Electoral receipt · State Senate
EVAN BRANNING
State Senate · SEN-7 · 2020 cycle
Funding Receipt
EVAN BRANNING · 2020 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 77 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $11,315 · 43%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $1,500 · 6%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $13,200 · 51%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Branning, Timothy · Timothy Branning $4,700
02 Skiles, Vanessa · Vanessa Skiles $4,700
03 Sutton, Martha · n/a $2,000
04 Carsey, Marcy · n/a $1,000
05 Miller, Althea L · Althea L Miller $1,000
06 Aiello, Neno J. · n/a $700
07 Wolff, Adrian · Mirion Technologies $610
08 Chau, Susanna · n/a $500
09 Nordby, Leslie · n/a $500
10 Skiles, Jason · Google $500
11 Smith, Kerestell · Workday $500
12 Sardella, Al · n/a $350
13 Rogers-Rifelli, Andrea · Andrea Rogers-Rifelli $325
14 Zuliani, Betty U · n/a $300
15 Zuliani, Diane · Chabot College $300
16 Panas, Robert · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory $275
17 Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local No. 3 PAC $250
18 Dunbar, Steven · GILLIG, LLC $250
19 Grubisic, Steven · Federal Elections Commission $250
20 Morisoli, Diana · Bentancourt Bros Construction $250
21 Owens, Carolyn A. · n/a $250
22 Rogers, Andy · n/a $250
23 Gabor, Cathy A · University of San Francisco $250
24 Murphy, Denton · Camfil USA $250
25 Branning, Evan · n/a $200
Primary committee total $26,015
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. "EVAN BRANNING for Assembly 2020"). The wider footprint shows every committee EVAN BRANNING 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.