Electoral receipt · State Assembly
CHARLES W. COLE
State Assembly · ASM-37 · 2020 cycle
Funding Receipt
CHARLES W. COLE · 2020 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 45 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $7,123 · 63%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $3,000 · 27%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $1,105 · 10%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Cole, Robert · Retired $1,400
02 Santa Barbara County Republican Party (State Acct.) $1,105
03 Schaumburg, Michael · Retired $600
04 Rosenberg, Sheridan · Santa Barbaraaviation.com $550
05 Baratto, Gaile · Retired $500
06 Santa Barbara Republican Club, Inc. $500
07 McCoy, Robert · Calvary Chapel $500
08 Tash, Debra · Retired $500
09 Salvatore, Lorraine · Retired $500
10 Edwards, Blair · Retired $400
11 Pope, Ridgway · Ridgway Pope $300
12 Olguin, Art · Santa Barbara City College $250
13 McIntire, Mark · Retired $250
14 McRae, Bobbi · Howard Brown & Sons Auto $250
15 B Bischoff, Juliet · Retired $200
16 Fuller, Edward · San Roque Realty $200
17 Vance, Robert · Retired $200
18 Batastini, Victor · Sb Sand and Topsoil $200
19 Bell, Judith · Retired $200
20 Daly, William · William Daly $175
21 Barron, Noah · Noah Barron Design $143
22 Blois, J.W. · Retired $100
23 Hudson, Mary · Keith Hudson Ministries $100
24 Knight, Tim · Retired $100
25 Kopel, Irene · Retired $100
Primary committee total $11,227
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 Assembly in this cycle (e.g. "CHARLES W. COLE for Assembly 2020"). The wider footprint shows every committee CHARLES W. COLE 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.