Electoral receipt · Governor
ERROL G. WEBBER
Governor · 2022 cycle
Funding Receipt
ERROL G. WEBBER · 2022 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 62 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $11,439 · 27%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $518 · 1%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $30,000 · 72%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 ERROL WEBBER FOR CONGRESS $30,000
02 Santamaria, Carlos · CEES Advisors $622
03 Wright, Joanne · None $518
04 Metcalfe, Kim · Los Alamitos Unified School District $467
05 Next Phase Ventures, LLC $467
06 Wolf, Desiree · None $389
07 Pickard, Alex · Research Affiliates $375
08 Ingam, Vijay · Los Angeles Resume $337
09 Burt, Rhonda · Self Employed - No Separate Business Name $311
10 Alegria, Abraham · None $311
11 Kolar, Elizabeth · Kolar & Associates $311
12 Beebe, Kevin · EP Wealth Advisors $300
13 Miller, Sean · Cisco $300
14 Murphy, Edward · None $286
15 Kicko, Katie · The Messenger Company $259
16 Paul, Sean · Big Wave Entertainment $259
17 Arce, Ambrosia · None $259
18 Eusebio, Aldrin · V. E. Eusebio Skin Center $259
19 Schenker, Roderick · None $250
20 Le, Linus · Red River $250
21 Sinclair, Wilma · None $200
22 Davis, Debra · None $156
23 Elizabeth, Anne · None $156
24 Ivers, John · Self Employed - No Separate Business Name $156
25 Cavallo, John · Riverside University Health Systems $156
Primary committee total $41,958
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 Governor in this cycle (e.g. "ERROL G. WEBBER for Assembly 2022"). The wider footprint shows every committee ERROL G. WEBBER 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.