Congressman Mark Sanford Committee Assignments Congress

Contributors 1993 - 2018

Top contributors

Lazard Freres & Co $38,700$38,700$0
Zeus Inc $32,200$32,200$0
Chilton Investments $29,700$29,700$0
Coastal Lumber $26,600$26,600$0
Boeing Co $25,000$0$25,000
Thermal Engineering $20,700$20,700$0
Greystar Real Estate Partners $20,600$20,600$0
CSX Corp $20,500$1,000$19,500
Automotive Free International Trade PAC $20,000$0$20,000
State Farm Insurance $19,050$19,050$0
Koch Industries $18,350$5,350$13,000
Eighty-Six LLC $17,600$17,600$0
CCA Industries $17,400$17,400$0
National Assn of Realtors $17,000$0$17,000
Goldman Sachs $16,950$16,950$0
Southeastern Freight Lines $16,900$16,900$0
Morgan Stanley $16,650$16,650$0
Clorox Co $15,900$15,900$0
Liberty Media Corp $15,600$15,600$0
Capital Trust Finance $15,300$15,300$0
Monday Real Estate Services $15,300$15,300$0

*registrants, or active lobbying firm

These tables list the top donors to candidates in the 1993 - 2018 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest. We do this in two ways:

  • First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.
  • Second, we standardize the name of the donor's employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization's name winds up on the Top Contributor list.

Of course, it is impossible to know either the economic interest that made each individual contribution possible or the motivation for each individual giver. However, the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.

In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to "bundle" contributions to the candidate. In other cases—both with private companies and with government agencies, non-profits and educational institutions—the reason for the contributions may be completely unrelated to the organization.

Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.


The figures profiled here include money from two sources: These contributors were either the sponsors of a PAC that gave to the politician, or they were listed as an individual donor's employer. Donors who give more than $200 to any federal candidate, PAC or party committee must list their occupation and employer. Based on that information, the donor is given an economic code. These totals are conservative, as not all of the individual contributions have yet been classified by the Center.

In cases where two or more people from the same family contributed, the income-earner's occupation/employer is assigned to all non-wage earning family members. If, for instance, Henry Jones lists his employer as First National Bank, his wife Matilda lists "Homemaker" and 12-year old Tammy shows up as "Student," the Center would identify all their contributions as being related to the "First National Bank" since that's the source of the family's income.

Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1993 - 2018 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")


Sometimes it's hard to make apple-to-apple comparisons across some of the pages in a candidate's profile. Here's why:

Summary numbers - specifically "Total Raised and Spent" and "PAC/Individual Split" - are based on summary reports filed by the candidates with the Federal Election Commission. All other numbers in these profiles ("Quality of Disclosure," "Geography" and "Special Interests") are derived from detailed FEC reports that itemize all contributions of $200 or more.

There is also a time lag in posting the information. While summary numbers are reported almost immediately by the FEC -- and listed quickly on OpenSecrets -- processing and analyzing the detailed records takes much longer. For that reason, summary numbers are usually higher (and more current) than the numbers based on detailed records.


The figures in these profiles are taken from databases uploaded by the FEC to the internet on the first day of every month. Those databases are only as current as the FEC has been able to compile by that date (see the note above about lag times for data entry).

The Center updates figures for "Total Raised and Spent" and for "PAC/Individual Split" a few days after the first of the month. The remaining figures - based on detailed contribution data - is updated by the Center after the 20th of every month. This gives us time to analyze the contributions and categorize them by industry and interest group.

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: info[at]


Legislative Metrics

Read our 2017 Report Card for Sanford.

Ideology–Leadership Chart

Sanford is shown as a purple triangle ▲ in our ideology-leadership chart below. Each dot is a member of the House of Representatives positioned according to our liberal–conservative ideology score (left to right) and our leadership score (leaders are toward the top).

The chart is based on the bills Sanford has sponsored and cosponsored. See full analysis methodology.

Ratings from Advocacy Organizations

Committee Membership

Marshall “Mark” Sanford sits on the following committees:

  • House Committee on the Budget
  • House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
  • House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Bills Sponsored

Issue Areas

Sanford sponsors bills primarily in these issue areas:

Economics and Public Finance (26%)Transportation and Public Works (16%)International Affairs (16%)Public Lands and Natural Resources (11%)Taxation (11%)Energy (11%)Armed Forces and National Security (11%)

Recent Bills

Some of Sanford’s most recently sponsored bills include...

View All » | View Cosponsors »

Voting Record

Key Votes

Sanford’s VoteVote Description
Nay H.R. 1039: Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017
May 19, 2017. Passed 229/177.
H.R. 1039 amends the federal criminal code to authorize a probation officer to arrest a person, without warrant, if there is probable cause to believe that person forcibly assaulted or obstructed a probation officer while performing their official duties. The bill also would direct the ...
Aye S. 612: A bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the “George P. Kazen Federal Building ...
Dec 8, 2016. Passed 360/61.
No H.R. 3038: Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II
Jul 15, 2015. Passed 312/119.
Aye H.R. 2146: Defending Public Safety Employees’ Retirement Act
Jun 18, 2015. Passed 218/208.
This vote made H.R. 2146 the vehicle for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal currently being negotiated. H.R. 2146 was originally introduced as a bill to address issues with retirement funds of federal law enforcement officers and firefighters. ...
Nay H.R. 2048: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015
May 13, 2015. Passed 338/88.
The USA Freedom Act (H.R. 2048, Pub.L. 114–23) is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015 that restored in modified form several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of ...
Nay H.R. 83 (113th): Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
Dec 11, 2014. Passed 219/206.
This bill became the vehicle for passage of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 [pdf], which was approved by the House on December 11, 2014 and by the Senate on December 13, 2014. The bill was originally introduced on January 3, 2013 by ...
Nay H.R. 4681 (113th): Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
Dec 10, 2014. Passed 325/100.
No H.J.Res. 124 (113th): Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015
Sep 17, 2014. Passed 319/108.
Nay S. 1603 (113th): Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act
Sep 16, 2014. Passed 359/64.
Nay H.R. 3393 (113th): Student and Family Tax Simplification Act
Jul 24, 2014. Passed 227/187.

Missed Votes

From Jan 1995 to Mar 2018, Sanford missed 142 of 6,934 roll call votes, which is 2.0%. This is on par with the median of 2.3% among the lifetime records of representatives currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time.

Show the numbers...

Time PeriodVotes EligibleMissed VotesPercentPercentile
1995 Jan-Mar27900.0%0th
1995 Apr-Jun18910.5%22nd
1995 Jul-Sep23210.4%23rd
1995 Oct-Dec18500.0%0th
1996 Jan-Mar11010.9%25th
1996 Apr-Jun18200.0%0th
1996 Jul-Sep16331.8%47th
1997 Jan-Mar7122.8%48th
1997 Apr-Jun17463.4%68th
1997 Jul-Sep23241.7%49th
1997 Oct-Nov16300.0%0th
1998 Jan-Mar8933.4%63rd
1998 Apr-Jun18542.2%46th
1998 Jul-Sep19931.5%43rd
1998 Oct-Dec7434.1%67th
1999 Jan-Mar7700.0%0th
1999 Apr-Jun18410.5%15th
1999 Jul-Sep20442.0%58th
1999 Oct-Nov14674.8%74th
2000 Jan-Mar951313.7%85th
2000 Apr-Jun27720.7%27th
2000 Jul-Sep13000.0%0th
2000 Oct-Dec10165.9%43rd
2013 Apr-Jun15721.3%43rd
2013 Jul-Sep20000.0%0th
2013 Oct-Dec13785.8%83rd
2014 Jan-Mar14821.4%40th
2014 Apr-Jun21910.5%24th
2014 Jul-Sep14721.4%49th
2014 Nov-Dec4900.0%0th
2015 Jan-Mar14496.3%84th
2015 Apr-Jun24452.0%65th
2015 Jul-Sep13900.0%0th
2015 Oct-Dec17763.4%78th
2016 Jan-Mar13785.8%68th
2016 Apr-Jun204104.9%75th
2016 Jul-Sep23210.4%23rd
2016 Nov-Dec4800.0%0th
2017 Jan-Mar20800.0%0th
2017 Apr-Jun13600.0%0th
2017 Jul-Sep199199.5%91st
2017 Oct-Dec16753.0%65th
2018 Jan-Mar10100.0%0th

Primary Sources

The information on this page is originally sourced from a variety of materials, including:

Marshall “Mark” Sanford is pronounced:

MAR-shuhl // SAN-furd

The letters stand for sounds according to the following table:

LetterSounds As In

Capital letters indicate a stressed syllable.

0 Thoughts to “Congressman Mark Sanford Committee Assignments Congress

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *