Electoral receipt · State Assembly
JOSEPH A. RUBAY
State Assembly · ASM-16 · 2024 cycle
Funding Receipt
JOSEPH A. RUBAY · 2024 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 53 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $6,228 · 22%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $3,541 · 12%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $19,159 · 66%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Rubay, Joe · Rubay Rubay Real Estate Appraiser $13,590
02 Smith, Roger · Benefits Store Insurance Services, Inc. $2,500
03 Mendelson, Ted · n/a $1,100
04 Friends of Joe Rubay for Assembly 2022 $1,070
05 Kruttiventi, Vin · A5 $1,000
06 Burns, Jeffery · Walker & Dunlop $841
07 Scheiter, Wendy L. · Keller Williams Realty $700
08 Rubay, Joseph · Rubay & Rubay $624
09 Follmer, Jean · n/a $500
10 Jacobson, Jo Ann · n/a $500
11 Kearney, John · n/a $500
12 Rodde, Robert · The Rodde Company $500
13 Alameda County Republican Party $350
14 Riffenburgh, Roger · Roger Riffenburgh (Self-Employed) $250
15 Elder, Kim · Elder and Berg Attorneys $200
16 Doty, Carol L. · n/a $200
17 Pope, Wayne · n/a $200
18 Rodgers, Teresa · n/a $200
19 Van Etten, Paul W. · n/a $200
20 Haas, Marianne · n/a $200
21 Dodd, Lacie · n/a $200
22 Mobley, Julie · Currently not employed $175
23 Briley, Harry · n/a $175
24 Piscitelli, Mary · Exp Realty $160
25 Desmond, Irene R. · n/a $150
Primary committee total $28,928
Source: California Secretary of State Cal-Access bulk export
Pipeline: scripts/pull_calaccess_filings.py · Dedup: latest AMEND_ID
/methodology
Pipeline: scripts/pull_calaccess_filings.py · Dedup: latest AMEND_ID
/methodology
What you're seeing. The Raised for this race total counts only money that flowed into committees clearly named for State Assembly in this cycle (e.g. "JOSEPH A. RUBAY for Assembly 2024"). The wider footprint shows every committee JOSEPH A. RUBAY controls during the same window — ballot-measure leadership PACs, future-office exploratory committees, officeholder accounts. A candidate raising large sums into non-electoral vehicles still shows where the institutional attention is. Both surfaces are honest; they answer different questions.