Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann
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 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
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
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 →
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.