Electoral receipt · State Senate
AMY PHAN WEST
State Senate · SEN-34 · 2022 cycle
Funding Receipt
AMY PHAN WEST · 2022 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 182 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $17,670 · 49%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $6,300 · 17%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $12,450 · 34%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Casey, Jim · OCR Services Inc. $2,500
02 Scifres, Don · SDL Capital $2,500
03 Mahan, Nancy · Long Beach City College $2,450
04 Calamia, Frank · Marina Club $2,250
05 Solheim, Sandy · Retired $1,500
06 Casey, Michael · Intel $1,300
07 Burris, Michael · 2mkd $1,050
08 Morris, David · Inwesco Inforporated $1,000
09 Palmer, Geoff · G.H. Palmer Associates $1,000
10 Smith, Ken · Retired $1,000
11 Stein, Andrew · Aerial Control $1,000
12 Amundson, Peter · Minuteman Traansport $500
13 Bui, Da Ken · Jacobs Engineering Group $500
14 Dao, Christina · Cali Realty & Finance $500
15 DFI Insurance $500
16 Hostetter, Alan · Retired $500
17 Knaak, Lance · Retired $500
18 Pham, Hai · Hai Pham MD Inc $500
19 Rahal, Robert · Self Employed - Robert Rahal $500
20 Tash, Debra · GT Water Products $500
21 West, Lester · Macallister machinery $500
22 Ito, Josefina · Retired $350
23 O'Fallon, S · Sovereign Alliance $350
24 Kiang, Sue · retired $300
25 Niemann, Terri · Self Employed - Terri Niemann $300
Primary committee total $36,420
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. "AMY PHAN WEST for Assembly 2022"). The wider footprint shows every committee AMY PHAN WEST 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.