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 Senate Leadership Fund?

SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND took in $265M in itemized receipts; 13% of it came from ONE NATION. One hop further back, AMERICA FUND received $22M from AMERICAN PROSPERITY ALLIANCE. Tracing further back, 79% of the money reaches named people or organizations and 21% stops at groups that do not disclose their donors.

Records behind this sentence:receipts ↗AMERICA FUND receipts ↗

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

Itemized receipts
$265MFEC ↗
Super PAC
Direct funders shown
10
largest first
Trail ends at
5 named
79% of the money
Committee record
fec.gov ↗
disclosed 79%inferable 0%not walked 0%dark 21%

Of $265M traced back up to 2 hops: 79% reaches named sources, 21% stops at groups that do not disclose donors. Sched. A ↗

Who gave to SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND

  • Other contributors to SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributors249 giftsgave$69Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • ONE NATIONorganizationgave$36Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • GRIFFIN, KENNETH C.individualgave$30Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • SINGER, PAUL ELLIOTTindividualgave$27Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • ADELSON, MIRIAMindividualgave$15Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • MUSK, ELONindividualgave$10Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A.individualgave$9.0Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • STEPHENS, WARREN A.individualgave$5.5Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • AMERICA FUNDOgave$5.0Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗
  • BUCKLEY, MARJORIE B.individualgave$5.0Mto SENATE LEADERSHIP FUNDFEC ↗

One hop further back: who funded those funders

  • AMERICAN PROSPERITY ALLIANCEorganizationone hop backgave$22Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • BUCKLEY, MARJORIE Bindividualone hop backgave$1.0Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • FRIESE, DONALD Eindividualone hop backgave$1.0Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • Other contributors to AMERICA FUND (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributorsone hop back22 giftsgave$600Kto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • SIMMONS, ANNETTEindividualone hop backgave$500Kto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • STEPHENS, WARREN Aindividualone hop backgave$250Kto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗

Where the trail ends: named people and organizations

full chain →
  • AMERICAN PROSPERITY ALLIANCEnonprofitDark (no disclosure)2 hops backgave$22Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • BUCKLEY, MARJORIE BindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$1.0Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • FRIESE, DONALD EindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$1.0Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • SIMMONS, ANNETTEindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$500Kto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • STEPHENS, WARREN AindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$250Kto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗

Separately: what SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND 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.