Electoral receipt · State Assembly
JOSEPH A. RUBAY
State Assembly · ASM-16 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
JOSEPH A. RUBAY · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 52 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $15,930 · 45%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $6,720 · 19%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $13,059 · 37%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Friends of Joe Rubay for Assembly 2024 $7,059
02 Rubay, Joseph · Rubay & Rubay Real Estate Appraiser $5,020
03 Smith, Roger · Benefits Store Insurance Services, Inc. $3,940
04 Solnordal, Jeanne · n/a $2,895
05 Bussell, Hugh · Retired $1,000
06 Rubay, Julie · n/a $1,000
07 Stadtler, Stephanie · REMAX Accord $998
08 Marx Sr., Robert · Summit Ranch Equine $965
09 Mobley, Julie · Currently not employed $930
10 Menager, Wendy · Keller Williams $805
11 Andron, Jonathan · n/a $750
12 Haas, Marianne · n/a $715
13 Fernwood, Mark · Pattivs $580
14 Scheiter, Wendy L. · Keller Williams Realty $500
15 Kruttiventi, Vin · A5 $500
16 Rubay, Cindy · n/a $490
17 Evans, Aileen · n/a $461
18 Podesta, Richard John · Christie's International Real Estate, Sereno $415
19 Wilson, Barbara · n/a $380
20 Overfield, Judy · n/a $370
21 Vicente, Valerie · Coldwell Banker Realty $365
22 Schulz, Kirk · n/a $330
23 Rubay, Kenneth · n/a $330
24 Mayer, Patricia · n/a $265
25 Doty, Carol L. · n/a $265
Primary committee total $35,710
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 2026"). 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.