Electoral receipt · State Senate
VICKI L. NOHRDEN
State Senate · SEN-29 · 2020 cycle
Funding Receipt
VICKI L. NOHRDEN · 2020 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 308 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $55,195 · 35%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $30,868 · 20%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $71,980 · 46%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Hanlon, Hilary · None $9,400
02 General Farms Investment $5,000
03 Grove for Senate 2022 $4,700
04 The Mighty Slingshot $4,700
05 Teixeira, Alan · DBA Teixeira Ranch $4,700
06 Caprara, Nichole · DBA: Nichole Caprara $3,500
07 Republican Central Committee of San Luis Obispo County $3,500
08 Nohrden, Vicki · None $3,028
09 Korsgaden, Stacy · Farmer's Insurance $2,750
10 Caprara, Nicole · None $2,500
11 Shake, Chris · Old Fisherman's Grotto $2,500
12 Rouleau, Joseph · None $2,200
13 Davidson, Lori · None $2,175
14 McNece, Gregory · Davisville Properties, Inc. $2,000
15 Scudder Roofing Co $2,000
16 Swenson, Ronald · Retired $2,000
17 Volatus Winery $1,990
18 Fay, Kathryn · None $1,721
19 Thompson, Connie · Filiponi & Thompson Drilling $1,700
20 Wieczorek, David · None $1,650
21 Arnold For Supervisor 2020; Debbie $1,500
22 Phillips, Diana · Pro Document Solutions $1,400
23 Hurst, Kris · Retired $1,275
24 Soule, Janice · Retired $1,200
25 Palomar Homes $1,200
Primary committee total $158,043
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 Senate in this cycle (e.g. "VICKI L. NOHRDEN for Assembly 2020"). The wider footprint shows every committee VICKI L. NOHRDEN 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.