oregon | $4.6M | 8 | 73 |
| 12 | Nevada | $4.5M | 6 | 80 |
| 13 | Colorado | $4.2M | 10 | 77 |
| 14 | Indiana | $4.0M | 11 | 67 |
| 15 | Maine | $3.9M | 4 | 82 |
| 16 | Arizona | $3.7M | 11 | 71 |
| 17 | Pennsylvania | $3.7M | 19 | 69 |
| 18 | Georgia | $3.5M | 15 | 70 |
| 19 | Washington | $3.1M | 12 | 75 |
| 20 | Louisiana | $3.1M | 8 | 71 |
Frequently Asked Questions
How does lobby money influence Congressional votes?
Our data shows a strong correlation between the amount of pro-Israel lobby funding a Congress member receives and their allegiance score (a measure of how consistently they vote in alignment with lobby interests). Members receiving $500K+ in lobby money have significantly higher average allegiance scores than those receiving less or no funding. While correlation does not prove causation, the pattern is consistent across both parties.
Which states receive the most lobby money?
States with competitive races, large delegations, and key committee assignments tend to receive the most lobby spending. Our state-by-state breakdown shows the total pro-Israel lobby spending flowing to each state's Congressional delegation, along with average allegiance scores.
What is an allegiance score?
The Gen Us allegiance score (0-100) measures how consistently a member of Congress aligns with pro-Israel lobby interests across tracked funding, votes, PAC relationships, and published positions. Scores of 70-100 are classified as high alignment, 50-69 as moderate alignment, and below 50 as lower alignment.
Do all funded politicians vote with the lobby?
No. While there is a strong overall correlation, some politicians accept lobby money while maintaining independent voting records. Our data identifies these outliers — members who receive significant funding but maintain low allegiance scores, and vice versa. The scatter data on this page shows the full distribution.
Where does this data come from?
Funding data is aggregated from FEC filings, OpenSecrets, and trackaipac.com. Allegiance scores are calculated by Gen Us using a proprietary methodology based on voting records, bill co-sponsorship, and public positions. This correlation analysis is original to Gen Us and is not available from any other source.