Own stocks in oil or gas companies? If you’re a member of Congress, the odds are about one-in-five that the answer is yes.

Oil and gas industry holdings are some of the most popular investments among lawmakers and their spouses, and in recent years have grown in value, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

This comes at a time of notable congressional scrutiny of energy- and oil industry-related issues, from April’s BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to battles over climate change policy and energy legislation.

In 2004, 130 lawmakers reported investments worth a minimum of $21.3 million in the oil and gas industry. The exact values of their investments are not known because lawmakers are allowed to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges. Given this, these assets might have been worth up to $48.2 million.

Nevertheless, four years later, the value of oil and gas holdings among members of Congress increased by at least 20 percent.

In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available and analyzed, 115 members of the House and Senate together reported a minimum of $25.6 million invested in oil and gas assets. (Because lawmakers report the value of these holdings in broad ranges, these investments could have been worth nearly three times as much: $70.7 million.)

During this five-year period, the minimum value of the average oil-invested lawmaker rose even more, going from an average minimum value of about $164,000 in 2004 to about $223,100 in 2008 — an increase of 36 percent.

Of course, during this five-year period there was also some oscillation.

The value of all oil and gas assets held by members of Congress and their spouses actually peaked in 2007, at a minimum of $35.2 million and a maximum of $85 million. That’s equivalent to about $304,000 per invested lawmaker — or about $733,000 per invested lawmaker if the maximum values are closer to reality.

Year Min. Overall

Value Max. Overall

Value # Average (Min.) Average (Max.) 2004 $21,329,428 $48,280,060 130 $164,073 $371,385 2005 $25,001,661 $58,488,177 137 $182,494 $426,921 2006 $30,247,040 $72,567,544 133 $227,421 $545,621 2007 $35,284,900 $85,037,960 116 $304,180 $733,086 2008 $25,663,613 $70,704,201 115 $223,162 $614,819

ExxonMobil is the most popular oil-related investment among members of Congress. This investment accounts for somewhere between 22 and 31 percent of the value of all congressional oil and gas holdings in each year between 2004 and 2008.

Together, investments in ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP accounted for 54 percent of the total value of all congressional oil and gas holdings in 2004. Five years later, investments in these five companies still accounted for 44 percent of the minimum value of the overall congressional portfolio in this industry:

Sixty-nine members of Congress held ExxonMobil stock in 2004, when these holdings accounted for 31 percent of the total congressional oil and gas portfolio. By 2008, only 41 members of Congress owned ExxonMobil stock.

The minimum value of all ExxonMobil holdings fluctuated during these years between $6.2 million and $7.5 million, reaching its peak value in 2007. That year, four dozen lawmakers reported owning a piece of ExxonMobil.





The value of congressional BP assets peaked in 2005 at a minimum value of $1.6 million — about 6.4 percent of the 109th Congress’ total portfolio in the industry. Thirty-one lawmakers reported owning a share of the now-beleaguered oil company that year.

By 2008, the overall value of BP assets was a minimum of $526,000 — representing just 2 percent of Congress’ total oil and gas-related portfolio.

Roughly two- to three-dozen members of Congress held investments in ConocoPhillips and BP every year during this five-year period as well — although in 2008, just 13 lawmakers owned stock in BP, its lowest point of popularity during this span.

BP this year has been subject to intense governmental scrutiny resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion on April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico. Some members of Congress, however, have criticized the federal government for being too heavy-handed with BP, which operated the ill-fated rig and is being held responsible for the massive clean-up of tens of millions of gallons of oil that leaked out in subsequent months.

The minimum estimated value of ConocoPhillips holdings peaked in 2006, at $1.4 million, with 35 lawmakers reporting these holdings. Chevron also saw its peak that year. Thirty-four lawmakers reported a minimum of about $1.6 million in Chevron stock that year — representing 5.6 percent of the value of all congressional oil and gas assets.

Like ExxonMobil, investments in Royal Dutch Shell accounted for the largest portion of the Congress’ oil and gas holdings in 2004, when 18 lawmakers reported a minimum of $2.4 million in holdings. This accounted for 11 percent of the value of the overall congressional oil and gas portfolio.

The minimum estimated value of Shell investments, meanwhile, peaked in 2005, when 20 lawmakers reported at least $2.6 million in Shell investments.

Meanwhile, the value of investments in Transocean, the company which owned the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig, spiked in 2007. That year, 17 lawmakers owned a minimum of $1.3 million in the oil company’s stock — about 4 percent of the minimum estimated value of all congressional oil and gas investments.

Investments in Halliburton, which had contractors working on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, have never accounted for more than 1 percent of the minimum estimated value of all congressional oil and gas investments.

For a more detailed look at these trends, please see the following table and charts. Click on the image to see a full-size version:

Note: The values used all represent the minimum amounts reported by sitting members of Congress for that particular year.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ExxonMobil $6,637,066 $6,576,991 $6,997,311 $7,901,364 $6,256,168 Royal Dutch Shell $2,435,355 $2,596,046 $2,303,045 $2,350,882 $2,256,325 Herger Gas $1,000,001 $1,000,001 $1,000,001 $1,000,001 $1,000,001 Chevron $942,737 $1,259,177 $1,688,447 $1,087,306 $1,260,364 BP $917,434 $1,591,835 $1,288,292 $1,261,800 $526,034 ConocoPhillips $658,385 $796,904 $1,358,447 $1,218,103 $904,592 Halliburton $69,006 $204,007 $180,207 $202,286 $55,980 Transocean $47,406 $230,832 $472,175 $1,358,965 $274,835

Notably, a handful of lawmakers were consistently responsible for the largest portion of the overall congressional portfolio.

These members of Congress are: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Reps. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), Kenny Marchant (R-Texas), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Wally Herger (R-Calif.), John Carter (R-Texas), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).

Of these, two are no longer in office: Hayes was defeated during the 2008 election, while Bradley lost to a Democratic challenger in 2006. Hayes’ downfall removed more than $5 million in oil and gas assets from the overall congressional holdings.

How concerned should the public be that lawmakers who are heavily invested in the industry might be averse to supporting new regulations? Do these investments color the way members of Congress legislate?

One member of Congress says his oil and gas holdings do not influence his political decisions.

“Sen. Kerry has been the Senate’s best environmental champion for more than 25 years and has written and urged legislation to end our dependence on foreign oil. Inherited holdings in family trusts he has no control over whatsoever clearly have no impact on his fight for a green economy and a clean environment,” Kerry spokesperson Whitney Smith told OpenSecrets Blog, echoing what his office said in June when we inquired specifically about his small holding in BP stock.

Other lawmakers declined comment or could not be reached.

Yet these concerns about lawmakers’ investments worry some political observers.

“There’s a risk that someone may be making decisions based on the interests of their portfolios rather than what’s in the best interest of the American people,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) told OpenSecrets Blog.

“The American people expect their public servants to represent their interests, not fatten their stock portfolios,” added Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who has introduced legislation to ban congressional insider trading.

However, one professor who has studied the returns of congressional investors has a more nuanced stance.

“There’s a strong argument to be made that we want our congressmen to have a financial interest in the legislation that’s coming up. There’s a case to be made that that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they developed residency requirements,” said Alan Ziobrowski, a professor at Georgia State University who has found that senators who actively traded outperformed the stock market by 12 percent during the 1990s.

“Is it a bad thing that the congressman from Detroit gets appointed to the transportation committee and simultaneously owns lots of Ford stock?” Ziobrowski continued. “Will he not fight harder to protect a local company if he has a financial interest in that company? Does not his financial interest in Ford more closely align his interests with those of his constituents (the people of Detroit)?”

But even Ziobrowski acknowledged a potential for pitfalls in this approach.

“If a member of Congress is heavily invested in an industry or company in my district, I’m okay with that,” he said. “If their primary motivation is their stock portfolio when there’s a disconnect between their financial interests and those of their constituents, then that’s an issue.”

Congressional financial disclose reports for 2009 were made public by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate in June. The Center for Responsive Politics is currently processing these reports. Updated information about congressional investments in the oil and gas industry, as well as other industries, will be available this autumn.



Center for Responsive Politics’ researchers Dan Auble and Douglas Weber contributed to this report.

Go to “Fueling Washington: How Oil Money Drives Politics” series page



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: