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 › PAC (qualified) › 2025–2026
PAC (qualified)Lobbyist/registrant PACMembership organizationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: J Street
Political fund of J Street
J Street (Hebrew: ג'יי סטריט) is an American nonprofit liberal Zionist advocacy and lobby group based in the United States whose aims include strengthening Jewish democracy in Israel, promoting a diplomatic end to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution, and opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. J Street describes itself as "the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people". Many right-wing and Zionist critics allege that J Street and the policies they support are anti-Israel. At the same time, Left-wing and anti-Zionist movements criticize J Street's positions supporting Zionism and aid to Israel, its rejection of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and human rights organizations' allegations of a Gaza genocide, and past efforts against Palestinian statehood. (Linked public record: Wikipedia organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00441949 · files monthly
“J Street organizes pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans to promote US policies that reflect our deeply held Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. We believe that only a negotiated resolution agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians can meet the legitimate needs and national aspirations of both peoples.
Working in the American political system, in the Jewish community and with partners who share our core values, we advocate for diplomacy-first American leadership and policies that advance justice, equality, peace and democracy in Israel, the wider region and the United States.”
J Street, the organization this committee is the political fund of,
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 site of J Street, the organization this committee is the political fund of, 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.
J Street is the political home of pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans.
Living our values, defending democracy
Our Work ↗ (opens jstreet.org at this heading)
The views of the majority of American Jews were previously underrepresented and ignored in our politics. We’re changing that, and in the process, transforming our national conversation about what it means to be pro-Israel.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org
Heading as listed on jstreet.org ↗ (opens jstreet.org at this heading)
The U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expires in 2028.
Along with Israel’s actions in Gaza and the costly war with Iran, the MOU’s impending expiration has prompted a growing debate over the future of the bilateral relationship.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/policy-analysis
J Street has previously proposed five principles for a mutually beneficial and politically sustainable security partnership:
- The United States should maintain a strong security partnership with Israel where our interests align.
- The United States should phase out direct financial support for arms sales to Israel and treat Israel as it does other wealthy U.S. allies.
- U.S. arms sales and other forms of assistance to Israel should be fully consistent with American law.
- U.S. arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws — as has been the case with other allies and partners — when their behavior is inconsistent with U.S. interests.
- The United States should continue to sell short-range air and ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities to Israel.
The first topic has drawn particular attention in recent months amid proposals that would significantly deepen defense, intelligence, and technology cooperation.
The following principles provide a framework for achieving that balance.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/resources/framework-mutually-beneficial-us-israel-defense-technology-cooperation
In recent months, J Street has been outlining what a healthier, more sustainable US-Israel relationship might look like – one that maintains the US commitment to Israel’s security while ending the exceptionalism that has long defined the relationship and harmed both countries.
about Reimagining the US-Palestinian Relationship
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/us-israel-relationship
We argued that while close cooperation should continue when interests align, it should operate on terms similar to those governing other US relationships.
The era of a blank check must end: When Israeli policies contradict US interests, laws, or values, they should not receive automatic American backing, whether in the form of military assistance or diplomatic protection.
This argument is both logical and overdue.
But it must also be built upon.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/resources/reimagining-us-palestinian-relationship
The war in Gaza, rising extremist Jewish terror in the West Bank and the US-Israel war with Iran have highlighted the need for a fundamental reassessment of the US-Israel security relationship.
The use of American weapons in ways that have resulted in mass civilian casualties and raised serious concerns about war crimes, alongside policies that diverge from US interests, has intensified scrutiny of how American support is structured and delivered.
These developments underscore the need for a more sustainable approach that ensures America’s support for Israel is not a blank check.
It reflects decades of close cooperation and overlapping strategic interests.
The US also benefits meaningfully from the relationship.
Protecting civilians should be a moral imperative for US policy.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/resources/reassessing-us-israel-security-relationship-0
Heading as listed on jstreet.org/our-work ↗ (opens jstreet.org/our-work at this heading)
Congress must pressure the Netanyahu government to stop punishing American citizens who are peacefully putting their Jewish values into action.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/israel-and-region
Heading as listed on jstreet.org/issues/israel-and-region ↗ (opens jstreet.org/issues/israel-and-region at this heading) · “Israel and the Region” on jstreet.org/our-work ↗ (opens jstreet.org/our-work at this heading)
This law is a moral stain and a betrayal of the Jewish and democratic values on which Israel was founded.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/israeli-politics
This move further strips Palestinians of control over their own land and is a direct violation of Israel’s international commitments.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/israeli-politics
Heading as listed on jstreet.org/our-work ↗ (opens jstreet.org/our-work at this heading)
Limits through oversight, investigations and prosecution.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/us-politics
Heading as listed on jstreet.org/issues/us-politics ↗ (opens jstreet.org/issues/us-politics at this heading) · “US Politics” on jstreet.org/our-work ↗ (opens jstreet.org/our-work at this heading)
Washington, DC – J Street opposes the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · jstreet.org/issues/antisemitism
Heading as listed on jstreet.org/issues/antisemitism ↗ (opens jstreet.org/issues/antisemitism at this heading) · “Antisemitism” on jstreet.org/our-work ↗ (opens jstreet.org/our-work 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic candidates | 115 | $461.5K · 69% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 18 | $24.4K · 3.7% |
| Other party committees | 1 | $44.3K · 6.6% |
| Other PACs and committees | 14 | $138.1K · 21% |
| All recipients | 148 | $668.2K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | 13 | $74.3K |
| North Carolina | 2 | $43.4K |
| California | 22 | $38.2K |
| Iowa | 2 | $33.3K |
| Pennsylvania | 7 | $29.6K |
| Michigan | 2 | $25.5K |
| Georgia | 5 | $23.7K |
| Texas | 7 | $20.4K |
The largest 8 of 32 states.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 6,872 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $6.8M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Total reported receipts $9,361,923
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 |
|---|---|
| 1,651 contributions · 22% | $1,490,261 |
| 1,206 contributions · 16% | $1,102,134 |
| 886 contributions · 14% | $951,356 |
| 194 contributions · 8% | $543,781 |
| 175 contributions · 7.6% |
Total reported disbursements $9,130,832
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.
$9.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $1.4M, 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.
No lobbying disclosures matched
J Street (Hebrew: ג'יי סטריט) is an American nonprofit liberal Zionist advocacy and lobby group based in the United States whose aims include strengthening Jewish democracy in Israel, promoting a diplomatic end to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution, and opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. J Street describes itself as "the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people". Many right-wing and Zionist critics allege that J Street and the policies they support are anti-Israel. At the same time, Left-wing and anti-Zionist movements criticize J Street's positions supporting Zionism and aid to Israel, its rejection of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and human rights organizations' allegations of a Gaza genocide, and past efforts against Palestinian statehood. Linked public record: Wikipedia organization profile.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the committee’s or its sponsor’s; the record marking is ours.
Jstreetpac is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
LittleSis data is shared under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Bars drawn to $44.8K, 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 |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $1.1K |
$1.1K from 1 committee, 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 |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $44.8K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 1 payment | $44.3K |
| House campaign committee · 63 payments | $39.2K |
| Senate campaign committee · 28 payments | $38.4K |
| House campaign committee · 40 payments | $31.8K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · Connected to AMERICA WORKS FEDERAL PAC · 33 payments | $28.6K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 3 payments | $25K |
| House campaign committee · 28 payments | $23.5K |
| Senate campaign committee · 35 payments | $20K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to BLUE DOG VICTORY FUND · 35 payments | $18.3K |
| House campaign committee · 23 payments | $15.7K |
| House campaign committee · 8 payments | $14K |
$665.7K across 144 recipient committees, or 7.3% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown.
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.
| $520,800 |
| 658 contributions · 6.4% | $434,856 |
| 119 contributions · 4% | $270,375 |
| 399 contributions · 3.3% | $224,039 |
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 · 892 contributions · 31% of ranked | $802,254 |
| 45 contributions · 6.5% of ranked | $165,000 |
| 36 contributions · 6.4% of ranked | $163,400 |
| 95 contributions · 3.8% of ranked | $97,000 |
| 176 contributions · 3.1% of ranked | $80,500 |
| 14 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $67,800 |
| 21 contributions · 2% of ranked | $52,000 |
| 14 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $48,000 |
A further $4,183,378 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A, 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 ($22,296) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 3,738 contributions · 59% of ranked | $3,994,258 |
| 698 contributions · 8.6% of ranked | $585,014 |
| 100 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $180,696 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 182 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $168,070 |
| 36 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $163,400 |
| 78 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $145,200 |
| 23 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $110,250 |
| 77 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $85,040 |
A further $18,160 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (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 ($22,296) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $808,377
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 1,048 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $131,250 |
| 2 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $44,800 |
| 1 payment · 0.5% of all spending | $44,300 |
| 63 payments · 0.4% of all spending | $39,219 |
| 28 payments · 0.4% of all spending | $38,425 |
| 40 payments · 0.3% of all spending | $31,790 |
| 33 payments · 0.3% of all spending | $28,603 |
| 3 payments · 0.3% of all spending | $25,015 |
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.