Electoral receipt · State Senate
MARIA T. CADENAS
State Senate · SEN-17 · 2020 cycle
Funding Receipt
MARIA T. CADENAS · 2020 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 136 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $20,108 · 43%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $8,458 · 18%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $17,900 · 39%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Herzing, Stacey · Self Employed $9,400
02 Poster, Jamie · Irvine Valley College $2,500
03 Emily's List $2,000
04 Murphy, Kevin · DBA Kevin Murphy $2,000
05 Levig, Don · Levig Design Group, Inc. $1,750
06 Pabst, Joseph · Not Employed $1,100
07 Cadenas, Maria · SCCV $1,031
08 LPAC $1,000
09 The California Women's List $1,000
10 Latinas Lead California $750
11 Santa Clara County $660
12 Manzi, Judi · Kaiser $600
13 Vaske, Charles · ImmunityBio $555
14 Hernandez, Cesar · Community Change $550
15 Monterey County $548
16 Barajas, Yissel · RAC $500
17 Brune, Caitlin · DBA Caitlin Brune $500
18 Calhoun, Sallie · Reprise Software Inc. $500
19 Cube, Analicia · HQ Solutions $500
20 Maldonado, Damian · Maldonado & Associates Consulting $500
21 Penrose-Levig, Anna · Penrose Chun & Gorman LLP $500
22 Quiroz-Enriquez, Brissa · Fresno State University $500
23 Sager, Michele J · The Conservation Fund $500
24 Simon, Nina · Of By For All, Inc. $500
25 Parr, Jessica · CCOF $500
Primary committee total $46,466
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. "MARIA T. CADENAS for Assembly 2020"). The wider footprint shows every committee MARIA T. CADENAS 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.