Greederboard
Official portrait of Chris Van Hollen

Chris Van Hollen

D Democrat · Senator, Maryland
8
Low self-dealing
5/6 components have data
#178 of 193 scored

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) presents a notably clean self-dealing profile. He reports minimal personal wealth — a negative-to-low estimated net worth driven largely by a home mortgage, with holdings concentrated in mutual funds and retirement accounts rather than individual stocks — and is a lead co-sponsor of the ETHICS Act to ban congressional stock trading. His most visible financial-influence signal is heavy contributions from lawyers/law firms and federally registered lobbyists (he led Congress in lobbyist contributions in 2016); this is a correlation, not proof of self-dealing. His voting attendance (2.3% missed) is in line with Senate norms, and no credible public records indicate campaign-fund personal use, family lobbying tied to his office, or market-beating stock trades.

Public record

In Congress since
2003
Committees
Appropriations
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Foreign Relations
Budget
Missed votes, 119th Congress
1.5% (14 of 915; median member 1.9%)
Campaign money, 2025–26 cycle
$2.0M raised · 4% from PACs & committees · $3.3M cash on hand FEC ↗

The stock-trading ban

Senate cloture on H.R. 7008, Sep 30, 2026
No
Cosponsored a ban bill
S. 5320

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

No periodic transaction reports on file since 2024. That's the norm: most members don't trade individual stocks, or hold them in blind trusts and diversified funds.

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-tradinghousehold / spouse
25% weight
0
No record of active individual-stock trading by Van Hollen or spouse; disclosures show mutual funds and retirement accounts, not individual equities. He is a lead co-sponsor of the ETHICS Act to ban members from owning/trading individual stocks. Per rubric, 0 when no individual-stock trading.
Disclosures show mutual funds and retirement accounts rather than individual stocks or a real-estate/startup portfolio.Data aggregatorquiverquant.com ↗Van Hollen co-sponsored the ETHICS Act barring members, spouses, and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks.Official recordvanhollen.senate.gov ↗
Net-worth enrichment in office
15% weight
0
Estimated net worth is negative-to-low (roughly -$455k to -$100k per recent disclosure), driven by a $250k-$500k home mortgage. Among the least wealthy senators; no evidence of net-worth growth beyond salary/market over tenure. No enrichment to score.
2023 disclosure estimates net worth between roughly -$455,000 and -$100,000, largely due to a $250,001-$500,000 mortgage liability; among the poorest members.Data aggregatorfinbold.com ↗OpenSecrets personal-finances profile tracks his asset/liability ranges over time.Reference databaseopensecrets.org ↗
Money → action alignmentcorrelation, not proof of any quid-pro-quo
20% weight
32
CORRELATION, NOT PROOF. Lawyers/law firms are his single largest career contributor source; in 2016 he was the top congressional recipient of contributions from registered lobbyists, and half his top-20 donors were D.C. law firms that lobby. This shows donor concentration in one sector but no documented quid-pro-quo or specific aligned votes traded for money.
Three of his top five donors were lobbying law firms; in 2016 he led Congress in contributions from federally registered lobbyists, with half his top 20 donors D.C. law firms.Reference databaseopensecrets.org ↗Career industry breakdown shows lawyers/law firms as his largest contributor industry.Reference databaseopensecrets.org ↗
Campaign-fund personal use
15% weight
0
No credible record of personal use of campaign or leadership-PAC funds. A partisan-driven story flagged a ~$7,128 campaign tab at a D.C. bar, which the campaign stated was a 50-member staff party — a permissible campaign expense, not documented personal benefit. No FEC enforcement action found.
Campaign spent ~$7,128 at a D.C. bar, which Van Hollen described as a 50-member staff party.News reportingwashingtonexaminer.com ↗
Revolving door & familyno data
15% weight
—
No public records found tying family members' lobbying or contracts to his office, nor a documented staff-to-lobbyist pipeline implicating self-dealing. Per rubric, absence of data is not penalized.
Skips the job to fundraise
10% weight
5
Missed only 86 of 3,787 roll-call votes (2.3%) over his career, slightly better than the Senate median (~2.8%). No evidence of neglecting legislative duties for fundraising or paid speeches. Low score reflects strong attendance.
Missed 86 of 3,787 roll-call votes (2.3%), on par with or better than the Senate median of 2.8%.Reference databasegovtrack.us ↗

Sources behind this score: 2 data aggregator · 1 official record · 4 reference database · 1 news reporting. Score = weighted average of the components that have data; the 1 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.