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
Founded by David Hogg and Kevin Lata, Leaders We Deserve is a grassroots organization dedicated to electing young progressives to Congress and State Legislatures across the country to help defeat the far-right agenda and advance a progressive vision for the future. Hogg: "lumbar support for people with a spine" (Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00843110 · files monthly
Notices dated after Oct 14, 2026 are added; earlier ones are already in the regular reports.
“Leaders We Deserve is a grassroots organization dedicated to electing young progressives to Congress and State Legislatures across the country to help defeat the far-right agenda and advance a progressive vision for the future. Our mission is to identify and elect more trailblazers – youthful, audacious, and charismatic leaders who aren’t afraid to challenge the status quo. We pledge to stand with them, equipping their campaigns with the tools to succeed: from fundraising and messaging to scheduling and budgeting. We’ll raise the banner of their cause, rallying funds online and in person.”
Leaders WE Deserve, on its own site, leaderswedeserve.com
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.
2 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.
Proximity to the Issues – As the mass shooting generation, we need people in office that understand the anxiety of not knowing if they’ll survive math class.
Representation: Giving young people a voice in politics that looks like them. Giving them more faith in democracy and government.
Voter Turnout: It gives young people (and old people) hope encouraging them to show up and demand action. Think back to Rep Justin Jones after the Nashville shooting and thousands of young people showing up and many after who signed up to run for office.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · leaderswedeserve.com/about
Heading as listed on leaderswedeserve.com/about ↗ (opens leaderswedeserve.com/about at this heading)
Too many elected leaders in the Democratic Party are either unwilling or unable to meet the moment and are asleep at the wheel while Trump is demolishing the economy, challenging the foundations of our democracy, and creating new existential crises for our country by the day.
Today’s party politics has an unwritten rule: if you win a seat, it’s yours for life.
No one serious in your party will challenge you.
That is a culture that we have to break.
Leaders We Deserve Is Taking Action ↗ (opens leaderswedeserve.com/primarying-democrats at this heading)
Leaders We Deserve is launching a $20 million investment to usher in the next generation of Democrats who will go to the mat every day for the American people and use every tactic and tool to stop Trump’s radical right-wing, economically illiterate agenda.
Why This Matters ↗ (opens leaderswedeserve.com/primarying-democrats at this heading)
Like so many, we care deeply about this party.
We want this party to be strong.
Revitalizing and rebuilding it is important work.
Others will demonstrate why they should be replaced.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · leaderswedeserve.com/primarying-democrats
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 | 20 | $132.2K · 24% |
| Other party committees | 1 | $100K · 18% |
| Other PACs and committees | 3 | $308.5K · 57% |
| All recipients | 24 | $540.7K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 4 | $30K |
| Florida | 2 | $13.5K |
| Texas | 1 | $10K |
| Tennessee | 1 | $10K |
| Minnesota | 1 | $10K |
| Michigan | 2 | $10K |
| Ohio | 1 | $8.5K |
| North Carolina | 1 | $5.1K |
The largest 8 of 15 states.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 51,568 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $6.4M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 13 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $279.2K from 13 sources in all.
Total reported receipts $15,759,448
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 |
|---|---|
| 11,725 contributions · 23% | $1,505,261 |
| 2,524 contributions · 13% |
Total reported disbursements $15,422,399
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 $2,740,080 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.
$15.4M 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
Founded by David Hogg and Kevin Lata, Leaders We Deserve is a grassroots organization dedicated to electing young progressives to Congress and State Legislatures across the country to help defeat the far-right agenda and advance a progressive vision for the future. Hogg: "lumbar support for people with a spine" 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.
Leaders WE Deserve 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 $300K, 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 |
|---|---|
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $2.5K |
$2.5K 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 | $300K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $100K |
| House campaign committee · 3 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to CALIFORNIA HOUSE MAJORITY FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to EFFIE AND MAI'S FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to LITTLE VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| Senate campaign committee · 3 payments | $8.5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to IMPOSSIBLE TO INEVITABLE · 2 payments | $8.5K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $6K |
| House campaign committee · 2 payments | $5.1K |
| House campaign committee · 2 payments | $5.1K |
$540.7K across 24 recipient committees, or 3.5% 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.
| $864,646 |
| 3,883 contributions · 13% | $829,940 |
| 2,998 contributions · 5.7% | $364,430 |
| 115 contributions · 5.5% | $355,424 |
| 2,193 contributions · 5.3% | $338,240 |
| 1,800 contributions · 3.3% | $210,542 |
| 2,863 contributions · 3.1% | $198,467 |
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 · 35,537 contributions · 59% of ranked | $3,498,078 |
| Written instead of an employer · 4,722 contributions · 17% of ranked | $990,847 |
| 3 contributions · 3.8% of ranked | $225,000 |
| 2 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $102,500 |
| 1 contribution · 1.7% of ranked | $100,001 |
| 8 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $95,050 |
| 5 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $78,750 |
| 3 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $76,000 |
A further $43,082 came from donors whose answer names no employer (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 ($8,899,827) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 35,122 contributions · 51% of ranked | $3,153,542 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 421 contributions · 5.6% of ranked | $344,745 |
| 50 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $290,800 |
| 3 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $225,000 |
| 13 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $217,801 |
| 194 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $133,482 |
| 118 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $128,104 |
| 346 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $113,612 |
A further $43,082 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 ($8,899,827) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $10,904,503
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 2,879 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
106 payments were reported as a lump sum, such as a card or payroll bill, with the detail filed underneath as memo entries. Those entries, $264,043 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 |
|---|---|
| 93 payments · 29% of all spending | $4,528,985 |
| 106 payments · 5.3% of all spending | $824,925 |
| 57 payments · 3.5% of all spending | $544,793 |
| 113 payments · 3.1% of all spending | $473,976 |
| 1 payment · 1.9% of all spending | $300,000 |
| 23 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $298,260 |
| 22 payments · 1.7% of all spending | $266,430 |
| 42 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $223,038 |
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.