Campaign-finance signals

Neutral "worth a look" observations computed from disclosed FEC filings for political committees and 2026 candidates. This is a documented registry, not a leaderboard or an accusation — a signal is not evidence of wrongdoing, and each one shows its caveats and links its source.

Every figure here is public FEC data. Many patterns shown are entirely legal (self-funding, leadership-PAC spending) — the tag on each signal says whether it's context, worth a look, or (for future signals) reportable if unexplained. The FEC frequently declines to act, so a signal existing is never a finding.

Signals are ratio metrics on disclosed committee/candidate totals: a PAC's share of spending that reaches candidates, a leadership PAC's contribution share, and a candidate's self-funding share. Itemized-transaction signals (straw-donor clustering, vendor self-dealing) require deeper FEC data and are coming. Learn more →

Sort

573 signals.

NEVER SURRENDER, INC. Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $36,504,917

This leadership PAC directed 1.8% of its $36,504,917 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
EMILYS LIST Context

Direct-contribution share · $39,714,235

Of $39,714,235 spent in 2026, 2% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
DEMOCRATIC ACTION Context

Direct-contribution share · $17,961,941

Of $17,961,941 spent in 2026, 0.9% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
SAVE AMERICA Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $25,578,488

This leadership PAC directed 0% of its $25,578,488 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
END CITIZENS UNITED Context

Direct-contribution share · $18,872,247

Of $18,872,247 spent in 2026, 3% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $18,290,443

Of $18,290,443 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
THE GREAT TASK Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $13,885,428

This leadership PAC directed 0.1% of its $13,885,428 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
D.R.I.V.E. - DEM, REP, IND VOTER ED (THE PAC OF THE INT'L BRHD OF TEAMSTERS) Context

Direct-contribution share · $7,082,569

Of $7,082,569 spent in 2026, 14.7% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
WIN THE ERA PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $8,369,607

Of $8,369,607 spent in 2026, 3% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
VOICE OF TEACHERS FOR EDUC/CMTE ON POL EDUC OF NY STATE UNTD TEACHERS (VOTE/COPE) OF NYSUT Context

Direct-contribution share · $8,827,655

Of $8,827,655 spent in 2026, 0.1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
COMMON SENSE FOR AMERICA PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $9,586,124

This leadership PAC directed 2.1% of its $9,586,124 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $10,700,291

Of $10,700,291 spent in 2026, 1.4% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION FUND Context

Direct-contribution share · $10,625,002

Of $10,625,002 spent in 2026, 0.2% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM) 'INT'L UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,821,962

Of $3,821,962 spent in 2026, 12% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA EASTERN ATLANTIC STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Context

Direct-contribution share · $8,814,265

Of $8,814,265 spent in 2026, 6% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $8,323,951

Of $8,323,951 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
SEAL PAC SUPPORTING ELECTING AMERICAN LEADERS PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $7,637,974

Of $7,637,974 spent in 2026, 12.1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
FLEMING FOR LOUISIANA Worth a look

Related-party vendor · $7,444,275

This campaign paid $7,444,275 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (FLEMING, JOHN C. JR. and FLEMING, JOHN CALVIN JR). Worth a look — this can be a loan repayment or reimbursement to the candidate, a relative's real business, or a coincidence; self-funding and paying a qualified relative at market rate are legal. Verify before concluding anything.

A SCREEN, not a finding: the payee shares a distinctive name with the committee/candidate — it could be a relative's real business or a self-owned vendor (worth checking), a routine reimbursement to the candidate, or a coincidence. Paying a qualified relative at fair-market value is legal. Verify before drawing any conclusion.
AMERIPAC: THE FUND FOR A GREATER AMERICA Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $6,205,328

This leadership PAC directed 23.7% of its $6,205,328 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
PAC TO THE FUTURE Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $6,624,494

This leadership PAC directed 12.4% of its $6,624,494 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
DUNN'S DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS Context

Direct-contribution share · $6,028,665

Of $6,028,665 spent in 2024, 4.9% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
LOCAL 32BJ SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION AMERICAN DREAM POLITICAL ACTION FUND Context

Direct-contribution share · $2,186,203

Of $2,186,203 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
VOTE SAVE AMERICA Context

Direct-contribution share · $5,365,700

Of $5,365,700 spent in 2026, 1.9% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
NJ STATE LABORERS PAC/ LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $5,316,691

Of $5,316,691 spent in 2026, 0.3% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/FEDERAL - CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS Context

Direct-contribution share · $5,067,851

Of $5,067,851 spent in 2026, 0.3% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MEDICARE FOR ALL Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $5,025,955

This leadership PAC directed 22% of its $5,025,955 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
LET AMERICA VOTE PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,979,140

Of $4,979,140 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
ELECT DIVERSE DEMOCRATS PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,973,592

Of $4,973,592 spent in 2024, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
COMMANDER ZINKE LEADERSHIP FUND Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $3,607,940

This leadership PAC directed 9.9% of its $3,607,940 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,652,863

Of $4,652,863 spent in 2026, 3.4% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $4,470,186

This leadership PAC directed 0% of its $4,470,186 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
SAM BROWN PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,406,286

Of $4,406,286 spent in 2022, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
CAMPAIGN FOR DEMOCRACY PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,380,873

Of $3,380,873 spent in 2026, 0.1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE METRO AREA OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,989,798

Of $3,989,798 spent in 2026, 3.8% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
DIRECT SUPPLY, INC. PARTNERS PAC (DSI PARTNERS PAC) Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,248,271

Of $4,248,271 spent in 2026, 9.7% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,014,109

Of $4,014,109 spent in 2022, 1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
TEAPARTYEXPRESS.ORG Context

Direct-contribution share · $4,010,028

Of $4,010,028 spent in 2022, 2.6% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
KRISTI PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,091,417

Of $3,091,417 spent in 2024, 3.5% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF GREATER NEW YORK & LI PAC - FEDERAL Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,614,614

Of $3,614,614 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
HUCK PAC FOR AMERICA Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,660,380

Of $3,660,380 spent in 2026, 4% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MAJORITY COMMITTEE PAC--MC PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $3,772,369

This leadership PAC directed 42.3% of its $3,772,369 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
GATORPAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,246,679

Of $3,246,679 spent in 2024, 7.8% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $3,725,008

This leadership PAC directed 72.3% of its $3,725,008 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,617,050

Of $3,617,050 spent in 2026, 0.1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
MOMS FED UP Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,103,421

Of $3,103,421 spent in 2026, 14.3% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
JOBS, EDUCATION, & FAMILIES FIRST JEFF PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $2,859,683

This leadership PAC directed 76% of its $2,859,683 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
JOBS, FREEDOM, AND SECURITY PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $1,000,133

This leadership PAC directed 44.7% of its $1,000,133 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
HEARTLAND VALUES PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $2,583,121

This leadership PAC directed 17.8% of its $2,583,121 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
Ryan Binkley Context

Self-funded campaign · $3,218,073

85.6% of this campaign's $3,218,073 in receipts is the candidate's own money (contributions + loans). Self-funding is legal and disclosed — shown as context.

Self-funding is legal and disclosed. Shown as context — a self-financed campaign relies less on outside donors.
NEW YORK STATE LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE Context

Direct-contribution share · $2,899,309

Of $2,899,309 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
Paul Bondar Context

Self-funded campaign · $3,202,937

99.2% of this campaign's $3,202,937 in receipts is the candidate's own money (contributions + loans). Self-funding is legal and disclosed — shown as context.

Self-funding is legal and disclosed. Shown as context — a self-financed campaign relies less on outside donors.
UNRIGGED PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,071,376

Of $3,071,376 spent in 2026, 0.1% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
HOLD THE LINE Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,170,328

Of $3,170,328 spent in 2026, 6% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
BLUEWAVEAMERICA Context

Direct-contribution share · $3,110,083

Of $3,110,083 spent in 2026, 3.9% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REDISTRICTING PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $2,870,807

Of $2,870,807 spent in 2026, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
Brett Jensen Context

Self-funded campaign · $2,860,440

99.6% of this campaign's $2,860,440 in receipts is the candidate's own money (contributions + loans). Self-funding is legal and disclosed — shown as context.

Self-funding is legal and disclosed. Shown as context — a self-financed campaign relies less on outside donors.
MR. SOUTHERN MISSOURIAN IN THE HOUSE PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $1,822,970

This leadership PAC directed 50.7% of its $1,822,970 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
BLUE VICTORY FUND PAC Context

Direct-contribution share · $2,148,539

Of $2,148,539 spent in 2024, 0% went directly to candidates or independent expenditures. Context, not a concern — the rest can be bundling, operations, or fundraising, which topline totals don't separate. The scam-PAC screen needs itemized Schedule B spending (being ingested).

A low direct-contribution share is common and legitimate — PACs also bundle contributions, run independent expenditures, and carry overhead, none of which show in this figure. Separating those (the scam-PAC screen) needs itemized Schedule B spending, which is being ingested. Not a finding.
HELLFIRE PAC Legal · low transparency

Leadership PAC spending · $2,779,273

This leadership PAC directed 3.4% of its $2,779,273 in spending to other candidates and committees. Legal, and shown for transparency — the personal-use ban has not been applied to leadership PACs.

Leadership PACs are legal and the personal-use ban has not been applied to them; this share is a transparency figure, not a finding.
Shaun Finnie Context

Self-funded campaign · $2,729,677

71.8% of this campaign's $2,729,677 in receipts is the candidate's own money (contributions + loans). Self-funding is legal and disclosed — shown as context.

Self-funding is legal and disclosed. Shown as context — a self-financed campaign relies less on outside donors.

See also the member-conflict registry at /conflicts, PACs & committees, and outside spending.