Electoral receipt · State Senate
ELLEN EVANS
State Senate · SEN-24 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
ELLEN EVANS · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 341 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $48,861 · 20%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $37,000 · 15%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $159,200 · 65%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Powell, Michael · MSP Strategies $11,800
02 Kilpatrick, Sarah · Cedars-Sinai Medical Center $7,900
03 Watford, Paul · King & Spalding, LLP $5,900
04 California Jewish PAC $5,900
05 Kimball, Carla · Vitu $5,900
06 Kimball, Kelly · n/a $5,900
07 Women in Power (WIP PAC) $5,900
08 Turner, Harry E. · PricewaterhouseCoopers $5,500
09 Carroll, Susan · n/a $5,000
10 Deixler, Bert · Kendall Brill & Klieger, LLP $5,000
11 Lafferty, Nicole · n/a $5,000
12 Hauptman, Ellen · n/a $5,000
13 Conroy, Roberta · n/a $3,500
14 May, Linda · Carolwood Estate $3,000
15 Zervigon, Andres · Rutgers University $3,000
16 Richter, Glenn · n/a $3,000
17 Cobb, Bradford · Direct Management Group $2,500
18 Fogge, Len · n/a $2,500
19 Yankovic, Suzanne · Ear Booker, Inc. $2,500
20 Tsai, David · Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP $2,500
21 Gendler, Michael · Gendler Kelly & Cunningham $2,250
22 First Foundation Bank $2,136
23 Hasencamp, Laurie · n/a $2,100
24 Bloom, Jerry · n/a $2,000
25 Fiedler, John · John Fiedler $2,000
Primary committee total $245,061
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 Senate in this cycle (e.g. "ELLEN EVANS for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee ELLEN EVANS 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.