Jerrold Nadler
Jerrold Nadler, a long-serving House Democrat from New York (in Congress since 1992), presents one of the cleaner self-dealing profiles among veteran members. He reports no individual stock trading under the STOCK Act, and his net worth has remained consistently modest—estimated around $121,000 in 2018 and reportedly under $200,000 in recent filings—ranking him among the least wealthy members of Congress despite three-plus decades in office. His campaign funding draws heavily from the legal industry (his top sector) and PACs, which is a correlation-not-proof signal given his role as a senior Judiciary Committee member, but no public records establish personal enrichment, campaign-fund personal use, or family lobbying ties. His lifetime missed-vote rate (4.6%) is modestly above the median but is publicly attributed in part to medical and family health emergencies. Overall the documented record is consistent with low self-dealing.
Public record
- In Congress since
- 1992
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure
Judiciary - Missed votes, 119th Congress
- 10.4% (70 of 674; median member 1.9%)
- Campaign money, 2025–26 cycle
- $258K raised · 27% from PACs & committees · $140K 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
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
Sources behind this score: 1 data aggregator · 5 reference database · 1 news reporting · 1 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.