Campaign Commonsreceipts, not conclusions
United States Senate seal

US Senate 2024Pennsylvania

Election held ·

Notable candidates

Democratic Party

Money Trails · Pennsylvania · U.S. Senate · 2024

Who funds DSCC?

DSCC took in $196M in itemized receipts; 6% of it came from DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (Party committee). One hop further back, DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE received $180M from HARRIS VICTORY FUND. Tracing further back, 100% of the money reaches named people or organizations and 0% stops at groups that do not disclose their donors.

Records behind this sentence:receipts ↗DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE receipts ↗

Start with @graph to draw the answer as a flow diagram.

Itemized receipts
$196MFEC ↗
Party committee
Direct funders shown
3
largest first
Trail ends at
8 named
100% of the money
Committee record
fec.gov ↗
disclosed 100%inferable 0%not walked 0%dark 0%

Of $196M traced back up to 4 hops: 100% reaches named sources, 0% stops at groups that do not disclose donors, 0% was not walked. Sched. A ↗

Who gave to DSCC

One hop further back: who funded those funders

  • HARRIS VICTORY FUNDNone hop backgave$180Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗
  • Other contributors to DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributorsone hop back204 giftsgave$125Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗
  • HARRIS ACTION FUNDNone hop backgave$44Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗
  • Other contributors to BOB CASEY FOR SENATE INC (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributorsone hop back40,929 giftsgave$35Mto BOB CASEY FOR SENATE INCFEC ↗
  • DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUNDNone hop backgave$6.8Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗
  • CASEY KEYSTONE VICTORY FUNDNone hop backgave$6.4Mto BOB CASEY FOR SENATE INCFEC ↗
  • DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEYone hop backgave$5.4Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗
  • TENNESSEE DEMOCRATIC PARTYYone hop backgave$4.6Mto DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEFEC ↗

Where the trail ends: named people and organizations

full chain →
  • FREEMAN, WILLIAM HindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.9Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • LOWY, PETERindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.9Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • SABAN, HAIMindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.9Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • REINHARD, ELIindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.8Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • TULLMAN, GLEN E.individualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.8Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • SOROS, GEORGEindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.8Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • KAEMPFER, JOSEPH W JRindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.7Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • HOFFMAN, REIDindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$1.7Mto HARRIS VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗

Separately: what DSCC declared about candidates in this race

Listed apart from the funders above on purpose: receipts are pooled, so no funder can be tied to any of these expenditures.

  • money edge — a filed transfer into a committee's account
  • targeting edge — the spender's for/against declaration; no money reaches the candidate

Assumptions and limits

  • Receipts are itemized Schedule A contributions and committee-to-committee transfers as filed with the FEC; unitemized small-dollar receipts, loans and offsets are not shown.
  • Each hop is the reported total between those two parties. Once money is pooled in a committee it is fungible, so a second-hop funder's dollars cannot be traced to any specific spending by the committee asked about.
  • "Reaches named people or organizations" and "stops at groups that do not disclose" are the visibility shares from this committee's multi-hop chain walk; the walk's full method, caps and dead ends are on its chain page.
  • "Spent against" and "spent for" are independent expenditures (FEC Schedule E): the spender's own declaration about a candidate, paid to the spender's vendors. None of this money reaches the candidate.

How the question is read. Questions are answered by a language model that writes one read-only query over the filings graph; the site validates and runs it and shows every returned row with its filing source, and the model's summary is withheld unless every number in it is in those rows. When a precomputed page matches the question it is linked as a related page. Where the graph is not connected, the browser matcher picks a page instead.

On issue pages the groups' stated positions were read from their own sites by a model offline and kept only where the quote appears verbatim on the page; each is labelled verified or unverified.

How the answers were built. Answers are precomputed from this race's ledger, ads, chain and entity files by pipeline/campaign_commons/trails.py; no language model or graph database is involved in building them. Three questions are supported: who is spending for/against a candidate (Schedule E), who paid for the ads about a candidate (ad sponsors, their Schedule E about the candidate, and each sponsor's own funders), and who funds a committee (its receipts hop by hop). Every figure links to the FEC or Google record it was read from. Money edges and targeting edges are separate; an independent expenditure moves no money to a candidate, and a funder is never joined to a particular ad because pooled dollars cannot be allocated that way.