Wealth gap widens for Ohio reps, constituents

WASHINGTON — Members of Ohio’s congressional delegation have watched their net worth grow by an average of nearly 78 percent during their respective times in Congress, with some members becoming millionaires and some seeing their net worth more than double.

While only 5 percent of Ohioans can claim to be millionaires, nearly 56 percent of the state’s congressional delegation can, with more than $1 million in assets, according to a Dispatch analysis.

Overall, the state’s congressional delegation claimed collective assets of between $62 million and $182 million, reflecting what congressional watchdogs indicate is an increasing trend: Congress, which is supposed to be a microcosm of America, is increasingly a microcosm of the wealthiest part of the country.

“Unfortunately, Congress has increasingly become a millionaire’s club,” said Stephen Spaulding of the watchdog Common Cause. “And with that is both the appearance and the reality that in many cases, they are out of touch with everyday Americans.”

The Dispatch looked at Ohio lawmakers’ 2016 personal financial disclosure and compared them with their initial forms, taking inflation into account.

The delegation is no anomaly: A 2014 Center for Responsive Politics study found that more than 50 percent of the members of Congress were millionaires.

Those with the campaignfinance watchdog worry about the implications of having so many wealthy decision-makers. Most lawmakers, said Alex Baumgart of the Center for Responsive Politics, “haven’t ever needed to worry about the problems and pressures that most lower- to middle-class Ohioans face — from securing gainful employment to having enough money saved to deal with unforeseen shocks.”

He added: “It’s ultimately up to the American people to decide if the millionaires they elect to Congress are doing an adequate job of representing their interests.”

The Ohio delegation’s overall wealth, however, is somewhat skewed. Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Wadsworth, who is running for governor, claimed between $34 million and $94 million of the total, invested in assets ranging from Raytheon to Timken to Home Depot.

Still, 10 members of the state’s congressional delegation had more than $1 million in assets.

One central Ohio lawmaker was among that group. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Jefferson Township, showed between $1.54 million and $6.52 million in assets.

Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Genoa Township, had between $773,040 and $2.1 million in assets. And Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Upper Arlington, had between $628,051 and $1.97 million. Tiberi and Stivers both had liabilities that drove their net wealth down to slightly below the milliondollar threshold.

Still, Tiberi, Stivers and Beatty, like the majority of the congressional delegation, have seen their wealth grow from the time they entered Congress. Tiberi, the longestserving of the trio, has had the most time to watch his wealth grow. When he came to Congress 16 years ago, he had between $445,015 and $1.2 million in assets. While his income rose, it increased below the level of inflation.

Members of Congress are required to fill out by May 15 each year a form detailing their personal finances, including assets and liabilities.

The Dispatch analysis was not without obstacles. The biggest: Federal disclosure forms only list ranges of assets and liabilities, not exact amounts. Timing matters, too. For Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Toledo Democrat elected in 1982, The Dispatch had to rely on a disclosure from 1995 — personal financial disclosures from the 1980s did not offer significant detail. For Rep. Warren Davidson, a Troy Republican, The Dispatch was only able to review his 2016 disclosure — he was elected in 2016.

To determine the net worth of lawmakers, The Dispatch added up the minimum level of all assets as well as the maximum level of all assets, subtracted liabilities that weren’t related to their personal mortgages, and then used the average to determine net worth.

The disclosures are important for several reasons. First, because members of Congress often pass bills benefiting certain companies and industries, it’s worthwhile to see where their assets lie, lest there be a potential conflict of interest.

Also, it’s important to know the degree to which lawmakers mirror the public that elects them. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ report three years ago, at least 268 of the 534 members of Congress at the time had an average net worth of $1 million or more.

And finally: While wealth generally grows, some members have seen their net grow beyond the rates that Americans enjoy. Among Ohio members, lawmakers who came with significant wealth generally saw their wealth grow at a faster rate than those with lower levels of income. In Congress, money is like yeast: If you’ve got some, it grows.

Take Renacci. When he was a candidate for Congress in 2009, he had a net worth of $24 million. By 2016, however, he was claiming a net worth of $64 million. Beatty also saw her wealth grow. As a candidate for Congress in 2011, she claimed a net worth of $2.5 million. As of 2016, that had grown to $4.03 million.

They were among nine lawmakers who saw their net assets grow at a rate higher than the rate of inflation during the time they were in Congress.

Only one lawmaker — Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana — saw his assets go down during his time in Congress, though some members added liabilities over time.

Lawmakers’ wealth, Spaulding said, may determine who wins an election. He said it costs nearly $2 million to successfully run for Congress, and many successful candidates either initially pay for at least part of their first campaigns or tap their wealthy friends for donations.

“That election money has to come from somewhere,” he said.

And after they’re elected, they have to raise money to win the next election — meaning, again, they must be in touch with people of means.

He said while lawmakers may come into office with the best of intentions, “when congressmen are on the fundraising treadmill talking to people, they might start hearing concerns that are not necessarily the concerns of people getting by on minimum wage or even middle-class Americans.”

But James Slepian, a spokesman for Renacci, said while Renacci is wealthy now, he grew up on the cusp of poverty in western Pennsylvania. His wealth, Slepian said, is entirely his own.

“Jim understands firsthand the challenges families and small businesses face because he’s lived them, and that’s the life perspective that has shaped his approach to leadership and service,” he said.

Beatty, a first-generation college graduate with working-class roots, said her background has helped her understand constituents from all sorts of socioeconomic backgrounds.

“I think it’s important to work with the wealthiest and poorest,” she said. “I think my constituents appreciate that I understand both sides.”

In some cases, lawmakers saw their wealth grow for personal reasons. When Rep. Mike Turner came to Congress in 2002, he claimed between $153,026 and $695,000 worth of assets on his financial disclosure form. In 2016, he claimed between $2.8 million and $10.3 million. The difference? Turner married an energy lobbyist in 2015, and her assets as well as his were listed on the latter document. Turner filed for divorce earlier this year. The divorce has not yet been finalized.

While Renacci was by far the wealthiest in the delegation — the Center for Responsive Politics in 2014 listed him the 15th wealthiest member of Congress — a few Ohio lawmakers had more modest investments.

Jordan lost money while in Congress, even as he’s gained power as a founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus. Jordan claimed between $133,007 and $396,000 in assets in 2016, down from when he was a congressional candidate in 2005, claiming between $148,000 and $446,000 in assets. He also claimed liabilities in 2016 that included between $15,002 and $50,000 for a college loan for his daughter. He claimed no liabilities in 2005.

And Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, had minimal assets when he came to Congress in 2003 — between $1,000 and $15,000, with between $25,002 and $65,000 in debt. But in 2013, that changed: He got married, wrote two books and sold a house. In 2016, his assets were between $184,010 and $512,000 — in part because of his wife’s retirement and in part because of the potential future earnings from the books. Several of those assets, however, were in the form of college funds for his child and two stepchildren.

Kyle Kondik, a political analyst with the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said the idea that the wealthy are part of the political ruling class dates back to the American Revolution. The nation’s founders, he said, were typically wealthy.

But Kondik said that living the lifestyle of a congressman, too, has its costs. Lawmakers, he said, typically maintain two residences — one in the district and one in D.C. — and the latter city has one of the highest costs of living in the country.

He said while lawmakers don’t always mirror their constituents financially, the bigger issue in politics, is a lack of empathy, which doesn’t necessarily correlate with wealth.

“Is it easier to have empathy if you’re wealthy or poor? Who knows,” he said.