Few Rules Govern Contributions to Congressional Portrait Funds

Democratic Rep. Nydia Velázquez looks ethereal amid a swirl of orange and blue and green, the New York City skyline towering behind her.

Former Republican Rep. Kevin Brady, wearing a navy business suit and royal blue tie, leans over a boardroom table, framed by the American and Texas flags.

Former Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney drapes a New York City Fire Department jacket over a yellow ball gown.

For select House of Representatives committee chairs, a decidedly artistic perk for their legislative service is a custom-made portrait, created by an artist of their choosing in coordination with the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. These paintings adorn the walls of congressional hearing rooms and are destined to hang for perpetuity inside the Capitol.

But a NOTUS analysis of obscure federal lobbying records indicates that congressional committee chair portraits are also a magnet for lobbyists and special interest money. This decade, corporations, unions, trade associations and individual lobbyists with significant business before Congress have poured more than $600,000 into portrait funds for several current and former federal lawmakers.

Congressional committee chair portraits used to be funded by taxpayer dollars. But during the 1990s, Congress prohibited this practice in favor of private donations — similar to the public-to-private shift in funding for national party conventions.

For more than 25 years, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society — a congressionally chartered nonprofit involved in a range of civic- and history-focused activities, including an ongoing “January 6 Oral History Project” — has managed the finances of portrait commissioning committees. Donations made to the U.S. Capitol Historical Society are tax deductible, including those earmarked for congressional chair portraits.

Unlike federal campaign donations or lobbying expenditures, which are subject to robust ethics and transparency laws and regulations, few rules govern contributions to congressional portrait funds. There’s also no standard for how such contributions — no matter their value — must be publicly disclosed.

Only registered federal lobbyists, or entities that employ registered federal lobbyists, are legally required to disclose their donations — usually months after the fact in a little-known congressional database. Meanwhile, donors that don’t fit that narrow description are under no obligation to disclose their portrait fund contributions at all, and their identities remain unknown.

“It presents obvious opportunity for corruption and backdoor pay-to-play,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, the acting vice president of policy and government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog organization.

“It’s an example of weak ethics and anti-corruption rules. There should be greater transparency, because more transparency is always going to be better,” said Jessica Tillipman, the associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Conceivably, government watchdogs warn, someone could quietly cut a big check to help bankroll the painting of a lawmaker with direct control over a particular bill or legislative matter of great interest to them, and the public would never know.

Brady, who served as House Ways and Means Committee chair from 2015 to 2019, is among the most popular beneficiaries of lobbyist money directed toward his portrait, painted by the artist Stephen Craighead and unveiled in 2022.

Between 2021 and 2022, 26 companies, trade groups, political action committees and individual lobbyists contributed a combined $132,500 to Brady’s portrait fund. Brady left Congress in 2023 and now works as a senior consultant for law and lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Oil company ConocoPhillips ($25,000), AT&T ($10,000), NRG Energy PAC ($10,000) and the Select Medical PAC ($10,000) rank among the top donors to Brady’s portrait fund, according to federal lobbying records. Brady did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Rep. Richard Neal, a Democrat from Massachusetts who succeeded Brady as Ways and Means chair and served in that role from 2019 to 2023, is currently having his own portrait painted.

Since 2023, federal lobbying records indicated that 18 companies, trade groups, PACs and individual lobbyists contributed a combined $128,000 to the portrait fund for Neal, who now serves as the ranking member on Ways and Means and plans to run for reelection in 2026.

Insurer MetLife ($25,000), MGM Resorts ($25,000) and HCA Healthcare ($10,000) are among the most generous donors to Neal’s portrait fund. Others include tobacco company Altria, accounting firm Deloitte, shipping giant FedEx and the American Hospital Association PAC ($5,000 each).

Neal “has no idea who donated” to his portrait fund, spokesperson Dylan Peachey told NOTUS, adding that the money “hasn’t had any effect, as there are levels of removal and space” between Neal and his portrait fund.

As for the portrait itself, Peachey says Neal considers it a “time-honored tradition and a real privilege.” She said Neal hopes to unveil it in 2027, when he would be in line to again become chair of the Ways and Means Committee — should Democrats win back the House majority in 2026.

Neal has been “extremely involved in the selection of the artist” and “the choice will make sense given the chairman’s roots,” Peachey said, declining to name the artist.

NOTUS attempted to contact more than two-dozen entities listed in federal lobbying records as having contributed this decade to a congressional chair portrait fund. Almost all were silent on why they gave and whether they planned to give more in the future.

“We will not have anything to share on the record at this time,” said Kate Frischmann of Microsoft, which has spread $20,000 among the portrait funds of Brady, Neal and the late Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat.

“We won’t be commenting,” read an unsigned statement from the American Beverage Association, which in June contributed $10,000 to the portrait fund of Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts who from 2019 to 2023 served as chair of the House Rules Committee and is currently its ranking member.

The American Hospital Association and energy company Public Service Enterprise Group likewise declined comment, while other recent portrait fund donors, including Comcast, Walmart, Altria, MetLife, HCA Healthcare, Deloitte, FedEx and defense contractors Northrop Grumman, RTX, L3Harris and SpaceX did not respond to repeated inquiries. Several individual lobbyist donors also demurred.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who himself has a congressional committee chair portrait, told NOTUS he donated $5,000 in May toward Republican Rep. Jim Jordan’s yet-to-be-released portrait because of their friendship and service together on the House Oversight Committee. Jordan is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee who previously led the largely pro-Donald Trump Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

“Jim never asked for the contribution but I am in a situation where I am able to help other members,” said Davis, now a partner at the lobbying firm Holland & Knight.

Mandy Schaumburg, a vice president at the lobbying and government relations firm Penn Hill Group, said she made a $1,000 contribution toward an upcoming portrait of Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, for similar reasons. Foxx served as chair of the House Education Committee from 2023 to 2025, and is now chair of the House Rules Committee.

“I worked with Chairwoman Foxx for a long time and wanted to help honor her service,” said Schaumburg, noting that she’ll “possibly” make future congressional portrait contributions.

Foxx is joined by Rep. Frank Pallone — a Democrat from New Jersey who served as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2019 to 2023 — among current lawmakers whose pending portraits have attracted donations. Comcast, the Public Service Enterprise Group and Verizon’s PAC are among contributors to Pallone’s portrait fund.

Similarly, the completed portrait of Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Arkansas who served as chair of the House Budget Committee from 2018 to 2019 and continues to serve in Congress, scored donations from RTX ($25,000), The Home Depot ($20,000), Walmart ($20,000) and the International Council of Shopping Centers PAC ($500), per federal lobbying records.

A pair of registered lobbyists contributed to Velázquez’s portrait, which has not otherwise attracted the financial attention of corporate or union donors, according to federal records.

While the congressional offices of Jordan, Velázquez, Pallone and Womack acknowledged NOTUS’ requests for comment about their recent or in-progress portraits, they declined to make anyone available for an interview or answer questions sent by email. Brady and Maloney did not respond to messages.

On the “History, Art & Archives” section of the House’s website, Womack said: “I hope its presence inspires members to commit to doing the work of their country, no matter how difficult, owing much of their successes to those who have come before them. That’s exactly how I feel when I see the portraits in committee rooms.”

Portrait costs “can vary based on the notoriety of the artist, complexity of the intended image, and number of revisions needed among other factors,” the U.S. Capitol Historical Society’s executive vice president, Samuel Holliday, told NOTUS, explaining that some artists “have chosen to proffer their services at a reduced rate in appreciation for a particular honoree’s legislative achievements.”

The U.S. Capitol Historical Society does not publish an itemized list of portrait donor names and corresponding donation amounts.

The society did disclose spending $387,900 on “portrait expenses” between mid-2023 and mid-2024, and $628,038 between mid-2022 and mid-2023, according to federal tax return documents. An independently audited financial statement indicates that the society’s portrait funds together contained a surplus of about $472,000 as of last year.

Overall, the society had more than $3.6 million in net assets as of mid-2024, its tax return indicated.

“Commissioning committees are neither managed nor controlled by the portrait honorees in compliance with congressional ethics guidelines,” Holliday said. “The society follows careful procedures to ensure robust internal controls, undertaking a thorough annual audit by an outside firm.”

He added: “If our donors wish to share their particular reasons for donating to the society — such as which program they intend to support with their gift — they are more than welcome to do so.”

As for Davis, the congressman-turned-lobbyist who donated to Jordan’s portrait fund, increased donation disclosure requirements struck him as overkill.

“I disclosed all my portrait contributors at my unveiling, and that is what is generally done at the unveilings I have attended. No secrets here but there is generally no politics, either,” he said, adding that donors often give money at the end of a member of Congress’ time in office or after they retire.