Greederboard
Official portrait of Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann

Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann

R Republican · Representative, Tennessee 3rd district
31
Moderate self-dealing
4/6 components have data
#42 of 193 scored

Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN3), in the House since 2011, chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and is a leading congressional advocate for nuclear funding at Oak Ridge, areas closely aligned with his largest donor industries (defense/nuclear contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Leidos) — a correlation, not proof of quid pro quo. He had a documented STOCK Act late-disclosure violation in 2021 (DraftKings and Zimmer Biomet trades up to $15,000 each), though his overall individual-stock trading volume appears low. His net worth grew substantially over his tenure (roughly $2.85M in 2009 to ~$5.96M by 2018), partly reflecting pre-office wealth from a 24-year law practice and large bank/investment holdings. He has a strong voting-attendance record (0.6% missed votes), and no public records of campaign-fund personal use or family-lobbying revolving-door conduct were found.

Public record

In Congress since
2011
Committees
Science, Space, and Technology
Appropriations
Missed votes, 119th Congress
0.1% (1 of 674; median member 1.9%)
Campaign money, 2025–26 cycle
$2.3M raised · 0% from PACs & committees · $4.8M cash on hand FEC ↗

The stock-trading ban

H.R. 7008 passage, Jul 22, 2026
Yes
Cosponsored a ban bill
None

H.R. 7008 bans new stock purchases by members, spouses and dependents; it doesn't force sales of existing holdings. The Senate vote was on the version paired with the SAVE Act, which is why no Democrat voted yes. Full breakdown →

Disclosed stock trades

0trades since Jan 2025
0buys
0sells
0filed past 45 days
$0–$0disclosed value range

13 of 13 reports were filed on paper (scanned images) and aren't itemized here; they're linked from the official index.

No transactions parsed.

Amounts are the ranges members must report, not exact values. The STOCK Act requires a report within 45 days of a trade; "late" counts days past that deadline, measured to the filing date.

How the score breaks down

Stock self-trading
25% weight
25
Documented 2021 STOCK Act violation for late disclosure of a DraftKings purchase and a Zimmer Biomet sale (each up to $15,000). Overall individual-stock trading volume appears low, with no broad pattern of committee-sector trading or evidence of market-beating returns.
Net-worth enrichment in office
15% weight
25
OpenSecrets estimates net worth grew from ~$2.85M (2009) to ~$5.96M (2018), roughly doubling over tenure. Much reflects pre-office wealth (law practice, large bank/securities holdings like ~$3M Benjamin Edwards and ~$750K-$825K bank stakes), so growth beyond salary/market is only partly attributable to office and not clearly anomalous.
Money → action alignmentcorrelation, not proof of any quid-pro-quo
20% weight
55
CORRELATION, NOT PROOF. Defense/nuclear contractors are among his top donors (Lockheed Martin, Leidos), and as Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee chair he funnels record funding to Oak Ridge nuclear and defense projects ($810M Uranium Processing Facility, $440M+ cleanup). Strong donor-industry/legislative-action alignment, but no evidence of explicit quid pro quo.
Campaign-fund personal useno data
15% weight
—
No public records, FEC enforcement matters, or watchdog complaints found alleging personal use of campaign or leadership-PAC funds.
Revolving door & familyno data
15% weight
—
No public records found of family lobbying, contracts tied to his office, or a notable staff-to-lobbyist pipeline. His wife Brenda co-ran a law practice in Chattanooga; no lobbying ties identified.
Skips the job to fundraise
10% weight
5
Strong attendance: missed only 58 of 9,122 roll-call votes (0.6%) from 2011-2026, well below the 2.1% median. No evidence of heavy paid-speech activity displacing legislative duties.

Sources behind this score: 6 reference database · 1 data aggregator · 2 official record. Score = weighted average of the components that have data; the 2 without sourced evidence are excluded, never counted against the member. Methodology →

Embed this score on your site

Updates automatically when the score changes.

Right of reply

Is something here wrong or missing context? Members and their staff can send a correction or a statement. Statements are published on this page in full, and corrections go in the public log. Email corrections@greederboard.com.