Electoral receipt · State Senate
LLOYD WHITE
State Senate · SEN-23 · 2020 cycle
Funding Receipt
LLOYD WHITE · 2020 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 121 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $9,609 · 6%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $17,735 · 11%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $135,551 · 83%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 White, Lloyd · Esri $20,000
02 Morongo Band of Mission Indians $5,700
03 Burgess, Frank J. · Retired $4,700
04 Beaumont Police Officers Association PAC $4,700
05 Zimmerer, Curt · Zimm Industries $4,700
06 TSG Cherry Valley LP #322 $4,700
07 JRT BP 1 LLC $4,700
08 Joseph E. Henehan Financial & Insurance Svcs Inc. $4,700
09 Harriman, Jan · Self: Jan Harriman $4,700
10 Jeff Stone for State Senate 2022 $4,700
11 Smith, Keith B. · Retired $4,700
12 WJ Real Estate #1 LLC $4,700
13 Shopoff Realty Investments, LP $4,700
14 Broome, Dale · Beaver Medical Group $4,650
15 Goodman, John · EPIC Management $4,500
16 Jones, Doug · Self: Doug Jones Atty. @ Law $4,000
17 Goodman, C. Sandra · U.S. Dept. of Labor $4,000
18 Douglas / Terrence Trans. Sites $4,000
19 Cavanagh, Mike · Key Code Media Inc. $3,250
20 Giali, Dale · Mayer Brown $3,000
21 McDonald Property Group Inc. $2,500
22 Pardee Homes $2,500
23 White, Carol Y. · Retired $2,500
24 White, Martha K. · Self: Martha K. White $2,250
25 Kogan, Barton H. · Retired $2,000
Primary committee total $162,895
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. "LLOYD WHITE for Assembly 2020"). The wider footprint shows every committee LLOYD WHITE 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.