Loading this committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
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 committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
PACs › Party committee (qualified) › 2025–2026
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00031088 · files monthly
“Republicans are working to restore Conservative values in Washington. Learn more about the Washington Republican Party and how to get involved!”
Washington State Republican Party, on its own site, wagop.org
Quoted from the committee's site, or its sponsor's or funder's where its own says nothing. The statement is filed under topics from a fixed list, chosen by AI models when two of three agree; which side it takes is in its own words.
6 priorities from the committee’s own site, 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.
The State of Washington is currently pushing for the online voting platform Omniballot, developed by liberal Democracy Live Inc., to be adopted around the state. This would make our elections far less secure and easier to manipulate than they already are. It is currently only used in some counties, primarily for conservation district elections, but also for ballot rehabilitation. When a voter forgets to sign their ballot or signs it with a signature that does not match, they have up to a few weeks to “rehab” their ballot by filling out an affidavit with their signature clarifying they want the ballot they submitted counted.
Most counties do not use Omniballot except for the big liberal ones like King County. With this tool in use, in the most corrupt parts of our State, no election is safe. King County allows voters to rehab their ballots online on a phone app with a digital signature, using their finger, rather than their actual signature on a paper affidavit like most of the rest of the State. This gives King a massive advantage over most other counties in the State and is very clearly susceptible to fraud.
In the 2024 Lands Commissioner race, Democrats narrowly edged out Republicans from “top-twoing” them out of the general entirely, by 49 votes out of over 2 million cast in that race. The top two vote getters get through to the general regardless of party. Now, insane and incompetent Dave Upthegrove, a borderline eco-terrorist, is in charge of our State’s public lands because of the use of Omniballot in King County. On top of that, Democrats are salivating at the chance to implement Omniballot all around the State and push universal online voting. Getting Omniballot adopted and in use around the State is only the first step for them, and we cannot let that stand. Chip in and help us fight back!
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/support-election-integrity
The closest race in our state in the 2024 General election was the 18th Legislative District Senate race. Republican Brad Benton narrowly lost to regressive liberal Democrat Adrian Cortes, who beat him by 173 votes out of nearly 90,000 cast in the district. The liberal Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey not only refused to count scores of valid votes for Brad Benton that could have helped him win, but also neglected to do his duty of keeping the voter rolls clean and up to date by removing voters who had moved out of the district. WAGOP, using the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) National Change of Address (NCOA) file, identified hundreds of voters who had previously moved out of the 18th Legislative District, notified the government of such, and still received and filled out ballots specific to their old address in the 18th District.
The number of ballots received and tallied by the county in the 18th Legislative District that were cast by voters who no longer lived in the district, far exceeded the 173-vote margin in the race. In fact, a small team of canvassers in the 18th district even went to these addresses and verified this by knocking on over 1,000 doors to verify residency and filling out legal affidavits attesting to their findings for each address. Auditors should be keeping these voters off the rolls, not sending them ballots. We need to hold our election officials to a higher standard to ensure we have accurate and legitimate elections, not degrade, demean, and circumvent those who have concerns.
With Adrian Cortes illegitimately representing the 18th Legislative District, Democrats have a supermajority that allows them to unilaterally pass bonds and put our state into massive debt, for the first time in over a decade. Overturning this election and holding a new one, that is fair and does not count the votes of illegal voters, could prevent this and stop our State from drowning in the financial debt the Democrats are so desperate to get into. Help us fight for another chance to preserve our State and protect against this power grab. We can win this case set a precedent that when voters move, they have to be taken off the voter rolls or their votes from their old jurisdiction cannot be counted. Help us win this case and donate today.
Help Us Fight For Election Integrity!
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/support-election-integrity
The 2026 Legislative Session is here and Republicans are set to fight back against Democrats’ reckless policies.
Republicans will fight to bring affordability back to Washington State
Democrats’ continuous tax increases and punitive regulatory policies that make life more expensive for working families.
We’re committed to passing tax relief measures and common-sense policies to help alleviate financial burdens for struggling families, students, small business owners, and the most vulnerable.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/olympia-watch
Heading as listed on wagop.org/olympia-watch ↗ (opens wagop.org/olympia-watch at this heading)
Chronic homelessness, addiction, crime, and untreated mental health needs – our communities face significant challenges that demand real solutions.
The Democrats’ ineffective and destructive policies ignore these problems’ root causes and make them far worse by eliminating essential support from law enforcement professionals.
Our communities deserve more than ranking last in the nation for the number of police officers per thousand people.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/olympia-watch
Heading as listed on wagop.org/olympia-watch ↗ (opens wagop.org/olympia-watch at this heading)
One-party rule in Olympia has led to a lack of consequences for significant failures, from crippling data breaches and significant cost overruns for transportation projects to the early release of violent prisoners and the unaddressed homelessness and substance abuse crisis.
Without government accountability, everyday families will continue facing the devastating impact of failures.
We will work to hold the governor and his state agencies accountable, working to restore public trust by increasing oversight and implementing proven reforms.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/olympia-watch
Heading as listed on wagop.org/olympia-watch ↗ (opens wagop.org/olympia-watch at this heading)
Parents have a right to know what their children are taught – and they have a right to decide how their children are educated.
We’re committed to strengthening trust in our K-12 education system by ensuring transparency.
Unlike the Democrats’ special interest-driven agenda, we believe in enabling parents to help their children succeed in school and life by assuring the financial and educational flexibility necessary for school choice to become a reality.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wagop.org/olympia-watch
Heading as listed on wagop.org/olympia-watch ↗ (opens wagop.org/olympia-watch at this heading)
Each part reads different filings, so counts and totals can differ.
Direct PAC contributions and independent expenditures explicitly reported as support, by the party of the candidate they went to.
No candidate-directed contributions or explicitly supportive independent expenditures were returned.
Contributions are reported money, not endorsements; a PAC giving to both parties is common.
Every contribution on line 23 of the committee’s own Schedule B, which is the filing its summary totals are built from. That line covers federal candidates, party committees and other political committees alike, so a super PAC funding other super PACs appears here rather than under candidate giving.
| Recipient | Count | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Republican party committees | 1 | $64K · 100% |
| All recipients | 1 | $64K |
No recipient here is matched to a candidate with a state on record.
Bars drawn to $64K, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
Nothing loaded
Candidate contribution rows come from candidate committee Schedule A filings, the same rows the party chart above counts.
Money moving between this committee and other committees, matched on FEC committee ID rather than the name each filing was typed under. Both sides exclude memo entries. The figures here count each committee once, from the itemized transfers read for this section, so they will not match the payment counts under Who this PAC gave to.
Committees that reported giving to this one on their own Schedule A filings, grouped by the giver’s committee ID.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 14 payments | $272.8K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 5 payments | $137.1K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $43.9K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to GOP WINNING WOMEN 2026 · 1 payment |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 2,629 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $740.6K. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 7 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $107.3K from 7 sources in all.
The 2 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $3,128,364
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 Oct 14, 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.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2,592 contributions · 99% | $726,048 |
| 3 contributions · 0.7% | $5,000 |
| 3 contributions · 0.2% | $1,232 |
| 1 contribution · 0.2% | $1,125 |
| 8 contributions · 0.1% | $1,070 |
| 5 contributions · 0.1% | $990 |
| 2 contributions · <0.1% | $600 |
| 1 contribution · <0.1% |
Total reported disbursements $2,849,252
Every dollar this committee reported spending this cycle, split by the lines it reports against. Open a line to see who was actually paid on it. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
$2.8M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $270.8K, September 2026.
The running total of what the committee’s FEC reports say it spent, independent expenditures included, with a point at the end of each report. The line is straight between reports because a report gives one total for its whole period.
Published by the Commission against this committee’s own FEC ID. An audit is a periodic examination that reports findings; an administrative fine is a penalty for filing a specific report late or not at all. They are separate instruments and are not combined into a score here.
1976 cycleReport released Dec 21, 1978
Source: the Commission’s audit-case and administrative-fine records, joined on this committee’s FEC ID, imported Oct 26, 2026. Enforcement matters (MURs) are published only against respondent names, with no committee identifier, so they are not shown here rather than being matched by name.
No lobbying disclosures matched
Washington State Republican Party is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a party committee (qualified). Its FEC record names Mcmorris Rodgers Win the Future Fund as an affiliate. Official FEC summary: Federal Election Commission committee record.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the committee’s or its sponsor’s; the record marking is ours.
Washington State Republican Party is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| $37K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $250 |
$491K from 5 committees, counting every itemized receipt this cycle.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $111.3K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 2 payments | $69.9K |
From the 2 largest of 3 recipient committees: $181.2K, or 6.4% of everything this committee reports spending.
Built from FEC Schedule A and Schedule B filings for the selected cycle. A committee only appears here if the money was itemized under its FEC committee ID.
| $500 |
By the state each contributor wrote on the filing. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line together, so one committee or organization transfer can account for a whole state. Contributors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized and 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 · 1,424 contributions · 49% of ranked | $328,314 |
| Written instead of an employer · 220 contributions · 6.1% of ranked | $40,291 |
| Written instead of an employer · 45 contributions · 4.8% of ranked | $32,040 |
| 1 contribution · 3.8% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 4 contributions · 3% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 9 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $15,337 |
| 1 contribution · 1.5% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 1 contribution · 1.5% of ranked | $10,000 |
A further $67,163 came from donors whose answer names no employer (Information requested, None, blank), so it is not ranked. Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 employer spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. 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 ($743,932) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 1,438 contributions · 49% of ranked | $330,101 |
| 62 contributions · 6% of ranked | $40,347 |
| 15 contributions · 5.6% of ranked | $37,810 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 46 contributions · 4.9% of ranked | $32,759 |
| 4 contributions · 3% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 17 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $16,919 |
| 23 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $14,986 |
| 55 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $10,200 |
A further $66,373 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (Information requested, None, blank), so it is not ranked. Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 occupation spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. 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 ($743,932) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $590,525
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 Oct 14, 2026.
All 730 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
7 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $3,900 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 |
|---|---|
| 16 payments · 5% of all spending | $142,102 |
| 4 payments · 3.9% of all spending | $111,321 |
| 2 payments · 2.5% of all spending | $69,881 |
| 8 payments · 1.2% of all spending | $33,890 |
| 2 payments · 0.7% of all spending | $20,255 |
| 3 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $14,471 |
| 32 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $13,913 |
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.