JEFFREY GONZALEZ
State Assembly · ASM-36 · 2026 cycle
| Interest | Amount | Share | Gifts | Donors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate / party transfers | $268K | 33% | 29 | 17 |
| Other organizations (unclassified)unattributable | $172K | 21% | 85 | 71 |
| Individuals (no industry data disclosed)unattributable | $86K | 11% | 82 | 70 |
| Healthcare / pharma / medical | $47K | 6% | 24 | 18 |
| Public safety (police/fire) | $46K | 6% | 27 | 16 |
| Energy & utilities | $42K | 5% | 16 | 8 |
| Tribal governments / gaming | $42K | 5% | 13 | 8 |
| Agriculture | $36K | 4% | 43 | 37 |
| Real estate & development | $20K | 2% | 6 | 5 |
| Other named interests 5 categories below 1%: Entertainment & media, Business & trade groups, Other labor unions, Gaming / sports betting, Legal / trial lawyers | $19K | 2% | 12 | 9 |
| Building trades / construction labor | $16K | 2% | 5 | 4 |
| Construction & contractors | $12K | 2% | 3 | 3 |
| Finance & banking | $11K | 1% | 6 | 5 |
Headline excludes self-funding and the unattributable individuals bucket — gifts from people for whom employer/occupation either isn't disclosed (Cal-Access leaves it blank on roughly 85% of individual contributions) or doesn't fit any sector category. Named interests below 1% of total raised collapse into a single "Other named interests" row to keep the long tail legible; the rolled-up category names are listed inline beneath that row. See the methodology for the classifier rules and the two distinct reasons a gift becomes unattributable.
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. "JEFFREY GONZALEZ for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee JEFFREY GONZALEZ 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.