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
Party committee (qualified)Sacramento, CaliforniaActive
Connected organization: Alameda County Republican Party
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00140590 · files monthly
“The California Republican Party is the party that protects innocent life because we believe human life begins at conception and ends at natural death.”
California Republican Party Federal Acct., on its own site, cagop.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.
4 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.
We support efforts to ensure that all qualified citizens may easily register and vote, including the elderly, the handicapped and military personnel.
We support the right of political parties to nominate their own candidates for legislative office.
Recent changes to voter registration and election laws meant to increase voter participation must be balanced with preservation of election integrity.
We therefore support requiring photo identification for voting in person, robust signature verification for voting by mail, verifiable chain of custody for all ballots, and proof of citizenship for voter registration.
We also call for regular and thorough updating of the county voter rolls of inactive registrants.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/F2019Platform.pdf
We support efforts to ensure that all qualified ci�zens may easily register and vote, including the elderly, the handicapped and military personnel.
We support the right of poli�cal par�es to nominate their own candidates for legisla�ve office.
To achieve this, we advocate for:
1. **Photo Identification**: Requiring valid photo identification for in-person voting.
4. **Citizenship Verification**: Mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration.
We believe that our voting system is the pinnacle of our Democratic Republic.
We believe in ensuring that all qualified citizens may easily register and vote, including the elderly, the handicapped and military personnel.
This will be accomplished by:
- REQUIRING VOTER IDENTIFICATION: Republicans recognize that the only way any voting system can assure the precept of one person, one vote, is to assure that no one is able to impersonate a registered voter. Consequently, we strongly support a law which would require would-be voters to present legal, government-issued identification at the time they register and each time they vote in person. At the same time, we would require the highest level of signature verification for any votes submitted via mail or a third party.
- CLEANING OUR VOTER ROLLS. California has more people registered to vote than we have people living in California including those people who have not yet reached voting age and those not eligible to vote, i.e., non-citizens. Republicans would move to have the voting rolls cleaned at the state level as well as with each county Registrar of Voters
- GETTING RID OF THE VOTING MACHINES: Any organization smart enough to create voting software can create digital workarounds to corrupt the vote and with cellphone technology upload and download the software needed to certify the “honesty” of the machine before and after corrupting it. Republicans believe that this is one technology we do not want and do not need. Too, getting rid of these machines would have the added advantage of requiring paper ballots.
- REINSTITUTING IN-PRECINCT/IN-PERSON VOTING/TABULATING. Republicans strongly support this. This is how we voted for 200+ years and could quite easily do so again. A voting weekend (Sat-Tues) will provide accommodation of voter schedules. Voters who cannot travel to the in person voting station will continue to have option to apply for absentee ballot. These measures will have the added benefit of final result as of election day (mailed-in ballots would have to be received on or before and could be tabulated while the precincts are voting).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Final-Amendments-to-Draft-Platform.pdf
We uphold the importance of political parties' right to nominate candidates for legislative offices.
We recognize that fraudulent votes undermine the legitimacy of elections and disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Photo Identification: Requiring valid photo identification for in-person voting.
Signature Verification: Implementing rigorous signature verification processes for mail-in voting.
Citizenship Verification: Mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration.
All signatures on Vote-By-Mail ballots must be authenticated.
A voting weekend (Sat-Tues) will provide accommodation of voter schedules.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Platform-Committee-Working-Document.pdf
Election integrity is a high priority for the CAGOP, as many of our voters feel disenfranchised.
Our very democratic process relies on free, fair, and transparent elections that voters across the political spectrum can trust.
As a result, the CAGOP’s Election Integrity Committee was launched to help restore election transparency, ensuring voters have confidence in future election processes.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/ELECTION-INTEGRITY
Californians use ID all the time: to fly, buy alcohol, cash checks, claim prizes, enter secure buildings, and prove who they are. Voting matters. Prop 39 adds a basic voter ID requirement to California elections.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/yeson39
Heading as listed on cagop.org/yeson39 ↗ (opens cagop.org/yeson39 at this heading)
Prop 39 adds a simple safeguard to California elections: voters verify who they are when they cast a ballot. The goal is straightforward: protect eligible voters, protect legal votes, and give Californians more confidence in election results.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cagop.org/yeson39
Heading as listed on cagop.org/yeson39 ↗ (opens cagop.org/yeson39 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.
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 candidates | 4 | $20K · 100% |
| All recipients | 4 | $20K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 4 | $20K |
Bars drawn to $5K, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
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 |
|---|---|
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 12,515 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.6M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 4 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports. Here they come to $1M, more than the $4.9K this committee's own reports show on the line.
Total reported receipts $8,355,580
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 |
|---|---|
| 9,159 contributions · 94% | $2,449,869 |
| 593 contributions · 1.3% | $33,204 |
Total reported disbursements $8,611,598
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.
$8.6M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $622.3K, March 2025.
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.
2008 cycleReport released Jun 25, 2013
1998 cycleReport released Jun 5, 2001
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
California Republican Party Federal Acct. is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a party committee (qualified). Its FEC record names Alameda County Republican Party 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.
California Republican Party Federal Acct. is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| $1M |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 14 payments | $371.7K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $193.3K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 6 payments | $174.3K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 3 payments | $133.1K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 1 payment | $100K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $24.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to INTERNATIONAL FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION · 1 payment | $5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND · 1 payment | $2.5K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $1.3K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY · 5 payments | $1.1K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 1 payment | $1.1K |
$2M from 19 committees, counting every itemized receipt this cycle. The largest 12 are shown.
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 · 8 payments | $198.3K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 1 payment | $168.3K |
| 2 payments | $115.3K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY - FEDERAL · 1 payment | $20K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to TAMIKA VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $11.5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to VITORIA PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to CALVERT VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to KIM VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $5K |
$533.4K across 8 recipient committees, or 6.2% 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.
| $19,816 |
| 191 contributions · 0.4% | $9,615 |
| 50 contributions · 0.3% | $8,422 |
| 64 contributions · 0.3% | $7,266 |
| 137 contributions · 0.3% | $7,021 |
| 95 contributions · 0.3% | $6,707 |
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 · 663 contributions · 17% of ranked | $157,554 |
| 38 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $23,037 |
| 2 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 21 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $15,019 |
| 6 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $14,335 |
| 11 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $13,117 |
| 4 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $12,605 |
| 10 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $12,520 |
A further $1,184,514 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A, 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 ($2,293,051) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 8,130 contributions · 46% of ranked | $1,060,268 |
| 140 contributions · 4.2% of ranked | $97,546 |
| 77 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $64,400 |
| 101 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $59,405 |
| 113 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $51,763 |
| 119 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $50,945 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 81 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $44,700 |
| 115 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $33,221 |
A further $89,307 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (N/A, 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 ($2,293,051) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $2,329,940
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 339 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
8 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $4,959 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 |
|---|---|
| 34 payments · 5.3% of all spending | $454,044 |
| 83 payments · 3.5% of all spending | $304,784 |
| 10 payments · 3.1% of all spending | $267,404 |
| 8 payments · 2.3% of all spending | $198,321 |
| 7 payments · 2.1% of all spending | $180,264 |
| 1 payment · 2% of all spending | $168,264 |
| 19 payments · 1.5% of all spending | $131,677 |
| 2 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $115,300 |
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.