What specific value brackets do congressional financial disclosure forms use and how have they changed over time?

1. What the forms ask for today: ranges, thresholds and required transaction reporting

Current House and Senate disclosure regimes instruct filers to report the category or “value range” for assets and liabilities instead of exact valuations and to describe transactions above statutory thresholds—transactions exceeding $1,000 must be reported on Periodic Transaction Reports and the Financial Disclosure Statement requires reporting of property interests with fair market value over $1,000 ^{[4] [5]}; public filing systems for House and Senate reports are maintained online and prior-year forms are available from the ethics committees and the Clerk’s Office ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

2. What the publicly available data show about the ranges used

Secondary aggregators and watchdogs parsing these public filings treat some categories as de facto bracket endpoints—for example OpenSecrets’ methodology notes a top asset category labelled “Over $50 million” (used as $50,000,001 in their calculations) and a spouse top category of “Over $1 million” (treated as $1,000,001) when exact upper bounds are unknown ^[2]; Ballotpedia and other guides reiterate that forms use broad value ranges for assets and liabilities rather than precise numbers ^[1].

3. How statutory and procedural changes have altered reporting over time

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created the baseline annual disclosure requirement and required reporting of property interests over $1,000 in fair market value ^[5], while the STOCK Act of 2012 enhanced transparency by mandating online posting of filings and by increasing the frequency and scope of transaction reporting ^{[2] [3]}; House and Senate committees have also issued periodic clarifications and “pink sheets” that refine how categories and thresholds should be reported ^[6].

4. Where the ambiguity and criticism come from

The continued use of wide value ranges has attracted critique from reform groups and watchdogs who argue those ranges make the disclosures “almost meaningless,” calling for narrower brackets or additional tax-report cross-checks to improve accuracy and public usefulness ^[9]; the GAO and other oversight bodies have repeatedly examined weaknesses and made recommendations for strengthening disclosure systems, while noting agencies sometimes use alternative confidential forms for specific advisory roles ^[10].

5. What is not fully settled in the public reporting examined here

None of the cited sources publishes a single authoritative list of every bracket label (for example, the exact set of mid‑range brackets currently printed on each annual House or Senate form) within the snippets provided; the House and Senate make current and historical form templates and guidance publicly available and those documents (and the committees’ “pink sheets”) are the definitive source for the exact wording and bracket labels used in any given year ^{[6] [11] [3]}.

6. Bottom line for readers and researchers

The practical reality is that congressional disclosures use pre‑defined value ranges and statutory thresholds (not exact dollar reporting) and that transparency has improved in steps—most importantly via the STOCK Act’s posting and transaction rules—yet the breadth of the ranges and some exemptions remain contentious; to see the precise bracket labels and any year‑to‑year tweaks, consult the House and Senate financial disclosure forms and the ethics committees’ guidance and historical “pink sheets,” which are the authoritative sources ^{[6] [11] [3]}.