Electoral receipt · State Assembly
JIM SHOEMAKER
State Assembly · ASM-9 · 2026 cycle
Funding Receipt
JIM SHOEMAKER · 2026 cycle
★ · campaign finance, itemized · ★
Funding mix · 28 unique donors ·
primary committee
S Small donors (Under $500) $2,475 · 9%
M Medium donors ($500–$999) $1,500 · 6%
L Large donors ($1,000+) $23,000 · 85%
Top donors to primary committee
(25 shown)
01 Beadles, Robert · Beadles Investments $11,800
02 Van Bebber, Richard · Retired $3,000
03 Duran, Pedro · Duran Homes Inc $2,500
04 Payne, Verlie · Hudsons Cookies $1,500
05 Goehring Rental $1,200
06 Campos, Joel · Royal Electric Co $1,000
07 Ruiz, Mary · JK Robertson Family LLC $1,000
08 Weisz, Byron · Cen-Cal Fire Systems $1,000
09 Amador, Antonio · Retired $500
10 Debenedetti, Janice · Retired $500
11 Collins, Michael · Collins Realty Inc $500
12 Potter, David · South Bay Coast Realty $400
13 Golen, Richard · Retired $250
14 Laffranchi, Alex · Fairway Financial Mtge & RE $250
15 Bregman, Peter · Retired $250
16 Vogel, Kenneth · Retired $125
17 Shapley, Alan · Turlock Irrigation District $100
18 Monge, Ruth · Retired $100
19 Lackey, Steve · Exential $100
20 Couch, Rogine · Retired $100
21 Bosshardt, Samuel · Bosshardt $100
22 Silva, Robert · Silva Farming $100
23 Boyd, Catherine · Retired $100
24 Messick, Roman · State of California $100
25 Holstein, David · Retired $100
Primary committee total $26,975
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. "JIM SHOEMAKER for Assembly 2026"). The wider footprint shows every committee JIM SHOEMAKER 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.