Campaign Commonsreceipts, not conclusions

Funding chain · Pennsylvania · U.S. Senate · 2024

Where BLACKPAC's money came from — and went

⚑ Chain dead-ends in undisclosed source
← Entity pageFEC committee record ↗Backward walk over 2024-cycle receipts, 5 hops deep. To the right: Schedule E payments to vendors, the ads it ran, and the candidate those dollars were aimed at.
Total receipts traced
$35M
$34,566,027
Spent on this race (Schedule E)
$2.7M
4 vendors · 3 ads · 1 candidate targeted
Visibility of traced dollars
individuals 23%organizations 7%inferable 0%not walked 0%dark 70%
Ends in 21 dark terminals, 477 individual donors, 29 aggregated remainders, 8 business / union treasuries, 13 cycles, 51 FEC committees not walked.

Flow of money into the spender, and where it went

  • you are here — BLACKPAC, the spender this page is about
  • disclosed (FEC): individual
  • disclosed (FEC): business or union treasury
  • inferable (990, lagged)
  • not walked (FEC committee, receipts outside this race's neighborhood)
  • dark wall (no disclosure)
  • other (aggregated)
  • vendor / ad (spending side)
  • placement: solid = filed or verified · dashed = inferred
  • targeting (for / against) — no money reaches the candidate
HOP 5HOP 4HOP 3HOP 2HOP 1SPENDERPAID VENDORSADSTARGETEDUNITED BROTHERHOOD OFCARPENTERS AND JOIN…$33M1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCAREWORKERS EAST FEDERA…$27MOther contributors to ENGINEERSPOLITICAL EDUCATION C…$12MOther contributors to LABORERS'INTERNATIONAL UNION…$7.5MOther contributors to SEIU COPE(SERVICE EMPLOYEES I…$3.3MOther contributors to SMP (each<1% of receipts, or beyond the 4…other (14 smaller sources folded, 52…$184MMAJORITY FORWARDnon-committee organizationDARK WALL$82MWORKING FOR WORKINGAMERICANS - FEDERAL$33MSEIU COPE (SERVICEEMPLOYEES INTERNATI…$31Mshow all its sources+ENGINEERS POLITICALEDUCATION COMMITTEE…$12Mshow all its sources+INTERNATIONAL UNION OFOPERATING ENGINEERS$11MDEMOCRACY PAC$11MEYCHANER, FRED$10MGREATER NEW YORK HOSPITALASSOCIATION MANAGE…$8.5MSIMONS, JAMES$7.5MLABORERS' INTERNATIONALUNION OF NORTH AMERI…$7.5Mshow all its sources+SMPSuper PAC$329Mshow all its sources+NEA ADVOCACY FUND,ASSOCIATION$28MOther contributors to WOMENVOTE (each <1% of receip…$25MENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSEACTION FUND$15MEARN INTERNATIONAL UNION OFOPERATING ENGINEERS$11MCLIMATE POWER$10MOther contributors to EDF ACTIONVOTES (each <1% of rece…$4.0MFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTIONnon-committee organizationDARK WALLAdvocacy nonprofit — funders not on file$266MOther contributors to FF PAC(each <1% of receipts, or beyond…other (2 smaller sources folded, 193…$122MFUND FOR POLICY REFORMnon-committee organization$60MMOSKOVITZ, DUSTIN A$50MLEAGUE OF CONSERVATIONVOTERS, INC.$49MWOMEN VOTE$32Mshow all its sources+Other contributors to LCVVICTORY FUND (each <1…$30MNEA ADVOCACY FUND$28MEDF ACTION VOTES$19Mshow all its sources+BLOOMBERG, MICHAEL$19MLCV VICTORY FUND$15MOther contributors to AMERICAVOTES ACTION FUND (ea…$14MLARSEN, CHRISTIAN$12MCLIMATE POWER ACTION$10MHOFFMAN, REID$10MEVIDENCE FOR IMPACT$10MGEOSOR CORPORATION$10MDEMOCRACY PAC$10MSIMONS, JAMES$9.1MEYCHANER, FRED$8.0MOther contributors toDEMOCRACY PAC (each…$741KFF PACHybrid PAC (non-qualified)$547Mshow all its sources+LCV VICTORY FUNDSuper PAC$79Mshow all its sources+DEMOCRACY PACSuper PAC$71Mshow all its sources+AMERICA VOTES ACTIONFUND$15Mshow all its sources+AMERICA VOTES$7.7MHOROWITZ, BEN$2.5MOther contributors to BLACKPAC(each <1% of receipts, or…$1.7MFREEMAN, MORGAN$1.0MOHIO PROGRESSIVECOLLABORATIVE$745KADVOCACY ACTION FUND INC.non-committee organization$500KDELANEY, QUINN$500KHOSTETTER, AMOS B. JR$500KHOFFMAN, REID G.$500KBLACKPACYOU ARE HERE · THE SPENDERSuper PAC$35MOTG STRATEGIES$2.4Mcollapse downstream−TECHNICOLOR POLITICALvendor · digital$206Kcollapse downstream−THE PIVOT GROUP, INC.vendor · mail$101Kcollapse downstream−GOOD FIGHT POLITICAL INCvendor · phones$3Kcollapse downstream−Video ad · 2024-10-26 – 2024-11-05ad · spend is a range midpoint~$38KVideo ad · 2024-10-18 – 2024-11-05ad · spend is a range midpoint~$23KVideo ad · 2024-10-18 – 2024-11-05ad · spend is a range midpoint~$23KBob Casey$2.7M
Drawn: the spender, its direct sources and every node carrying at least 2% of its receipts — 75 smaller sources ($157M) folded into dashed “other” nodes; to the right, what the spender paid for and whom it targeted. Hover for the basics; click any node for its details and evidence, any edge for its evidence and its row in the table below.

Ribbon width is proportional to dollars; color is how the money is disclosed. Read left to right: sources → intermediaries → spender → vendors paid → ads ⇢ candidate targeted. Zoom with the buttons above the map or Ctrl/⌘ + scroll, drag to pan; plain scrolling still scrolls the page. Hover a node or edge for the basics. Click a node for its details, the evidence behind each link, and the page or record behind it; click an edge for its evidence and its row in the table below; + / − expands or folds what hangs off it.

Assumptions on the spending side. Vendor dollars are Schedule E payments as filed. Ad dollars are the midpoint of the range Google reports, not a filed figure. A vendor → ad edge is drawn only when a person verified it from a source naming both (solid), or the vendor was the only digital vendor the spender paid in the week before and while the ad ran (dashed, inferred). FEC does not record which buy placed which ad, so an ad with no such link hangs off the spender alone; vendors merely paid in that window are named on the ad's page as a sentence, never drawn as an edge. Targeting edges never carry money to the candidate.

Every edge, with its record — receipts, then spending

Method. Backward walk over money edges only (Schedule A receipts from individuals and organizations, committee-to-committee transfers) into BLACKPAC, 5 hop(s) deep; independent expenditures are targeting edges and never appear. The walk starts from $34,566,027 of itemized 2023–2024 receipts as loaded from FEC bulk data (unitemized receipts, loans and offsets are not edges), and every expanded committee conserves dollars: its inbound edges sum to its receipts. Inbound edges under 1% of a committee's receipts are rolled into one 'other contributors' node, which counts as disclosed except for the organization dollars inside it. Each dollar takes the visibility of where the walk stopped: named individuals (including earmarks through ActBlue/WinRed, attributed to the person) are disclosed to a person. Organizations that are not registered committees are classified from their name alone (no IRS lookup): a union or a business giving from its own treasury is disclosed to an organization — the named entity is the source, but its own funders are not walked; an LLC, trust, advocacy nonprofit (501(c)(4)-style names) or unclassifiable organization is dark, because whoever funds it is not on file with the FEC. The disclosed share is reported in total and split into the part that resolves to people and the part that stops at a named business or union. 51 committee node(s) stop with reason depth_cap: they are FEC-registered committees whose own receipts were not loaded into this race's neighborhood (or the hop or node cap was reached). The committee files donor lists with the FEC, but this walk did not read them, so its dollars are counted as 'not walked' — neither disclosed nor dark — and a dark layer behind such a committee would not show here. 13 edge(s) point at a committee already expanded elsewhere in this chain and reuse its visibility mix instead of being walked twice. Visibility shares are preliminary; no 990 lookups were performed, so nothing is marked inferable. Spending side (right of the spender): Schedule E payments to vendors are money edges; vendor → ad and spender → ad edges are placement (no dollars) and carry the evidence basis they were drawn on; edges into a candidate are targeting (for/against) and never carry money to the candidate. Ad dollars are the midpoint of the Google-reported spend range.