Mario Diaz-Balart
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), a senior House Appropriations Committee member first elected in 2002, shows a modest individual-stock trading footprint (roughly $145K in disclosed trades, mostly older, e.g., 2017 sales of HPQ/AMZN/HPE) with no documented suspicious-timing scandal. His most notable accountability issue is a long-standing family revolving-door pattern: his brother, former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, has earned over $2.5M lobbying for Taiwan and Morocco — both countries Mario advocates for in Congress — though contracts formally bar lobbying his office, and a nephew (Daniel Diaz-Balart) also entered lobbying. Campaign funding is heavily PAC- and pro-Israel-concentrated (AIPAC-aligned ~$516K career), a correlation worth noting given his appropriations/foreign-aid role but not proof of quid pro quo. His lifetime missed-vote rate (4.6%) is roughly double the chamber median, and reported high-dollar campaign meal spending warrants monitoring but no confirmed personal-use violation.
Public record
- In Congress since
- 2003
- Committees
- Appropriations (Vice Chair)
- Missed votes, 119th Congress
- 3.9% (26 of 674; median member 1.9%)
- Campaign money, 2025–26 cycle
- $2.1M raised · 41% from PACs & committees · $2.5M 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 · 4 reference database · 2 news reporting. Score = weighted average of the components that have data; the 1 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.