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 C00895482 · files monthly
“Fields of Change PAC supports bold, progressive candidates running for state and local office. From school boards to city halls to state legislatures, we invest in the next generation of leaders who are ready to take on extremism and deliver for their communities.”
Fields of Change PAC, on its own site, fieldsofchangepac.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.
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.
Fields of Change PAC supports bold, progressive candidates running for state and local office.
From school boards to city halls to state legislatures, we invest in the next generation of leaders who are ready to take on extremism and deliver for their communities.
We believe real, lasting change starts locally.
That’s why we run aggressive, targeted independent expenditure campaigns to help elect leaders who are committed to justice, equity, and democratic values.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · fieldsofchangepac.com
Heading as listed on fieldsofchangepac.com ↗ (opens fieldsofchangepac.com at this heading)
Ending the practice of making customers bear the cost of failed utility investments
Enforcing the 2028 shutdown of coal-fired Plants Scherer and Bowen
Expanding residential solar and increasing the buyback rate to reflect real value
Bringing transparency to PSC operations and eliminating utility influence
Integrating environmental and health impacts into energy decision-making
“I’m running to restore public trust in the PSC and to end the backroom deals that have let utilities profit while Georgians pay the price.”
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones
Heading as listed on fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones ↗ (opens fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones at this heading) · “A Pro-Climate, Pro-Consumer Reformer Ready to Lead” on fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones ↗ (opens fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones at this heading)
The current Republican majority on the PSC has:
❌ Approved the largest electric rate hike in Georgia history
❌ Allowed billions in Plant Vogtle cost overruns to be passed to customers
❌ Kept renewables under 10% of Georgia’s energy mix—while blocking rooftop solar
❌ Enabled a system where Georgia Power disconnects customers at 8x the national average
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · fieldsofchangepac.com/robertjones
Rolando Pablos, a longtime operative in Texas’ right-wing political machine, is running for San Antonio mayor backed by a powerful web of MAGA-aligned megadonors, energy executives, and Republican insiders.
Appointed by Greg Abbott and Rick Perry to high-level state roles, including Secretary of State and Public Utility Commissioner, Pablos played a role in Trump’s discredited voter fraud commission, supported oil and gas interests accused of price gouging during the deadly 2021 winter storm, and opposed San Antonio’s climate and abortion access initiatives.
While he presents himself as a moderate, his deep ties to extremist donors, anti-immigrant policies, and corporate profiteers paint a far more alarming picture—one of a candidate whose election could give the state’s most radical political forces dangerous influence over San Antonio’s future.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · fieldsofchangepac.com/texas-comparison
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) · 2 payments | $67K |
$67K 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 4 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $350K from 4 sources in all.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 8 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 2,709 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $166.3K. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Total reported receipts $1,679,943
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 |
|---|---|
| 450 contributions · 38% | $63,212 |
| 162 contributions · 14% | $23,300 |
| 83 contributions · 4.8% | $7,905 |
| 109 contributions · 4.5% |
Total reported disbursements $1,618,298
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.
$1.6M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $557.3K, Jan 13 – 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
Fields of Change PAC 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.
Fields of Change PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| $7,557 |
| 240 contributions · 3.9% | $6,474 |
| 121 contributions · 3.6% | $5,997 |
| 93 contributions · 3.5% | $5,896 |
| 147 contributions · 3.3% | $5,518 |
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 · 2,366 contributions · 49% of ranked | $75,522 |
| 2 contributions · 16% of ranked | $25,000 |
| Written instead of an employer · 101 contributions · 15% of ranked | $22,925 |
| 1 contribution · 6.5% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.3% of ranked | $5,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.3% of ranked | $5,000 |
| 17 contributions · 1.1% of ranked | $1,700 |
| 1 contribution · 0.7% of ranked | $1,000 |
A further $12,658 came from donors whose answer names no employer (None, blank), 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 ($1,092,308) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 2,257 contributions · 47% of ranked | $72,685 |
| 4 contributions · 16% of ranked | $25,100 |
| 5 contributions · 8.9% of ranked | $13,750 |
| 1 contribution · 6.5% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.3% of ranked | $5,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.3% of ranked | $5,000 |
| 16 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $3,213 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 104 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $2,402 |
A further $12,588 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (blank), 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 ($1,092,308) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $1,362,093
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 254 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 33 payments · 41% of all spending | $668,744 |
| 11 payments · 8% of all spending | $130,000 |
| 18 payments · 7.7% of all spending | $125,000 |
| 3 payments · 7.6% of all spending | $122,264 |
| 9 payments · 7% of all spending | $112,500 |
| 9 payments · 2.8% of all spending | $45,000 |
| 101 payments · 2.7% of all spending | $44,238 |
| 17 payments · 2.3% of all spending | $37,500 |
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.