7 Things Worth Knowing About the Average Net Worth of the 115th Congress
The average net worth of the 115th Congress wasn’t just a statistical footnote—it was a defining feature of the era’s governance. Here’s what the data shows, and why it still echoes in today’s political economy.1. The Median Was Higher Than the Mean, Hiding Extreme Wealth Gaps
When analyzing the average net worth of 115th Congress members, the median figure—reportedly around $1.2 million—paints a clearer picture than the mean. The disparity between the two metrics underscores how a small number of ultra-wealthy lawmakers skewed the average upward. While the median represents the midpoint (half of members had more, half less), the mean (total wealth divided by member count) ballooned due to a handful of billionaires. For context, in 2018, Senator John Thune (R-SD) disclosed assets exceeding $10 million, while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—then a freshman—reported just $10,000 in assets. This gap isn’t just about party; it’s about access to generational wealth, real estate portfolios, and inherited business interests. The implications are profound. Wealthier lawmakers tend to vote in ways that protect asset values—whether through tax breaks for capital gains or deregulation favoring their industries. A 2019 study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that lawmakers with higher net worths were 27% more likely to oppose financial regulations that could erode their personal investments. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus became a proxy for institutional bias: those who benefit from the status quo had a disproportionate say in shaping it.2. Republicans Were Wealthier on Average, But Democrats Had More Millionaires
Contrary to stereotypes, the average net worth of 115th Congress Republicans outpaced Democrats by roughly $300,000, but the Democratic caucus boasted a higher concentration of millionaires. This paradox stems from two factors: inherited wealth (common among GOP members from old-money districts) and career accumulation (many Democrats built fortunes through legal or corporate careers before politics). For example, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), though not in the 115th Congress, had disclosed assets in the $9 million range by 2020—far above the median but typical of Democratic Senate leaders. On the GOP side, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reported assets worth $5.5 million, including real estate and stock holdings tied to Kentucky’s coal and banking sectors. The party divide in wealth also correlated with voting patterns. A 2018 analysis by The Washington Post found that Republicans with net worths above $1 million were 30% more likely to support the 2017 tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited high earners. Democrats in the same wealth bracket were more skeptical, reflecting their constituents’ reliance on social programs. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus wasn’t just a demographic detail—it was a predictor of legislative outcomes.3. Real Estate and Stocks Dominated Portfolios, Creating Conflicts of Interest
For the 115th Congress, the average net worth of members wasn’t just about cash reserves—it was about illiquid assets that created inherent conflicts. Real estate holdings, in particular, were ubiquitous. Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), for instance, owned properties worth millions in Philadelphia and Washington, while Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) had ties to upstate New York real estate markets. Stock portfolios further complicated matters: Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) held shares in companies that benefited from defense contracts, while Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) had investments in energy firms that lobbied against climate regulations. The Sunlight Foundation estimated that 40% of 115th Congress members held stock in companies they regulated, raising questions about impartiality. These financial entanglements weren’t accidental. A 2019 ProPublica investigation revealed that lawmakers routinely traded stocks based on nonpublic information gleaned from committee meetings. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus wasn’t just a personal statistic—it was a structural conflict. When tax reform was debated, members with high-stakes real estate or stock holdings had a direct incentive to shape policies that preserved asset values. The result? A legislative process where wealth begets influence, and influence begets more wealth.4. The Youngest Members Had the Least—But Also the Most to Gain
Freshmen in the 115th Congress, like Ocasio-Cortez or Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), entered with net worths in the $0–$50,000 range, a stark contrast to the average net worth of their senior colleagues. Yet their financial vulnerability also made them outliers in another way: they had nothing to lose from policy changes. While veteran lawmakers fretted over how bills might devalue their portfolios, younger members could advocate for progressive reforms without fear of immediate personal repercussions. This dynamic played out in debates over student debt relief and healthcare—issues where wealthier lawmakers had more to lose. The contrast is telling. A 2018 Brookings Institution report noted that lawmakers under 40 were 40% more likely to co-sponsor bills benefiting middle-class constituents than their older peers. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus revealed a generational divide: older members protected their assets; younger members fought for systemic change. This tension wasn’t just ideological—it was economic.5. Lobbying Connections Inflated Net Worth—And Policy Influence
Wealth in the 115th Congress wasn’t static; it grew through lobbying ties. A 2019 OpenSecrets analysis found that lawmakers who hired former colleagues as lobbyists saw their net worth increase by an average of $1.5 million over two years. The revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street was well-oiled: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), for instance, left Congress in 2018 with a reported net worth of $12 million, partly from lobbying contracts. Similarly, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)—though he left office in 2019—had disclosed assets tied to Arizona’s tech and defense sectors, which he later represented as a lobbyist. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus wasn’t just a reflection of personal savings—it was a byproduct of institutional capture. Lawmakers with higher net worths were more likely to fast-track bills benefiting their future employers, creating a feedback loop where wealth begets access, and access begets more wealth. The result? A system where policy outcomes favor those who can afford to shape them."The more money you have, the more levers you can pull—whether it’s through campaign donations, lobbying, or just the sheer weight of your portfolio. That’s not democracy; that’s oligarchy in disguise." — Lee Drutman, political scientist and author of *The Business of America Is Lobbying
6. The Tax Cuts of 2017 Benefited the Wealthiest Members Most
The average net worth of the 115th Congress took center stage during the 2017 tax overhaul. While the bill was sold as a middle-class boost, lawmakers with the highest net worths saw the largest financial gains. A Tax Policy Center study estimated that the top 1% of earners—many of whom were Congress members—would save an average of $65,000 annually, while the bottom 20% saw negligible benefits. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), for example, had disclosed assets in private equity and real estate—sectors that thrived under the new tax regime. Meanwhile, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), with a net worth in the $500,000 range, voted against the bill, citing concerns it would widen inequality. The hypocrisy wasn’t lost on critics. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)—though not in the 115th Congress—called the tax cuts "a middle finger to working families" while benefiting "the already obscenely rich." The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus became a litmus test for class warfare in governance. Those who stood to gain the most from the bill were the ones drafting it.7. The Data Was Incomplete—And That’s the Real Problem
Here’s the catch: no one knows the true average net worth of the 115th Congress. While members file financial disclosure forms, the data is voluntary, poorly standardized, and riddled with loopholes. Senators can exclude primary residences from reports, and stocks can be valued at cost price—even if they’ve appreciated. A 2018 Government Accountability Office report found that disclosure forms understated assets by an average of 20% due to these gaps. For example, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reported $5.5 million in assets in 2017, but independent estimates suggested his real estate and business holdings were worth twice that. The incompleteness of the data isn’t just a technical issue—it’s a democratic failure. When the average net worth of the 115th Congress is obscured, so is the real power structure of American governance. Without accurate figures, voters can’t assess whether their representatives are advocating for the public good or their own wallets. The result? A system where wealth operates in the shadows, and accountability is optional.
How These Facts Connect
The average net worth of the 115th Congress wasn’t an isolated statistic—it was a microcosm of how money shapes power in Washington. Wealthier lawmakers didn’t just vote differently; they structured the rules of engagement to favor their financial interests. From tax cuts that swelled their portfolios to lobbying networks that inflated their net worths, the 115th Congress demonstrated how economic privilege translates into political privilege. The younger, less wealthy members were outliers not just in age, but in moral authority—they had nothing to gain from the status quo, making them the only ones willing to challenge it. Yet the system is designed to protect the wealthy. Disclosure laws are toothless, conflicts of interest are self-reported, and the revolving door between Congress and lobbying ensures that wealth begets more wealth. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus reveals a fundamental tension: democracy claims to be about representation, but in practice, it’s about who can afford to be represented.| Key Fact | Republican Trend | Democratic Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Wealth Distribution | Higher average net worth ($1.5M+ median), but fewer millionaires overall. | Lower average net worth ($1M median), but more millionaires due to career accumulation. |
| Asset Types | Real estate (inherited), energy/stock portfolios, private equity. | Legal/corporate careers, public sector pensions, smaller real estate holdings. |
| Policy Impact | More likely to support deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy. | More likely to push for social programs, financial regulations. |
Conclusion
The average net worth of the 115th Congress was never just about dollars and cents—it was about who gets to shape the rules of the game. The era’s financial data laid bare how wealth concentrates power, not just in individual lawmakers but in the institutions they control. From tax policy to lobbying, the 115th Congress proved that money isn’t just a resource—it’s a form of governance. The younger members who entered with modest net worths were the only ones who could challenge this system, but their numbers were few, and their influence limited by structural barriers. The lesson? Democracy isn’t just about votes—it’s about who can afford to participate. Until disclosure laws are strengthened, until the revolving door is closed, and until wealth inequality is addressed at the systemic level, the average net worth of Congress will remain a barometer of how far we’ve strayed from true representation. The 115th Congress was a case study in that failure—and unless the system changes, the next Congress will be too.Comprehensive FAQs
Q: How accurate are the reported net worth figures for the 115th Congress?
The figures are highly unreliable. Congress members file voluntary financial disclosures that allow for massive gaps—primary residences can be excluded, stocks valued at cost price, and business interests underreported. Independent estimates suggest actual net worths are 20–30% higher than disclosed. For example, Senator Rand Paul reported $5.5 million in 2017, but his real estate and business holdings were likely worth $10–12 million. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly criticized the system for being "so porous that it’s effectively meaningless."
Q: Did the 115th Congress have more billionaires than previous sessions?
No—the number of billionaires in Congress has remained stable (around 5–10 at any given time), but the 115th Congress had a higher concentration of ultra-wealthy members, particularly among Republicans. Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) were among the wealthiest, with assets exceeding $10 million each. However, Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (though not in the 115th Congress) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) also had high net worths—just built through careers rather than inheritance. The key difference was how wealth translated into policy influence: GOP members with high net worths were more likely to push for deregulation and tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.
Q: How did the average net worth of the 115th Congress compare to the 116th?
The average net worth of the 116th Congress (2019–2021) was slightly lower—by about $100,000 per member—due to two factors: fewer ultra-wealthy Republicans (some left office or retired) and more freshmen with modest assets (e.g., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar). However, the wealth disparity remained extreme: the median net worth stayed around $1.2 million, while the top 10% of members controlled 40% of the total wealth in Congress. The 116th Congress also saw a rise in "self-made" millionaires (like Rep. Ted Lieu, D-CA) compared to the 115th’s inherited wealth dominance.
Q: Can lawmakers trade stocks based on nonpublic information from Congress?
Yes—and it’s legal. While insider trading is prohibited for most Americans, Congress members are exempt from SEC rules governing stock trades. A 2019 ProPublica investigation found that lawmakers and staffers routinely bought or sold stocks before major policy announcements, such as Fed interest rate decisions or defense contract awards. For example, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) sold $1.2 million in stock in a defense contractor days before voting on a related bill. The Stock Act (2012) was supposed to ban such behavior, but enforcement is nearly nonexistent. The average net worth of the 115th Congress thus included illicit gains for some, though proving it is nearly impossible.
Q: Do poorer lawmakers have less influence in Congress?
Indirectly, yes—but it’s complicated. Wealthier lawmakers have more to lose from bad policy, so they lobby harder to protect their assets. Poorer lawmakers (like Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA, who entered Congress with $200,000 in assets) are less constrained by personal financial stakes, allowing them to advocate for progressive reforms without fear of immediate backlash. However, money still matters in other ways: wealthier members can hire better lobbyists, donate to campaigns, and network with powerful donors, giving them indirect influence. A 2020 study by *The Hill found that lawmakers with net worths above $5 million were 3x more likely to secure leadership positions (e.g., committee chairs) than their poorer peers.
Q: Has any lawmaker ever lost money due to a policy they voted for?
Rarely—and when it happens, it’s rarely public. The most notable case involved Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who lost $500,000 in personal investments after voting for the 2017 tax cuts (his family-owned business was hit by higher healthcare costs for employees). However, most lawmakers structure their portfolios to avoid losses. For example, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)—a key architect of the tax bill—had no direct stock holdings in affected industries, instead relying on real estate and private equity, which benefited from the new tax regime. The system is designed to protect insiders, making it nearly impossible for a lawmaker to lose money from a policy they support.
Q: What would change if Congress had stricter financial disclosure laws?
Three major shifts would likely occur: 1. Transparency: Voters could see exactly how lawmakers profit from their votes (e.g., stock holdings in companies they regulate). 2. Reduced Conflicts of Interest: If primary residences and business interests were fully disclosed, lawmakers might think twice before voting on zoning laws or defense contracts that directly benefit them. 3. Less Wealth-Based Influence: Stricter rules could discourage ultra-wealthy candidates (who have the most to gain from secrecy) and level the playing field for less affluent representatives. However, political will is lacking: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has repeatedly blocked reform, arguing that "disclosure laws already work." Without pressure from the public, the average net worth of Congress will keep rising—and so will its power over policy.
