Electoral receipt · State Assembly
TOMAS OLIVA
State Assembly · ASM-36 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
TOMAS OLIVA · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 77 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $12,347 · 26%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $4,597 · 10%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $31,350 · 65%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Avalos, Elena · None $5,900
02 Oliva, Crystal · None $5,862
03 Oliva, Tomas · Imperial College $5,550
04 Desert Concepts Construction, Inc. $2,500
05 Democratic, Republican, Independent Voter Education $2,500
06 Eduardo Garcia for Secretary of State 2034 $2,500
07 Martinez, Robert · Paedterra Consulting LLC $2,000
08 Avalos, Luis C. · Radix Metasystems, Inc. $1,900
09 Avalos, Sara · Primoris Renewable Energy $1,900
10 Miramontes, Ausalon · None $1,075
11 Gilkison, Thomas · None $734
12 Menvielle, Robert · Imperial County $650
13 Salgado, Mavis · None $575
14 Silver, Joy · CHOC $549
15 Solorzano, Jesus · US Mex International Services Inc. $524
16 Bandiera, Michael · None $500
17 A Farmer Service $500
18 Marquez, Angel · Sweetwater Authority $500
19 Marroquin, Sylvia · City of El Centro $500
20 Welinsky, Howard · None $500
21 Goyal Group Inc. $500
22 Galindo, Patricia · None $500
23 Arias, Martin · San Diego County $500
24 Velez, Pablo · ECRMC $450
25 Mata, Fernando · None $450
Primary committee total $48,293
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. "TOMAS OLIVA for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee TOMAS OLIVA 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.