Who are the 10 richest members of Congress?

The 10 wealthiest members of Congress in 2012 include Senate and House members hailing from all over the US. Can you guess which political party had the most lawmakers on the list – and who grabbed the top spot? 

9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) – Calif.

Eric Thayer/Reuters/File
Sen. Dianne Feinstein waves onstage while addressing the second session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. in this September 2012 file photo. Feinstein's assets with her husband, Richard Blum, include valuable real estate investments and a stake in a Washington state health club chain.

Minimum net worth: $41.78 million 
Feinstein's minimum net worth dropped about $3.6 million to $41.78 million in 2011. 
But the reduction is hardly something to worry about when you're one of the wealthiest lawmakers in Congress. 
Much of the apparent decline is due to a mortgage of $1 million to $5 million taken out on Feinstein's San Francisco home in 2010. This year's financial disclosures were the first batch that required lawmakers to disclose mortgages on personal residences that do not generate income. 
The California Democrat continues to share a $5 million to $25 million investment in San Francisco's Carlton Hotel Properties with her husband. They also own a Kauai, Hawaii, condominium valued at $1 million to $5 million. Together the properties generated $150,000 to $1.1 million in rental income in 2011. 
Like many of the wealthiest lawmakers, much of Feinstein's fortune comes from her spouse. Her husband, Richard Blum, is president and CEO of the private equity firm Blum Capital Partners LP
Feinstein reported that Blum holds more than a dozen assets valued at $1 million or more, including investment partnerships, limited liability corporations and a stake in OZ Fitness, a health club chain in Washington state. 
Assets held independently by spouses do not need to be delineated beyond $1 million on the Senate disclosure forms, so Feinstein's true wealth could be far more than what appears on paper. 

2 of 10

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.