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 Cffe PAC?

CFFE PAC took in $16M in itemized receipts; 25% of it came from AMERICA VOTES. One hop further back, SMP received $82M from MAJORITY FORWARD. Tracing further back, 36% of the money reaches named people or organizations and 62% stops at groups that do not disclose their donors.

Records behind this sentence:receipts ↗AMERICA VOTES ↗SMP receipts ↗

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

Itemized receipts
$16MFEC ↗
Hybrid PAC
Direct funders shown
10
largest first
Trail ends at
8 named
36% of the money
Committee record
fec.gov ↗
disclosed 36%inferable 0%not walked 2%dark 62%

Of $16M traced back up to 5 hops: 36% reaches named sources, 62% stops at groups that do not disclose donors, 2% was not walked. Sched. A ↗

Who gave to CFFE PAC

  • AMERICA VOTESorganizationgave$4.1Mto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • PIVOTAL VENTURESorganizationgave$3.0Mto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • AMERICA VOTES ACTION FUNDOgave$2.1Mto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • SMPOgave$1.3Mto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • GLOBAL IMPACT SOCIAL WELFARE FUNDorganizationgave$1.0Mto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • Other contributors to CFFE PAC (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributors62 giftsgave$989Kto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • REBUILD USAorganizationgave$900Kto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • OHIO PROGRESSIVE COLLABORATIVEorganizationgave$785Kto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • FORWARD ACTION FUNDorganizationgave$583Kto CFFE PACFEC ↗
  • SIXTEEN THIRTY FUNDorganizationgave$575Kto CFFE PACFEC ↗

One hop further back: who funded those funders

  • Other contributors to SMP (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributorsone hop back169 giftsgave$115Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • MAJORITY FORWARDorganizationone hop backgave$82Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • WORKING FOR WORKING AMERICANS - FEDERALOone hop backgave$14Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • DEMOCRACY PACOone hop backgave$11Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • EYCHANER, FREDindividualone hop backgave$10Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • GREATER NEW YORK HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONorganizationone hop backgave$8.5Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • SIMONS, JAMESindividualone hop backgave$7.5Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • SKOLL, JEFF S.individualone hop backgave$7.0Mto SMPFEC ↗

Where the trail ends: named people and organizations

full chain →
  • FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTIONnonprofitDark (no disclosure)4 hops backgave$266Mto FF PACFEC ↗
  • MAJORITY FORWARDnonprofitDark (no disclosure)2 hops backgave$82Mto SMPFEC ↗
  • FUND FOR POLICY REFORMnonprofitDark (no disclosure)3 hops backgave$60Mto DEMOCRACY PACFEC ↗
  • MOSKOVITZ, DUSTIN AindividualDisclosed (FEC)4 hops backgave$50Mto FF PACFEC ↗
  • LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC.nonprofitDark (no disclosure)5 hops backgave$49Mto LCV VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERSunionDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$33Mto WORKING FOR WORKING AMERICANS - FEDERALFEC ↗
  • NEA ADVOCACY FUND, ASSOCIATIONindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$28Mto NEA ADVOCACY FUNDFEC ↗
  • BLOOMBERG, MICHAELindividualDisclosed (FEC)4 hops backgave$19Mto FF PACFEC ↗

Separately: what CFFE PAC 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.