Electoral receipt · State Assembly
DAVID E. LEE
State Assembly · ASM-19 · 2024 cycle
Funding Receipt
DAVID E. LEE · 2024 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 144 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $4,468 · 1%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $17,500 · 5%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $326,900 · 94%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Waverly Services and Print $11,000
02 Chan, Douglas S. · Douglas S. Chan $11,000
03 Hung Ma, Chao · n/a $11,000
04 Lin Ma, Cheng-Yu · n/a $11,000
05 Faculty for Our University's Future, a committee sponsored by the California Faculty Association $10,400
06 Lee, Donna · n/a $9,500
07 Lee, Jing · State Farm Insurance Agency $9,500
08 Lee, Michael · Quantcast $9,500
09 Lun Lee, Mee · n/a $9,500
10 Kenson Group-KF, LLC(Kenneth Fong) $9,000
11 Tam, Lyman · Costco Wholesale $7,500
12 Gee, Buck · n/a $7,500
13 Heung Lam Chan, Miu · n/a $7,000
14 Fong Lee, Sau · n/a $5,800
15 Woo, Mae C. · n/a $5,500
16 Asian Pacific Islander Leadership PAC $5,500
17 Bong Lee, Ding · n/a $5,500
18 Doi, Eriko C. · TMI Associates Silicon Valley LLP $5,500
19 Lee, Jennifer Jing · Penta $5,500
20 Li, Fu · n/a $5,500
21 Li, Laura · n/a $5,500
22 Ma, Huilian · Huilian Ma $5,500
23 Man Lee, Kai · n/a $5,500
24 O'Haire, Walter · BDO USA, LLP $5,500
25 Phil Ting for Treasurer 2026 $5,500
Primary committee total $348,868
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 E. LEE for Assembly 2024"). The wider footprint shows every committee DAVID E. LEE 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.