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.
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 →
32 signals of this kind.
- FLEMING FOR LOUISIANA Worth a lookRelated-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.
- ADAM PEREZ ARQUETTE FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $1,655,000
This campaign paid $1,655,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (ARQUETTE, ADAM PEREZ and ADAM PEREZ ARQUETTE). 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.
- COMMITTEE TO ELECT RODNEY WALKER Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $1,200,000
This campaign paid $1,200,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (WALKER, RODNEY). 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.
- ECHOLS FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $850,000
This campaign paid $850,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (ECHOLS, MICHAEL CHARLES). 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.
- JAKE LEVINE FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $761,300
This campaign paid $761,300 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (LEVINE, JACOB and LEVINE, JAKE). 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.
- CHRIS GOBER FOR TEXAS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $759,878
This campaign paid $759,878 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (GOBER, CHRIS). 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.
- CHALIFOUX FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $612,881
This campaign paid $612,881 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (CHALIFOUX, THOMAS EUGENE COL.). 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.
- VIN KRUTTIVENTI FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $557,243
This campaign paid $557,243 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (KRUTTIVENTI (PERSONAL FUNDS), VIN). 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.
- VICENTE GONZALEZ FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $325,000
This campaign paid $325,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (GONZALEZ, VICENTE). 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.
- AMISH FOR ARIZONA Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $219,000
This campaign paid $219,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (SHAH, AMISH MAHENDRA DR.). 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.
- FRIENDS OF MCCORMICK Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $203,000
This campaign paid $203,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (MCCORMICK, RICHARD DEAN DR.). 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.
- BARB REGNITZ FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $155,000
This campaign paid $155,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (REGNITZ, BARB). 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.
- FRIENDS OF BERNIE SANDERS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $150,000
This campaign paid $150,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (THE SANDERS INSTITUTE). 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.
- ERIC JONES FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $149,133
This campaign paid $149,133 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (JONES, ERIC). 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.
- BETH VAN DUYNE FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $133,898
This campaign paid $133,898 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (VAN DUYNE, BETH). 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.
- PAUL BONDAR FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $128,665
This campaign paid $128,665 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (BONDAR, PAUL). 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.
- JESSICA STEINMANN FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $125,000
This campaign paid $125,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (STEINMANN, JESSICA HART). 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.
- JON BONCK FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $100,000
This campaign paid $100,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (BONCK, JON). 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.
- ALASKANS FOR NICK BEGICH Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $99,236
This campaign paid $99,236 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (BEGICH, NICHOLAS III). 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.
- RIKER FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $94,125
This campaign paid $94,125 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (RIKER, BRANDON). 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.
- MELISSA BEAN FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $84,000
This campaign paid $84,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (BEAN, MELISSA). 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.
- ESTHER KIM VARET FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $50,000
This campaign paid $50,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (VARET, ESTHER KIM). 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.
- JOE MITCHELL FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $50,000
This campaign paid $50,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (MITCHELL, JOE). 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.
- JENSEN FOR TEXAS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $50,000
This campaign paid $50,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (JENSEN, BRETT). 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.
- JIM SCHWARTZEL FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $34,501
This campaign paid $34,501 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (SCHWARTZEL, JIM). 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.
- MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS, INC Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $28,500
This campaign paid $28,500 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (MCCAUL, MICHAEL). 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.
- FRIEDMAN FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $25,750
This campaign paid $25,750 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (FRIEDMAN, JASON). 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.
- MRVAN FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $16,685
This campaign paid $16,685 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (MRVAN, FRANK J.). 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.
- KANSANS FOR MARSHALL Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $8,682
This campaign paid $8,682 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (MARSHALL, ROGER DR.). 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.
- FRIENDS OF GLENN THOMPSON Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $8,200
This campaign paid $8,200 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (THOMPSON, GLENN W. 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.
- ANDY HARRIS FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $8,187
This campaign paid $8,187 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (HARRIS, ANDREW). 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.
- COLLINS FOR CONGRESS Worth a lookRelated-party vendor · $8,000
This campaign paid $8,000 to the candidate or entities sharing their name (COLLINS, CHRIS). 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.
See also the member-conflict registry at /conflicts, PACs & committees, and outside spending.