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 Keystone Renewal PAC?

KEYSTONE RENEWAL PAC took in $59M in itemized receipts; 25% of it came from GRIFFIN, KENNETH C. One hop further back, RJC VICTORY FUND received $5.0M from ADELSON, MIRIAM. Tracing further back, 87% of the money reaches named people or organizations and 13% stops at groups that do not disclose their donors.

Records behind this sentence:receipts ↗GRIFFIN, KENNETH C ↗RJC VICTORY FUND receipts ↗

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

Itemized receipts
$59MFEC ↗
Super PAC
Direct funders shown
10
largest first
Trail ends at
8 named
87% of the money
Committee record
fec.gov ↗
disclosed 87%inferable 0%not walked 0%dark 13%

Of $59M traced back up to 3 hops: 87% reaches named sources, 13% stops at groups that do not disclose donors. Sched. A ↗

Who gave to KEYSTONE RENEWAL PAC

  • GRIFFIN, KENNETH Cindividualgave$15Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • Other contributors to KEYSTONE RENEWAL PAC (each <1% of receipts, or beyond the 40 largest)many small contributors94 giftsgave$14Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • YASS, JEFFindividualgave$3.3Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • PETERFFY, THOMAS P. MR.individualgave$3.0Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • SINGER, PAULindividualgave$2.0Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • ANTONIO J GRACIAS REVOCABLE TRUSTorganizationgave$2.0Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN Aindividualgave$1.5Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • NHA ACTIONOgave$1.3Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • RJC VICTORY FUNDOgave$1.0Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗
  • MANZANITA MANAGEMENT GROUP LLCorganizationgave$1.0Mto KEYSTONE RENEWAL PACFEC ↗

One hop further back: who funded those funders

  • ADELSON, MIRIAMindividualone hop backgave$5.0Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITIONorganizationone hop backgave$4.3Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • NEW HEIGHTS FOR AMERICAorganizationone hop backgave$3.7Mto NHA ACTIONFEC ↗
  • RAI SERVICES COMPANYorganizationone hop backgave$3.0Mto NHA ACTIONFEC ↗
  • LEON RACHEL CORPorganizationone hop backgave$2.5Mto NHA ACTIONFEC ↗
  • KOUM, JANindividualone hop backgave$2.4Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • LEON RACHEL CORPorganizationone hop backgave$1.1Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • PROBITY INTERNATIONAL CORPorganizationone hop backgave$1.0Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗

Where the trail ends: named people and organizations

full chain →
  • AMERICAN PROSPERITY ALLIANCEnonprofitDark (no disclosure)3 hops backgave$22Mto AMERICA FUNDFEC ↗
  • NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTO, .individualDisclosed (FEC)3 hops backgave$20Mto NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CONGRESSIONAL FUNDFEC ↗
  • GRIFFIN, KENNETH C.individualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$6.0Mto AMERICAN PATRIOTS PACFEC ↗
  • ADELSON, MIRIAMindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$5.0Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITIONnonprofitDark (no disclosure)2 hops backgave$4.3Mto RJC VICTORY FUNDFEC ↗
  • NEW HEIGHTS FOR AMERICAnonprofitDark (no disclosure)2 hops backgave$3.7Mto NHA ACTIONFEC ↗
  • NAU, JOHN L IIIindividualDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$3.3Mto CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY PROJECT SUPER PACFEC ↗
  • RAI SERVICES COMPANYbusinessDisclosed (FEC)2 hops backgave$3.0Mto NHA ACTIONFEC ↗

Separately: what KEYSTONE RENEWAL 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.