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 for Our Future?

FOR OUR FUTURE took in $8.0M in itemized receipts; 51% of it came from FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND. One hop further back, NEA ADVOCACY FUND received $28M from NEA ADVOCACY FUND, ASSOCIATION. Tracing further back, 47% of the money reaches named people or organizations and 53% stops at groups that do not disclose their donors.

Records behind this sentence:receipts ↗FOR OUR FUTURE ACTION FUND ↗NEA ADVOCACY FUND receipts ↗

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

Itemized receipts
$8.0MFEC ↗
Super PAC
Direct funders shown
6
largest first
Trail ends at
8 named
47% of the money
Committee record
fec.gov ↗
disclosed 47%inferable 0%not walked 0%dark 53%

Of $8.0M traced back up to 7 hops: 47% reaches named sources, 53% stops at groups that do not disclose donors. Sched. A ↗

Who gave to FOR OUR FUTURE

One hop further back: who funded those funders

Where the trail ends: named people and organizations

full chain →
  • FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTIONnonprofitDark (no disclosure)3 hops backgave$266Mto FF PACFEC ↗
  • MAJORITY FORWARDnonprofitDark (no disclosure)6 hops backgave$82Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • FUND FOR POLICY REFORMnonprofitDark (no disclosure)4 hops backgave$60Mto DEMOCRACY PACFEC ↗
  • MOSKOVITZ, DUSTIN AindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$50Mto FF PACFEC ↗
  • LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC.nonprofitDark (no disclosure)4 hops backgave$49Mto LCV VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERSunionDisclosed (FEC)7 hops backgave$33Mto WORKING FOR WORKING AMERICANS - FEDERALFEC ↗
  • NEA ADVOCACY FUND, ASSOCIATIONindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$28Mto NEA ADVOCACY FUNDFEC ↗
  • BLOOMBERG, MICHAELindividualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$19Mto FF PACFEC ↗

Separately: what FOR OUR FUTURE 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.