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 › Hybrid PAC (qualified) › 2025–2026
Hybrid PAC (qualified)Washington, District of ColumbiaActive
Committee type: Hybrid PAC (with Non-Contribution Account) - Qualified (Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00632133 · files monthly
“Swing Left helps win elections for Democrats by making it as easy as possible for anyone to have maximum impact on the elections that determine the balance of power in our country.”
Swing Left, on its own site, swingleft.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.
10 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.
Let’s win back control of the country.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org
Heading as listed on swingleft.org ↗ (opens swingleft.org at this heading)
Winning in 2026 isn’t enough.
We need to win big, and win in a way that lasts.
Swing Left has the plan to make it happen:
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org
Heading as listed on swingleft.org ↗ (opens swingleft.org at this heading)
Working to win back the House is a fundamental piece of the "stop Trump" strategy.
It puts a necessary check on the MAGA agenda, and it's Step One in removing Republicans from federal office, full stop.
With the narrowest House majority in almost 100 years, winning the House is doable.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/house
Heading as listed on swingleft.org ↗ (opens swingleft.org at this heading)
Flipping the Senate is within reach.
Republicans currently hold a 53–47 Senate majority.
Of the 35 seats up in 2026, 22 are held by Republicans and 13 by Democrats.
Between 2027 and the end of Trump’s term, a Democratic Senate could block dangerous judicial and executive nominees, shape the balance of power in Washington, and help prevent lasting damage that could take decades to undo.
But even if Democrats fall short of a Senate majority, every race we win in 2026 matters enormously.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/senate
Heading as listed on swingleft.org ↗ (opens swingleft.org at this heading)
Heading as listed on swingleft.org ↗ (opens swingleft.org at this heading)
We invest continually in communities and organizers to build the long-term infrastructure necessary to gain and hold power for Democrats because we cannot expect to drop in every two or four years and have the trust and organization we need to win.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/about-us
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/about-us ↗ (opens swingleft.org/about-us at this heading)
Even in the best of times, civic engagement at a massive scale is necessary to ensure a government that reflects the will of the American people.
As we face the threat of a GOP that increasingly sees its path to power through subverting that will, we must drive towards a level of participation that is even broader, deeper, and more sustained.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/about-us
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/about-us ↗ (opens swingleft.org/about-us at this heading)
We recognize that as a country, we have a long way to go to build a government and society that serves the interests of all Americans, but also that an empowered Democratic Party is critical to move us forward.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/about-us
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/about-us ↗ (opens swingleft.org/about-us at this heading)
Swing Left’s specific contribution towards tangible, positive change in our country is winning elections against Republicans.
To do that, we focus our efforts on winning the swing races that deliver and keep power for all Democrats.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/about-us
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/about-us ↗ (opens swingleft.org/about-us at this heading)
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/about-us ↗ (opens swingleft.org/about-us at this heading)
Invest in the races that will break Republican control in Washington—chosen through rigorous analysis and where grassroots support can truly change the outcome.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/funds
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/funds ↗ (opens swingleft.org/funds at this heading)
Choosing targets is both an art and a science.
To help you invest in the races where grassroots time and resources can make the biggest difference between winning and losing, our team analyzes:
District-level data including past win or loss margins and voter turnout trends
Redistricting changes, top-of-ticket dynamics, and candidate quality
Where support this year has the potential to build momentum for future candidates
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/funds
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/funds ↗ (opens swingleft.org/funds at this heading)
By directing grassroots energy and resources to the right targets and the right tactics, we will transform how Democrats win elections and build enduring power, now and in the future.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/strategy
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/strategy ↗ (opens swingleft.org/strategy at this heading)
It’s to win the midterms decisively—by margins too large to contest, with majorities too strong to fracture and powerful enough to govern—to lay the foundation for what comes next.
That’s how we’ll build enduring Democratic power into the next decade.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/strategy
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/strategy ↗ (opens swingleft.org/strategy at this heading)
More races are now competitive, and more people can have more impact, in more places, than at any point since Trump’s reelection.
We’re adding new House targets, as well as key Senate and state-level targets that will shape the balance of power—and the rules of the game—for the next decade.
There are three types of targets: ↗ (opens swingleft.org/strategy at this heading)
Two types are races we must win to control the House or Senate: Must-Flip and Must-Hold. We are aiming to win as close to 100% of these races as possible. Because this is where elections are decided, and where falling short by even a few votes can mean losing power.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/strategy
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/strategy ↗ (opens swingleft.org/strategy at this heading)
Governors and state legislatures control redistricting and set the rules for how elections are run.
Which party wins power in the states in 2026 will shape control of the House—and the White House—for years to come.
To fight back against Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression, a key part of our long-term strategy, we need to win in the states.
State governments also have enormous influence over people’s daily lives.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · swingleft.org/states
Heading as listed on swingleft.org/states ↗ (opens swingleft.org/states 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 | 60 | $349.4K · 91% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 1 | $13.1K · 3.4% |
| Democratic party committees | 1 | $10K · 2.6% |
| Other party committees | 1 | $2.9K · 0.8% |
| Other PACs and committees | 3 | $7.8K · 2% |
| All recipients | 66 | $383.2K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 5 | $45.1K |
| North Carolina | 3 | $32.7K |
| Ohio | 5 | $28.7K |
| Arizona | 3 | $27.9K |
| Virginia | 3 | $21.4K |
| Iowa | 4 | $21.3K |
| Alaska | 2 | $20.6K |
| Texas | 4 | $19.5K |
The largest 8 of 24 states.
The 15 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $2.1M from 15 sources in all, with its largest individual donors, whose gifts it files here too. Individuals' gifts on this line are not itemized in the data the site holds, so the list need not add up to the row.
The largest of the committees is listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $16,490,789
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 |
|---|---|
| 3,080 contributions · 30% | $2,369,654 |
| 18 contributions · 13% | $1,006,242 |
Total reported disbursements $15,606,982
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.
$15.6M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $1.3M, 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
Committee type: Hybrid PAC (with Non-Contribution Account) - Qualified Linked public record: LittleSis 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.
Swing Left 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 $16.2K, 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 |
|---|---|
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $50 |
$5.1K from 2 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 |
|---|---|
| House campaign committee · 7 payments | $16.2K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to BLUE DOG VICTORY FUND · 9 payments | $14.5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to HINES VICTORY FUND · 8 payments | $13.6K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to AMISH SHAH VICTORY FUND · 8 payments | $13.4K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to IMPOSSIBLE TO INEVITABLE · 8 payments | $13.1K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to MCCANN VICTORY FUND · 8 payments | $13.1K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to MAJORITY MAKERS VICTORY FUND · 7 payments | $12.7K |
| House campaign committee · 6 payments | $11.7K |
| House campaign committee · 8 payments | $11K |
| Senate campaign committee · 5 payments | $11K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to IMPOSSIBLE TO INEVITABLE · 4 payments | $11K |
| House campaign committee · 4 payments | $11K |
$383.2K across 66 recipient committees, or 2.5% 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.
| $994,482 |
| 17 contributions · 9.7% | $753,925 |
| 839 contributions · 9.3% | $726,002 |
| 290 contributions · 5.9% | $460,442 |
| 124 contributions · 3.5% | $273,835 |
| 361 contributions · 1.9% | $147,764 |
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 · 3,980 contributions · 35% of ranked | $2,671,229 |
| 1 contribution · 13% of ranked | $1,000,000 |
| 3 contributions · 12% of ranked | $900,000 |
| Written instead of an employer · 1,043 contributions · 9% of ranked | $684,837 |
| 38 contributions · 4.6% of ranked | $350,000 |
| 53 contributions · 4% of ranked | $307,000 |
| 1 contribution · 2.6% of ranked | $200,000 |
| 4 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $175,000 |
A further $12,274 came from donors whose answer names no employer (Information requested, 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 ($881,520) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 3,782 contributions · 31% of ranked | $2,419,818 |
| 1 contribution · 13% of ranked | $1,000,000 |
| 308 contributions · 12% of ranked | $960,438 |
| 38 contributions · 4.5% of ranked | $350,000 |
| 233 contributions · 4.5% of ranked | $348,159 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 198 contributions · 3.3% of ranked | $251,411 |
| 10 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $212,839 |
| 150 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $205,186 |
A further $13,274 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (Information requested, 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 ($881,520) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $12,577,804
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 6,205 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
46 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $995,272 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 |
|---|---|
| 418 payments · 17% of all spending | $2,601,512 |
| 23 payments · 6.3% of all spending | $976,907 |
| 21 payments · 4% of all spending | $618,000 |
| 44 payments · 2.7% of all spending | $427,552 |
| 8 payments · 2.4% of all spending | $370,000 |
| 45 payments · 2% of all spending | $307,710 |
| 22 payments · 1.7% of all spending | $265,700 |
| 19 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $210,629 |
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.