Electoral receipt · State Assembly
DAVID LEON ZINK
State Assembly · ASM-3 · 2022 cycle
Funding Receipt
DAVID LEON ZINK · 2022 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 211 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $46,681 · 70%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $5,035 · 8%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $15,300 · 23%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY $5,400
02 KING, BEN · PACIFIC GOLD AGRICULTURE LLC $4,900
03 TEHAMA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE $3,635
04 STEINBERG, BARBARA · SELF-EMPLOYED $1,475
05 RENNARD, BARBARA · NOT EMPLOYED $1,212
06 MUELLER, CHRISTINE · NOT EMPLOYED $1,210
07 COLE, KATHY · NOT EMPLOYED $1,155
08 CRISS, KEITH · SELFAETRADIGITALWORKS $1,102
09 MONROE, WILLIAM · NONE $1,014
10 MCCABE, JAMES · MORRISON FOERSTER LLP $1,006
11 CD1 ALLIANCE ACTION $1,000
12 LUCERO, DEBRA · SELF $900
13 PHELPS-ZINK, LORI · OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT $820
14 HARTLEY, PAMELA · NOT EMPLOYED $815
15 GALLAGHER, SUSANNE · NONE $809
16 PETERS, RUSSELL · RETIRED $716
17 HASS, R · RETIRED $703
18 HASS, ROD · RETIRED $700
19 ZINK FOR CONGRESS $683
20 DURAN, EVERETT · ECOSENSE $636
21 BREWSTER, STEVEN · RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE $633
22 BROSHEARS, JIM · TOWN OF PARADISE $606
23 DYSERT, KATHLEEN · NOT EMPLOYED $590
24 VOSS, CHARLES · NOT EMPLOYED $555
25 KEEHN, ROBIN $533
Primary committee total $67,016
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. "DAVID LEON ZINK for Assembly 2022"). The wider footprint shows every committee DAVID LEON ZINK 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.