Electoral receipt · State Assembly
GUS MATTAMMAL
State Assembly · ASM-23 · 2024 cycle
Funding Receipt
GUS MATTAMMAL · 2024 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 46 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $4,323 · 11%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $2,050 · 5%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $33,448 · 84%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Oliveri, Thomas · Google $5,500
02 Oliveri, Lillian · Homemaker $5,500
03 Bock, Laszlo · Humu $5,500
04 Mattammal, Mary · Retired $3,041
05 Cowles, Daniel · Calpine $2,500
06 Means, Grady · Retired $2,000
07 Mattammal, William · USAF $2,000
08 County of Santa Clara Warrent -controller -Treasurere Department, N/A $1,366
09 Hawks, Jennifer · retired $1,041
10 Jones, JoAnn · Retired $1,000
11 Eberly, Jon · Adportas $1,000
12 Joukovski, Laura · DFTBA $1,000
13 Torunian, Daniel · retired $1,000
14 Karimimanesh, Carelle · retired $1,000
15 Bock, Paul · retired $550
16 Casperson, William · EY $500
17 Brockett, Patrick · retired $500
18 Loeb, Stephen · retired $500
19 Vanka, Sridevi · homemaker $350
20 Vank, Sridevi · Alpha Achieve Ltd $350
21 Saman, George · Tier 6 solutions $300
22 Kahl, Ed · retired $260
23 Josephson, Sheila · Sheila Bloom Josephson, Ph.D. $250
24 Conner, James · Future of Reading $250
25 Gorka, Sebastian · Newsmax?s Gorka Reality Check $200
Primary committee total $39,820
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. "GUS MATTAMMAL for Assembly 2024"). The wider footprint shows every committee GUS MATTAMMAL 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.