Electoral receipt · State Assembly
LAURA FRIEDMAN
State Assembly · ASM-44 · 2022 cycle
Funding Receipt
LAURA FRIEDMAN · 2022 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 426 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $30,670 · 2%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $42,515 · 3%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $1,332,859 · 95%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Laura Friedman for Assembly 2020 $531,133
02 CA State Council of Service Employees $19,400
03 Service Employees International Union Local 721 $19,400
04 CA Nurses Association PAC $19,400
05 CA Real Estate PAC $19,400
06 CA Teachers Assn./Assn. for Better Citizenship $19,400
07 SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC $10,000
08 BNSF Railway Company $9,800
09 GFC Courage Committee-Hollywood Chapter $9,800
10 Govern for CA $9,800
11 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians $9,800
12 Sempra Energy $9,800
13 Southern California Edison $9,800
14 Athens Services $9,800
15 CA Jewish PAC $9,800
16 Simons, Nathaniel · Meritage Group LP $9,800
17 Smidt, Eric · CPLLC $9,800
18 Smidt, Susan · N.A. $9,800
19 CA State Association of Electrical Workers $9,600
20 CA State Pipe Trades Council PAC $9,600
21 Clean Energy $8,900
22 PG&E Corporation $7,900
23 Southern CA Pipe Trades District Council #16 $7,500
24 Electing CLimate Champions Fund $7,400
25 Disney Worldwide Services Inc $7,000
Primary committee total $1,406,044
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. "LAURA FRIEDMAN for Assembly 2022"). The wider footprint shows every committee LAURA FRIEDMAN 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.