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 (nonqualified) › 2025–2026
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00636027 · files quarterly
“Tech for Campaigns’ (TFC) mission is to fight extremism and help Democrats win at scale by using advanced commercial digital marketing and data techniques.
To do that, we look for the highest ROI opportunities to utilize digital marketing and data to change electoral outcomes. Our program, The Lab, is our new model for evolving Democratic playbooks to win, designed to push the Democratic ecosystem into the modern age. It’s where Democrats can finally test ideas the way commercial organizations do, replacing a long-standing resistance to experimentation with a structure that forces learning and iteration.”
Tech for Campaigns, on its own site, techforcampaigns.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.
Tech for Campaigns has always pursued the highest ROI digital marketing and data strategies to help the Democrats win power.
Now the highest ROI opportunity has fundamentally shifted, and we're shifting with it to make sure we’re on a winning team.
The party is stuck using outdated playbooks, sending ineffective text messages and email open rates have plummeted by 50% since 2020.
this isn't a money problem
This is a strategy and tactics problem.
An unwillingness to test new things problem.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · techforcampaigns.org
Heading as listed on techforcampaigns.org ↗ (opens techforcampaigns.org at this heading)
We won’t win by doing last cycle's tactics slightly better.
We'll win by adapting faster to fundamentally new terrain, starting with the midterms.
TFC’s superpower has always been building new models to meet the moment.
We're building the infrastructure to ensure Democrats aren't just keeping pace but are setting it to win.
The last year has felt like a tectonic shift.
We have to evolve to win.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · techforcampaigns.org
Heading as listed on techforcampaigns.org ↗ (opens techforcampaigns.org at this heading)
Tech for Campaigns is focused on bringing commercial digital marketing and data best practices to the highest-ROI opportunities to fight extremism and change electoral outcomes.
Our work centers on two core programs:
- Digital Voter Turnout: Reaching low-propensity Democrats to vote early or by mail. These voters lean Democratic but are less likely to vote at all, making them high-impact targets.
- Digital Campaign Services: Equipping state-level swing-district campaigns with top-tier digital talent and strategies from the commercial world
In the section that follows, we share key data-backed insights from these programs that reveal what actually worked—and what didn't—in the 2024 digital battleground.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · techforcampaigns.org/results/2024-digital-ads-report
With Roe v Wade overturned, states decide on a person's right to choose.
Tech for Campaigns is working in many of these states to change control of the legislatures so we can protect reproductive (and many more) rights.
Turn your anger into action.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · techforcampaigns.org/action/protectabortion
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.
No contributions itemized
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 |
|---|---|
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to AFS PAC · 2 payments | $40K |
$40K 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.
No disbursements to other committees were itemized this cycle.
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.
The 15 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $481.7K from 14 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.
Total reported receipts $1,846,696
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 |
|---|---|
| 125 contributions · 50% | $599,362 |
| 13 contributions · 27% | $325,445 |
| 5 contributions · 11% | $130,000 |
| 8 contributions · 4.6% | $55,125 |
| 26 contributions · 2.4% | $28,670 |
| 26 contributions · 2.2% | $26,774 |
Total reported disbursements $3,095,497
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.
Total itemized disbursements $736
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 48 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
1 payment was reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $463 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 |
|---|---|
| 1 payment · <0.1% of all spending | $463 |
| 47 payments · <0.1% of all spending | $273 |
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.
$3.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $1.1M, Jan 1 – Jun 30, 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.
No lobbying disclosures matched
Tech for Campaigns is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a Hybrid PAC (nonqualified). 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.
Tech for Campaigns 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.
| $25,900 |
| 14 contributions · 0.7% | $8,675 |
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 · 22 contributions · 27% of ranked | $149,742 |
| 1 contribution · 18% of ranked | $100,000 |
| 1 contribution · 18% of ranked | $100,000 |
| 1 contribution · 8.9% of ranked | $50,000 |
| 8 contributions · 6.4% of ranked | $36,000 |
| 3 contributions · 4.6% of ranked | $26,000 |
| 1 contribution · 4.4% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 4.4% of ranked | $25,000 |
A further $646,195 came from donors whose answer names no employer (Information requested, N/A), so it is not ranked. 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 ($545) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 48 contributions · 49% of ranked | $593,695 |
| 15 contributions · 8.4% of ranked | $101,270 |
| 1 contribution · 8.3% of ranked | $100,000 |
| 1 contribution · 8.3% of ranked | $100,000 |
| 9 contributions · 7.1% of ranked | $86,000 |
| 1 contribution · 4.1% of ranked | $50,000 |
| 2 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $25,250 |
| 1 contribution · 2.1% of ranked | $25,000 |
A further $2,500 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (Information requested), so it is not ranked. 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 ($545) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.