United States Senate seal

US Senate 2024Pennsylvania

Election held ·

Notable candidates

Democratic Party

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

Where do the groups spending for or against Bob Casey stand on labor & trade?

82 groups reported independent expenditures for or against Bob Casey. 5 of them state a position on labor & trade on their own sites: 3 toward "Stronger union protections and trade enforcement", 2 toward "Fewer labor rules and freer trade". 77 state none we could find.

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

Stronger union protections and trade enforcement (3)

  • FOR OUR FUTURESuper PACspending for Bob Casey$1.8MFEC Sched. E ↗

    strongly toward: Stronger union protections and trade enforcement

    “helping repeal right-to-work laws in states like Michigan—and working toward similar progress in Wisconsin”
    position source ↗model-read · unverified
  • strongly toward: Stronger union protections and trade enforcement

    “for negotiating many of the best collective bargaining contracts for RNs in the nation, and for sponsorship of innovative legislation and regulatory protections for patients and nurses.”
    position source ↗model-read · unverified
  • WORKERS VOTESuper PACspending for Bob Casey$525KFEC Sched. E ↗

    strongly toward: Stronger union protections and trade enforcement

    “electing pro-worker and pro-union candidates”
    position source ↗model-read · unverified

Fewer labor rules and freer trade (2)

  • AMERICAN CROSSROADSSuper PACspending against Bob Casey$8.8MFEC Sched. E ↗

    strongly toward: Fewer labor rules and freer trade

    “They are willing to stand up for families, small businesses and communities against arrogant, power-grabbing politicians and wealthy government unions.”
    position source ↗model-read · unverified
  • leans toward: Fewer labor rules and freer trade

    “Ensure dependable, affordable access to pharmaceuticals, medical devices and other critical supplies by limiting the imposition or increase of tariffs.”
    position source ↗model-read · unverified

No stated position found on its own site (77)

Assumptions and limits

  • A stated position is what the group says on its own site, read by a language model and kept only where the quote appears verbatim on the fetched page; it is marked unverified until a person checks it. It is not what the group's ads or notices said, and not a claim about which dollars went where.
  • Positions were looked up for 17 of 98 outside spenders in this race; a group with none found may simply have no site text on this issue.
  • Spending for or against a candidate is the filed Schedule E total; a group's position and its spending stance are shown side by side, never combined.

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.