Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Candidates › FL-02 race › 2025–2026
DemocraticU.S. House, FL-02Florida
Has not served in Congress
3 priorities from zateslo.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
A national framework in progress for how we build, govern, and share artificial intelligence, focusing on ownership, accountability, and work.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com
A national framework for who owns AI, who pays for it, who governs it, and who benefits. Built around five commitments: a Freedom Floor, fair prices, flourishing work, accountability for automated decisions, and big compute that pays its own way.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy.html
A governing framework for the people who will write the rules.
Every generation inherits a question ↗ (opens zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html at this heading)
In the nineteenth century the question was who would control the railroads. Later it was electricity, banking, broadcast, and the internet: who writes the rules for systems too important to leave entirely to private power, and too important to hand entirely to the state.
Artificial intelligence is the next such question. It is not an app or a passing technology cycle. It is becoming a layer of economic, physical, and civic infrastructure that work, health care, education, elections, and local power and water supplies will depend on.
The question is not whether America will build AI. We will. The question is who writes the rules under which it is built.
The core argument: architecture is governance ↗ (opens zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html at this heading)
The decisions that matter most are made early, in layers most people never see: who owns the computing power, who pays for the physical buildout, and who answers for the automated decisions that follow. By the time those decisions show up as a higher power bill or a denied claim, the structure behind them is already in place.
Much of it is still contestable. That window will not stay open.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
Heading as listed on zateslo.com ↗ (opens zateslo.com at this heading)
Translating the physical footprint of compute into usable county tools—from temporary moratoriums and conditional-use standards to dual electricity/water triggers, ownership disclosure, closed-loop cooling, and decommissioning requirements.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com
Heading as listed on zateslo.com ↗ (opens zateslo.com at this heading)
Heading as listed on zateslo.com ↗ (opens zateslo.com at this heading)
Income stability and health care that do not depend on a single employer. The baseline reflects what it actually costs to live where you live, supported by a share of the value automation creates. Coverage follows you through layoffs, caregiving, and starting something new.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
Large AI facilities pay the full cost of the grid and water they use, so households do not subsidize them. Real competition enforcement and housing supply reform so the gains of the AI economy reach people, not only shareholders.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
A permanent public platform for civic work, retraining, recognized care work, and small-business startup support. It is available before the first displacement and after the last, with no waiting period.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
Consequential automated decisions leave a record that the affected person can see and appeal. Log decisions, not people. Children’s data is never used to train AI. Synthetic political content that shows real people saying or doing things they did not say or do must be disclosed.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
Big AI pays for the infrastructure it uses. Communities that host it share in the value and are protected on water and energy. Democratic governance, with its legal predictability and public trust, is the long-run competitive advantage, not a handicap.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-blueprint.html
Practical rules for counties deciding what gets built, and on what terms.
The situation ↗ (opens zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html at this heading)
AI data centers are moving into rural Florida quickly and often quietly, sometimes filed under other names like solar farm or greenhouse. Counties keep real authority over land use, but most do not yet have rules written for this kind of facility. These tools give a county a way to pause, study, and set permanent standards before a project arrives. You do not need a proposal on the table to act. Counties across Florida, from the Panhandle to the Gulf Coast, have adopted or are advancing moratoriums this year.
1. The moratorium: the emergency brake ↗ (opens zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html at this heading)
A temporary pause on new data center applications while permanent rules are written.
The county chooses the length, and the pause ends automatically when permanent rules take effect, so there is no gap.
It can be extended only after a public hearing and a finding that the permanent rules are not ready.
It covers facilities that exceed a threshold on either power demand or water use, measured at full buildout rather than the first phase. Most moratoriums only look at electricity.
A project cannot avoid review by calling itself something else. Features like large on-site power generation or high-voltage connections trigger a full data center review whatever the label says.
A study checklist tells staff exactly what to deliver during the pause, so the time produces real protections instead of just delay.
2. The permanent rulebook: land development code amendments ↗ (opens zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html at this heading)
Permanent changes that make data centers a conditional use, with a public hearing every time.
No automatic approval in any zone.
Closed-loop cooling, so the county’s groundwater is not used up for cooling.
A decommissioning bond, so cleanup is funded if the company leaves.
Ownership and end-user disclosure, so the public knows who is really behind a project.
Setbacks, noise limits, and lighting standards that protect neighbors.
Emergency responders trained and equipped before opening, at the developer’s expense.
On-site power plants reviewed as a separate use with their own hearing.
Annual public reports on actual water use, power draw, and ownership.
No county tax breaks without a separate public vote.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
The aquifer and the rivers that depend on it.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
No quiet subsidies and no cleanup bill left to taxpayers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
Distance, quiet, and dark skies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
The public record shows who owns what and what it actually uses.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
Residents get a seat at the table on every application, before capital is committed.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zateslo.com/policy-data-centers.html
FEC filings, Apr 1, 2025 to Sep 30, 2026 · Official FEC bulk data · committee C00903195
$1.00 has been spent for every dollar raised across 7 reports ($488.4K of $488.1K). Cash on hand went from $46.1K on Jun 30, 2025 to $0 on Sep 30, 2026.
| Report | Raised in the period | Spent in the period | Cash on hand at its close |
|---|---|---|---|
| JULY QUARTERLY 2025 through Jun 30, 2025 | $61,626 | $15,545 | $46,081 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2025 through Sep 30, 2025 | $59,058 | $83,318 | $21,820 |
| YEAR-END 2025 through Dec 31, 2025 | $84,211 | $67,318 | $38,713 |
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2026 through Mar 31, 2026 | $120,386 | $95,850 | $63,249 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2026 through Jun 30, 2026 | $115,580 | $122,720 | $55,928 |
| PRE-PRIMARY 2026 through Jul 29, 2026 | $9,052 | $41,356 | $23,624 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2026 through Sep 30, 2026 | $38,167 | $62,281 | $0 |
Each report’s own period, as filed with the FEC; a report filed again counts once, as its latest copy.
No endorsements page
Not yet called · 87% reporting · Full results ↗
Every contest for this seat that named this candidate, most recent last; a result is shown once the race is called. Election dates and results from civicAPI (civicapi.org). civicAPI aggregates results from Secretaries of State and equivalent election bodies, and makes its own race calls. civicapi.org ↗
Official FEC filing record for the current cycle. The priorities they publish are quoted from their own site, in their order.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the campaign’s; the record marking is ours.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 730 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $282.4K.
Each loan as the campaign’s report through Sep 30, 2026 lists it, with what is still owed. A loan from an earlier cycle can appear here, and one repaid in full drops off the report, so the list need not add up to the row.
Total reported receipts $488,081
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. FEC filings through Sep 30, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
80% of the money placed by state came from inside Florida: $225K of $282.4K.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 602 contributions · 80% | $224,972 |
| 12 contributions · 4.2% | $11,723 |
| 32 contributions · 4.1% | $11,710 |
| 10 contributions · 2.7% | $7,703 |
| 5 contributions · 2.7% | $7,600 |
| 6 contributions · 1.8% | $4,997 |
| 8 contributions · 1.8% | $4,950 |
| 12 contributions · 1.4% | $3,954 |
By the state each donor wrote on the filing, across 18 states and territories. Donors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized, so they cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an employer · 132 contributions · 27% of ranked | $73,065 |
| Written instead of an employer · 228 contributions · 19% of ranked | $51,244 |
| 8 contributions · 16% of ranked | $42,617 |
| Written instead of an employer · 53 contributions · 7.8% of ranked | $20,832 |
| 5 contributions · 1.8% of ranked | $4,747 |
| 1 contribution · 1.3% of ranked | $3,500 |
| 1 contribution · 1.3% of ranked | $3,500 |
| 7 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $3,500 |
A further $16,727 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A, None), so it is not ranked. Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($62,521) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Money groups spent on their own, not through a campaign. Each ad is filed against the candidate it names, so money attacking an opponent shows on the opponent’s row. Open a candidate to see who spent it.
The campaign also refunded $11,001 in contributions, which the categories below do not include.
Total itemized disbursements $329,312
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Sep 30, 2026.
All 829 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
68 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $209,988 in all, are counted under the payee and purpose they name rather than under the processor that was paid. The total is the same either way.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 70 payments · 34% of all spending | $163,918 |
| 4 payments · 8.7% of all spending | $42,490 |
| 191 payments · 4.8% of all spending | $23,339 |
| 14 payments · 3.8% of all spending | $18,750 |
| 12 payments · 2.6% of all spending | $12,785 |
| 1 payment · 2.1% of all spending | $10,440 |
| 15 payments · 1.5% of all spending | $7,162 |
| 17 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $5,568 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 207 contributions · 37% of ranked | $103,619 |
| 8 contributions · 15% of ranked | $42,617 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 189 contributions · 13% of ranked | $35,670 |
| 25 contributions · 3.8% of ranked | $10,741 |
| 5 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $4,747 |
| 9 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $4,263 |
| 9 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $4,237 |
| 1 contribution · 1.2% of ranked | $3,500 |
Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($62,521) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.