Electoral receipt · State Senate
JIM (JAMES D.) CANOVA
State Senate · SEN-10 · 2022 cycle
Funding Receipt
JIM (JAMES D.) CANOVA · 2022 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 36 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $5,901 · 57%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $1,500 · 14%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $3,022 · 29%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Case, Jeffrey · Jeffrey Case Specialty Services $2,022
02 Canova, Christina · Defense consultant $1,000
03 Lynch, Alyssa · MetroEd - SVCTE/SVAE $999
04 Canova, Valerie · SCUSD $625
05 Hay, Paul · retired $500
06 Rose, Stan · Retired $500
07 Gemignani, Janis · Riverview Systems Group $499
08 Schoennauer, Erik · Schoennaeur Independent Consultant $499
09 Evan, Thomas · retired $499
10 Clifton, Janet · retired $300
11 Fairchild, Vickie · SCUSD $299
12 Lieberman, Bonnie · SCUSD $250
13 Sabherwal, Alka · ReMax $250
14 Van Pernis, Jim · retired $220
15 Nguyen, Minh · Personal trainer $199
16 Elwood, John · Kylli Group $198
17 Cesario, Lisa · Retired $150
18 Muirhead, Jodi · SCUSD $100
19 Bobay, Daniel · retired $100
20 Goytia, Linda · CUSD $100
21 Dudley, Debra · Deb Dudley Marketing Solutions $100
22 Callejon, Donna · Donna Callejon Consulting $100
23 Burchfiel, Michele · Retired $100
24 Montgomery, JoJo · Retired $100
25 Ratermann, Caren · retired $99
Primary committee total $10,423
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. "JIM (JAMES D.) CANOVA for Assembly 2022"). The wider footprint shows every committee JIM (JAMES D.) CANOVA 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.