Electoral receipt · State Assembly
TED K. NORDBLUM
State Assembly · ASM-42 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
TED K. NORDBLUM · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 168 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $25,032 · 19%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $20,910 · 16%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $84,793 · 65%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Nordblum for State Assembly 2024 $10,033
02 Assael, David · Retired $6,200
03 Californians For A Better Future $5,900
04 Hopkins, Lisa · Homemaker $5,900
05 Hopkins, William · Odyssey Investment Partners $5,900
06 Move the Needle PAC $5,500
07 De Groote, Doug · De Groote Financial $4,000
08 Bergman, Jack · Retired $4,000
09 RHB RE Corp $3,600
10 Leibrich, Patrick · International Battery Corporation $3,000
11 Assael, Margarita · Retired $3,000
12 Stump, Gregory · Retired $2,600
13 Ito, Barbara · Five Star Bookkeeping $2,500
14 Spencer, Michelle · Retired $2,322
15 Kaufman, Richard · Yale Management Services, Inc $1,750
16 Mosler & Co. $1,500
17 Prete, Ric · EXP Realty $1,500
18 Greig, Celeste · Retired $1,200
19 Gorecki, Ronald · Retired $1,100
20 Soundtronics Wireless LLC $1,100
21 Curtis Pools $1,100
22 Corbett, James · Retired $1,000
23 David Aliabadi MD , Inc. $1,000
24 JM Construction $1,000
25 Lubisich, John · Imaging Healthcare Specialists $1,000
Primary committee total $130,735
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. "TED K. NORDBLUM for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee TED K. NORDBLUM 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.