Electoral receipt · State Senate
DAVE MIN
State Senate · SEN-37 · 2024 cycle
Funding Receipt
DAVE MIN · 2024 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 345 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $18,981 · 3%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $29,090 · 5%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $519,300 · 92%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 California Apartment Association Political Action Committee $9,800
02 National Vision, Inc. $9,800
03 California Real Estate Political Action Committee (CREPAC) $9,700
04 California Dental Association PAC (CDA PAC) $7,500
05 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians $7,400
06 Viejas Tribal Government $7,400
07 California Life Sciences Association PAC $7,059
08 Professional Engineers in California (PECG-PAC) $6,000
09 California Professional Firefighters PAC $6,000
10 Nossaman LLP $5,000
11 Google Client Services LLC(Mark Isakowitz) $5,000
12 Walgreens Family of Companies $5,000
13 Amazon.com Services LLC(Andrea Fava) $5,000
14 West Coast University, Inc. $4,900
15 Consumer Attorney's PAC $4,900
16 Anheuser Busch Companies $4,900
17 Delaney, M. Quinn · n/a $4,900
18 Facebook, Inc. $4,900
19 Masimo Corporation $4,900
20 Airbnb, Inc. $4,900
21 Barona Band of Mission Indians $4,900
22 Quillin, Patty · n/a $4,900
23 Brown, Eric · Firstup $4,900
24 E-W Services, Inc. $4,900
25 Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles PAC $4,900
Primary committee total $567,371
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. "DAVE MIN for Assembly 2024"). The wider footprint shows every committee DAVE MIN 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.