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
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00678839 · files monthly
Notices dated after Oct 14, 2026 are added; earlier ones are already in the regular reports.
“We’re building a movement to save democracy and defeat authoritarianism. That work requires more than tactics—it requires shared values that guide how we show up, who we fight for, and what we’re building together.”
Indivisible Action, on its own site, indivisible.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.
11 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.
Not an additional dime to fund Trump’s war on Iran
Tell Congress: Not an additional dime to fund Trump’s war on Iran
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org
Heading as listed on indivisible.org ↗ (opens indivisible.org at this heading) · “WEEKLY TO-DOS” on indivisible.org ↗ (opens indivisible.org at this heading)
We’re fighting back to win and defend elections in key states.
Georgia is a top priority.
North Carolina is a top priority.
Michigan is a top priority.
Alaska is a top priority.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org
Heading as listed on indivisible.org ↗ (opens indivisible.org at this heading)
We’re building a movement to save democracy and defeat authoritarianism.
That work requires more than tactics—it requires shared values that guide how we show up, who we fight for, and what we’re building together.
We believe in a multiracial, inclusive democracy—one where everyone has equal rights and equal power, no matter where they live or what they look like.
That’s the America we’re fighting for.
We lead with hope—not fear.
Authoritarians want us to feel powerless.
They rely on fear and division to keep people on the sidelines.
We don’t put our faith in individual politicians.
We put our energy into organizing.
This is a movement, not a moment.
We have each other’s backs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about/our-commitment-to-nonviolence
We believe that politics is too important to leave up to the politicians – it requires all of us to get on the field.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/about ↗ (opens indivisible.org/about at this heading)
Indivisible provides tools, training, research, and strategic coordination so people can take effective action—whether that means protecting free and fair elections, stopping harmful legislation, or demanding bold solutions to the challenges we face.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/about ↗ (opens indivisible.org/about at this heading)
Our vision is a democracy that delivers for everyone—not just the wealthy or well-connected.
We are committed to nonviolent action, multiracial democracy, and a government that is accountable to the people it serves.
2,500 Indivisible groups are organizing throughout the country
99% Of Congressional districts have an Indivisible group
2 Million+ Actions were taken by Indivisibles last year
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about
The Indivisible Project drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/about ↗ (opens indivisible.org/about at this heading)
Indivisible Action channels grassroots energy into electing progressive candidates who will work towards an inclusive democracy that provides for the needs of all people, and to defeat politicians who will stand in its way.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/about
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/about ↗ (opens indivisible.org/about at this heading)
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/about ↗ (opens indivisible.org/about at this heading)
Hands Off Our Vote is a national program, but its power comes from you, your community, and the work we can do together.
We’ll focus on four main paths to help protect elections in every state:
- Help pre-bunk voting misinformation and be a trusted local messenger. We’re the most reliable messengers in our own networks and communities. Hands Off Our Vote will share information and resources like social graphics, designed to get ahead of lies about the election and spread accurate info instead. We can use them to inoculate against misleading information, and people are more likely to believe it because it’s coming from someone they know and trust.
- Track local/state attacks on voting rights and respond. In a year this big, we’ll all need to be eyes and ears to shine a light on attempts to undermine our vote. If local election administrators or elected officials try to make changes that make it harder to vote or have a free and fair election, we can be ready to respond fast. Maybe it’s writing letters to the local paper, maybe it’s a protest, maybe it’s reaching out to press, maybe it’s something that merits a broader response – the goal is to make sure that desperate republicans can’t try to steal the vote because they think that no one will notice or have the power to push back.
- Participate in national calls to action and be ready for rapid response moments. Hands Off Our Vote will share out calls to action whenever they’re needed across the country, so we can stand together when they try something. National community power, all working to protect the vote! Even if elections are smooth in your area, you can help when other areas are targeted by joining emergency phone banks or uplifting rapid response actions.
- Get trained and ready for election support and mass mobilization this fall. There will be two national trainings in August, and more this fall. If Trump and his allies seek to deny the election, like seizing ballot boxes or refusing to seat the election winners, Hands Off Our Vote and partners across the country will be ready to mobilize for large-scale protests.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote
It’s time to get in formation.
Their attacks on our ability to vote are unprecedented, so our response has to be the same.
Start talking now to everyone you can about how they’re trying to take away our vote and steal the election, all in a desperate attempt to cling to power – and that if we start now, we have the power to stop them.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote
Check your registration – and keep checking it regularly Trump and his election-denying henchmen have been demanding that states hand over their voter lists, all in an effort to find voters to kick off the rolls.
To find an existing group near you, visit indivisible.org/get-involved/find-a-group/
If you’d like to start a new chapter, visit: indivisible.org/get-involved/register-a-group/
It’s part of being a trusted messenger.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Hands-Off-Our-Vote-2026-Toolkit.pdf
Heading as listed on indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote ↗ (opens indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote at this heading) · “HANDS OFF OUR VOTE! A TOOLKIT FOR ELECTION PROTECTION” on indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote ↗ (opens indivisible.org/campaigns/our-vote at this heading)
If the raid and seizure of 2020 ballots from Fulton County’s election hub is any indication, Trump and his authoritarian enablers are laser-focused on meddling in Georgia’s elections this November—and we can’t forget that Trump himself tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, pressuring the secretary of state to “find” votes that would win him the presidency.
Together, we can protect the integrity of Georgia’s elections, including guaranteeing Georgia voters can access early voting sites, combating voter intimidation at the polls, and ensuring every single vote in Georgia is counted.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/battlegrounds-2026-georgia
If Texas Republicans gerrymandering five new GOP House seats at Trump’s behest is any indication, Trump and his authoritarian enablers are laser-focused on meddling in Texas’s elections this November.
Texas Republicans themselves are notorious for sowing voter suppression, including in April’s Democratic Senate primary, and we should be prepared to counter it this year.
Together, we can protect the integrity of Texas’ elections, including guaranteeing Texas voters can access early voting sites, combating voter intimidation at the polls, and ensuring every single vote in Texas is counted.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/battlegrounds-2026-texas
Ending this war will require holding Democrats firm where they are wavering, and creating enough political risk for Republicans that breaking ranks becomes the easier choice.
Every single member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, should be hearing from constituents.
Broad, sustained pressure is what creates the conditions for movement.
The strategy below highlights where that pressure can be most decisive, but no one gets a pass.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/stop-trumps-disastrous-war-on-iran
Stopping the money. This war cannot continue without funding. Democrats must continue forcing votes on War Powers Resolutions and Joint Resolutions of Disapproval to rein it in, and they cannot undermine those efforts by turning around and voting for supplemental funding that keeps the war going. That includes funding for direct U.S. operations or additional military aid packages to the Israeli government.
Demanding real oversight. Votes alone are not accountability. Democrats must use every oversight tool available – hearings, subpoenas, and investigations – to expose how this war was launched and sustained without congressional authorization.
Following through on accountability measures. Rep. Ansari’s articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Hegseth signal a serious escalation. That cannot be a one-off. If the administration violated the Constitution, Democrats need to act like it, publicly, consistently, and with urgency.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/stop-trumps-disastrous-war-on-iran
This is where strategy matters: not all Republicans are persuadable in the same way, some messaging has more sway than others.
We believe it’s strategic to focus on members who fall into a few key categories:
- Anti-intervention: Some Republicans have long been skeptical of foreign entanglements and executive overreach. For these members, the most effective arguments center on constitutional authority and opposition to endless, unauthorized war.
- For example, Senator Lisa Murkowski voted to advance a War Powers Resolution requiring congressional approval for further military action in Venezuela, while also raising concerns about the lack of a “clear and achievable end goal” and questioning shifting justifications for the intervention.
- Members responsive to economic pressure and constituent concerns: Others are less motivated by ideology and more by the realities at home (“America First”). Here, the case is straightforward: rising costs, strained federal resources, and misplaced priorities. Billions spent on war while families struggle domestically is a contrast that resonates.
- Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is a clear example of a pressure target: she has publicly opposed additional funding for the war, arguing that resources should be prioritized at home. That position creates a direct test; if she truly opposes funding the war, she should be willing to back votes that actually constrain and end it.
- Members who’ve expressed reservations about the war or are facing political pressure: Some Republicans have stated they would not support the war beyond the 60-day mark without Congressional approval. These have often been electeds in competitive districts or states, where they know they need to distance themselves from Trump’s worst actions. We need to hold them accountable to that.
- For example, Senator Collins (ME) recently broke from her party and voted in favor of a war powers resolution, citing the 60-day deadline and emphasizing Congressional authority.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · indivisible.org/campaigns/stop-trumps-disastrous-war-on-iran
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.
Spending against candidates is drawn on its own bar and left out of the support totals.
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 | 9 | $19.4K · 21% |
| Other PACs and committees | 3 | $75K · 79% |
| All recipients | 12 | $94.4K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Washington | 1 | $10K |
| Minnesota | 1 | $2.1K |
| New York | 2 | $2.1K |
| Massachusetts | 1 | $1K |
| California | 1 | $1K |
| Tennessee | 1 | $1K |
| Hawaii | 1 | $1K |
| Georgia | 1 | $1K |
The 14 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $296.5K from 6 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 $10,923,517
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 |
|---|---|
| 7,916 contributions · 33% | $1,485,203 |
| 2,285 contributions · 9.9% |
Total reported disbursements $6,114,115
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.
These are the payments the committee itemized to vendors, staff and other committees. Its $406,519 in independent expenditures is filed separately, against the candidate each was about, so it is counted in the split above and listed by candidate below, not here.
$6.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $1.2M, July 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
Indivisible Action is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a Hybrid PAC (qualified). 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.
Indivisible Action 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 $40K, 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 (qualified) · Connected to MURPHY · 1 payment | $50K |
$50K 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 |
|---|---|
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $40K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $25K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BATTLEGROUND BLUE PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to PRAMILA'S PROGRESSIVE POWER PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to FIGHT BACK MIDWEST · 2 payments | $2.1K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to CALIFORNIA HOUSE MAJORITY FUND · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to AVILA CHEVALIER AND VALDEZ VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $1K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to DR. JASMINE CLARK SCIENCE VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $1K |
$94.4K across 15 recipient committees, or 1.5% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $1K was filed as memo entries, which FEC reports separately to avoid counting it twice.
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.
| $446,798 |
| 2,504 contributions · 6.7% | $305,814 |
| 2,509 contributions · 5.3% | $241,611 |
| 1,106 contributions · 3.4% | $154,337 |
| 1,083 contributions · 3% | $134,925 |
| 1,179 contributions · 2.8% | $128,885 |
| 643 contributions · 2.8% | $128,416 |
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 · 17,315 contributions · 70% of ranked | $2,508,316 |
| Written instead of an employer · 3,095 contributions · 11% of ranked | $382,159 |
| Written instead of an employer · 516 contributions · 2% of ranked | $71,712 |
| 17 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $33,500 |
| 16 contributions · 0.7% of ranked | $26,168 |
| 52 contributions · 0.5% of ranked | $17,925 |
| 5 contributions · 0.4% of ranked | $14,000 |
| 15 contributions · 0.3% of ranked | $12,000 |
A further $386,954 came from donors whose answer names no employer (Information requested, 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 ($91,986) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 17,211 contributions · 62% of ranked | $2,430,201 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 1,111 contributions · 5.2% of ranked | $202,296 |
| 596 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $84,833 |
| 327 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $58,581 |
| 455 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $51,796 |
| 444 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $49,406 |
| 359 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $47,949 |
| 359 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $47,114 |
A further $315,364 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (Information requested, N/A, 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 ($91,986) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $103,238
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 82 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1 payment · 0.7% of all spending | $40,000 |
| 1 payment · 0.4% of all spending | $25,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.2% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.2% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 53 payments · <0.1% of all spending | $5,338 |
| 10 payments · <0.1% of all spending | $3,465 |
| 2 payments · <0.1% of all spending | $2,097 |
| 1 payment · <0.1% of all spending | $1,048 |
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.