Lisa Blunt Rochester
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), elected to the Senate in 2024 after four House terms, presents a clean self-dealing profile based on available public records. Her disclosed financial holdings consist exclusively of broad-based ETFs and index funds (AGG, SPY, VEA, IEMG) rather than individual company stocks, meaning the stock-trading component scores at zero — no individual-stock conflicts arise from diversified passive funds. She has a near-perfect voting attendance record (about 0.5% missed votes lifetime), and no public reporting surfaced regarding campaign-fund personal use, family lobbying, or revolving-door arrangements. Her campaign donor base is led by lawyers/law firms and largely Delaware-based interests; this is noted as correlation, not proof, and no specific donation-vote quid-pro-quo pattern was identified.
Public record
- In Congress since
- 2017
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Environment and Public Works
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions - Missed votes, 119th Congress
- 0.7% (6 of 915; median member 1.9%)
- Campaign money, 2025–26 cycle
- $1.0M raised · 29% from PACs & committees · $121K 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: 3 data aggregator · 6 reference database · 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.