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 › Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) › 2025–2026
JR
Jefferson Rising
Megadonors ($1M+)Committees that state no purpose of their own and get half or more of their money from one person who gave $1 million or more. The person is named beside the committee.
Super PAC (independent expenditure-only)Arlington, VirginiaActive
Jefferson Rising Fund lobbied on 4 issues. See lobbying
Where it spendsWhich races and candidates is its money for or against?
For or against 1 candidate$420,139
In regular reports
$220.1K
1 candidate, through Sep 30, 2026
Newer notices
$200K
1 notice since Sep 30, 2026
James Talarico▼ Against · Senate, TX$200K of it in newer notices, latest Oct 15, 2026 · FEC filing$420.1K
Notices dated after Sep 30, 2026 are added; earlier ones are already in the regular reports.
Its wordsWhat does this committee say it is for?
Why this committee exists
In its own words
“Our country needs a return to our conservative values more than ever, but that change won't come from Washington, DC. It will come from patriotic Americans across the country who are tirelessly fighting on the frontlines to restore constitutional and fiscally-responsible government, protect our communities, and put our country first.
Jefferson Rising is here to reinforce grassroots conservatives on the ground with the tools and resources that are required to win because America's future will be decided by our people, not our politicians.”
Quoted from the committee's site, or its sponsor's or funder's where its own says nothing. Any side it takes is in its own words.
No published list of positions
Its site sums up what it stands for in the statement above, and publishes no list of positions beyond it.
Who it gives toWhich candidates and committees get its money?
Each part reads different filings, so counts and totals can differ.
Party support distribution
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.
Against candidates $420,139
Democratic 100%
Contributions are reported money, not endorsements; a PAC giving to both parties is common.
Who this PAC gave to$1,000,000 in 1 payment
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.
By recipient
Line 23 contributions by kind and party of recipient
Recipient
Count
Amount
Other PACs and committees
1
$1M · 100%
All recipients
1
$1M
By the candidate’s state
No recipient here is matched to a candidate with a state on record.
Bars drawn to $1M, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
Show candidate activity and the money network
Candidate and election activity as the recipients filed it
Nothing loaded
No candidate committee activity was returned for this PAC.
Candidate contribution rows come from candidate committee Schedule A filings, the same rows the party chart above counts.
Committee money network
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 funding this one
Committees that reported giving to this one on their own Schedule A filings, grouped by the giver’s committee ID.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The largest of the donors is listed. In all, 2 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $3M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
PACs and other committeesPolitical action committees and other candidates' committees.$231,8027.2%
The 2 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings and this committee's lines for them, whichever is larger, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Unitemized ($200 or less)Donors who have given $200 or less this cycle, so the FEC does not itemize (name) them.$5<0.1%
Total reported receipts $3,231,807
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. FEC filings through Sep 30, 2026.
Where the money traces to $3.2M followed back through up to 3 committees
94% to named individuals, 5.7% to committees we could not follow, 0.5% not itemized.
Gave directly$3.2M 99%
Gave directly
Name
Amount
Timothy DunnPerson · Executive, Crownquest Operating · Midland, TX · also behind 3 other groups · 93%
$3,000,000
Founding Principles Coalition PAC, IncCommittee, not followed further · 5.7%
$184,597
Through Salem Media Group PAC IncMedia & entertainment (proposed)$16.4K 0.5%
Through Salem Media Group PAC Inc
Name
Amount
Not itemized by Salem Media Group PAC Inc0.5%
$16,380
51 smaller sources, $30.8K in all (1%), are not listed.
Each committee that gave is followed to where its own money came from, in proportion to what it received: a committee that got half its money from one person is counted as passing half of what it gave on to that person. Each channel shows the committee the money came through and its place in the money tree. It shows who stood behind the money, not what that money was for, and an organization that need not name its donors ends the trail. It stops at a person, an organization, a committee with nothing on file here, or 3committees deep. A person who gave by more than one route appears under each, a name filed two ways may appear twice, and a person's job and city are as they filed them. "Also behind" counts the other groups, among those that moved $100,000 or more into races, in which $100,000 or more traces to the same person, other than those this money came through or went on to.
Who donated: where they live, their employers and jobs
Where the donors live $3,000,000 placed by state
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.
under $120K
$120K+
$480K+
$1.1M+
$1.9M+
none
Top states
Top donor states
Name
Amount
Texas2 contributions · 100%
$3,000,000
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.
Donors’ employers as filed
Donors’ employers
Employer as filed
Amount
Crownquest Operating2 contributions · 100% of ranked
$3,000,000
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 ($5) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Donors’ occupations as filed
Donors’ occupations
Occupation as filed
Amount
Executive2 contributions · 100% of ranked
SpendingWhere does the money go?
How the spending splits $3,019,120 reported
Tap a row with to see who was paid.
Operating expendituresThe committee's own running costs.$1,590,75753%
Friends of Byron Donalds PAC1 payment · latest Dec 18, 2025 · NONFEDERAL CONTRIBUTION$40,000
National Rifle Association of America1 payment · latest May 13, 2026 · IN KIND: EMAILS$18,225
Total reported disbursements $3,019,120
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 Sep 30, 2026.
What the payments were for $3,018,593 itemized
These are the payments the committee itemized, including its independent expenditures, which are filed against the candidate each was for or against rather than as payments to a vendor. Open a category to see which candidates its independent spending went to, and in support or opposition.
Tap a row with to see what was paid for.
Given to othersContributions to other candidates, party committees, and PACs.$1,190,00039%
Filed as
CONTRIBUTION$1,000,000
NONFEDERAL CONTRIBUTION$190,000
Paid to
Fight for Kentucky$1,000,000
Change NJ Inc.$150,000
Friends of Byron Donalds PAC$40,000
Polling and researchSurveys, opposition research, voter file work, and analytics.$774,50026%
Filed as
RESEARCH CONSULTING / RENT
Spending over time
$3M spent from Jan 2025 to Sep 2026. Most in one report: $1.2M, Jan 1 – Mar 31, 2026.
$3M
Jan 2025Sep 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.
Each report’s total
Jul 1 – Sep 30, 2026$290,941
Apr 1 – Jun 30, 2026$347,349
Jan 1 – Mar 31, 2026$1,243,094
Jul 1 – Dec 31, 2025$709,758
Jan 1 – Jun 30, 2025$427,980
Show other payments: transfers, refunds and the rest
Other disbursements $208,225
Change NJ Inc.1 payment, latest Oct 13, 2025NONFEDERAL CONTRIBUTION$150K
Friends of Byron Donalds PAC1 payment, latest Dec 18, 2025NONFEDERAL CONTRIBUTION$40K
National Rifle Association of America1 payment, latest May 13, 2026IN KIND: EMAILS$18.2K
Transfers, refunds, and everything else the committee itemized outside candidate giving. 3 payments totaling $208.2K.
What Jefferson Rising Fund lobbies on 2026 reports
Besides giving through its PAC, Jefferson Rising Fund pays lobbyists to press Congress and federal agencies. Each quarter it, or a firm it hires, files a public report under the Lobbying Disclosure Act saying which topics it worked on, what it spent, and whom it contacted. This is what those reports say.
Spent on lobbying in 2026
$335K
Quarterly reports read
6
Bills it named
11
Topics it lobbied on
Each report files its work under official topics. The bar shows how often each topic came up across the reports; open one to read what was filed under it. Naming a bill says the organization lobbied on it, not which side it took.
Budget/Appropriationsin 6 report entries · 3 bills named
In its own words
Reduce Regulatory Spending by passing the REINS Act by Rep, Cammack (HR 3058 - Reclaim the Reins Act).
Legislation would require Congress approve major federal rules with an annual economic impact of over $100 million.
Draft proposals to include REINS in reconciliation.
Sunset Review would require major rules, those with a cost of $100 million or more, to be reauthorized by Congress or terminated every ten years.
House Rule change inserting a 3 year sunset provision for all regulations in underlying bill.
Draft legislation -- mandates that executive agencies must consider the economic impact of new regulations;
Draft legislation -- requires federal regulations to expire in three years, absent Congressional reauthorization;
Congressional Review Reform Act H.R. 4112 (sponsor: Rep. Derek Schmidt) -- eliminates the time barrier on the CRA and allows any rule or agency action to be overturned by a CRA resolution;
Draft legislation-- creates apublicly available, objective rating system to allow the American people to independently assess ifagencies are accomplishing goals related to thestated purpose of the agency;
Draft legislation -- requires independent agencies to comply with several statutes related to the rule-making process, from which they are currently exempt.
Draft proposal to end all foreign aid.in order to reset relationship with U.S.
Advocated for Reclaim the Reins Act by Rep. Cammack (HR 3068) that would require Congressional approval of major regulations that cost more than $100 million annually
Government Issuesin 3 report entries · 3 bills named
In its own words
Legislation sponsored by Senator Cynthia Lummis (S. 238) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (H.R. 689) to establish a Permit by Rule system to streamline the federal permitting process (FREE Act).
Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) introduced the Clearer Liability Expenditure and Access to Reporting (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 10558) to require greater transparency in federal agencies use of taxpayer dollars to pay final court judgments or compromise settlements arising from litigation against the government.
The bill expands existing reporting requirements under the law by mandating the Treasury Department to post monthly totals of Judgment Fund payments, including how many were settlements, and lets the public search them by agency, plaintiff, and counsel.
It disaggregates monthly spending by payments, attorney fees, court costs, and interest.
It directs the Government Accountability Office to review compromise settlements and annually report to Congress on the use of sue-and-settle practices, including which agencies rely on it most.
Draft legislation to ensure all criminal penalties imposed by the Federal Government are created by Congres Draft proposal to rein in federal judges.
Draft proposals to expand use of the Congressional Review Act and legislation stripping federal courts of jurisdiction.
Draft legislation to provide for certain reforms pertaining to Chevron Deference in reconciliation and stand alone introduced legislation to be reintroduced from last Congress.
Immigrationin 3 report entries · 2 bills named
In its own words
Pro: Legislation sponsored by Rep. Barry Moore to reform legal immigration called the Americans First Immigration Act (H.R. 8586).
This legislation would end chain migration and the diversity visa lottery.
Senate companion (S. 5485) sponsored by Senator Tommy Tuberville.
Legislation sponsored by Rep. Barry Moore to reform legal immigration called the Americans First Immigration Act (H.R. 8586). This legislation would end chain migration and the diversity visa lottery.
Natural Resourcesin 3 report entries · 3 bills named
In its own words
Pro: Congressman Paul Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-09) sponsored H.R. 10699, the Legislative Approval for National Designations Act, or LANDs Act, legislation to restore Congresss role in major federal land-use decisions and rein in unilateral executive action under the Antiquities Act:The legislation requires congressional approval for federal land withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres and places new limits on national monument designations.
It would also cap new monuments at 640 acres without congressional approval, require private property owners consent when their property would be included within a monument, prohibit the reservation of water rights through a designation, and clarify what qualifies as an object of antiquity.
The LANDs Act builds on Interior Department Secretarial Order 3418 and seeks to ensure decisions involving livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, timber, recreation, wildlife, water and other public-land uses receive appropriate congressional scrutiny.
ESA reform amendments to HR 1897 "ESA Amendment Act of 2025 to protect American farmers, ranchers, and property owners from government over reach, including: 1) Removal of "distinct population segments" from "species" definition; 2) Clarifies what is a "species"; 3) Removes "throughout all or a significant portion of its range" to clarify that the entire species must be threatened with extinction; 4) Clarifies scope of "critical habitat" 5) Requires Congressional review of critical habitat designations over 50,000 acres; 6) Dequires the federal government to consider key terms limiting actions that trigger Section 7 consultations; 7) Automatically delists species after 10 years; and 8) Requires federal agencies to coordinate with local governments.
Reported twice a year by the lobbying filer. $10.4K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt$9K
Mr. Jed Cochran$1.4K
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “JEFFERSON RISING FUND”, found by searching “JEFFERSON RISING”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Nov 9, 2026. Senate Office of Public Records cannot vouch for the data or analyses derived from these data after the data have been retrieved from LDA.gov.
Jefferson Rising is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a Super PAC (independent expenditure-only). Official FEC summary: Federal Election Commission committee record.
Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to TEAM MORRIS · 1 payment
$1M
$1M across 1 recipient committee, or 33% of everything this committee reports spending.
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.
$3,000,000
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 ($5) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
$478,000
DATA SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES$150,000
RESEARCH CONSULTING$146,500
Paid to
BCVM Services LLC$528,000
Eyesover LLC$215,500
Project Alamo LLC$31,000
Consulting and strategyStrategic, political, legal, and compliance consulting, and campaign management.$644,53521%
Filed as
POLITICAL STRATEGY CONSULTING$601,524
COMPLIANCE CONSULTING$36,000
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING$5,000
COMPLIANCE CONSULTING / POSTAGE$2,011
Paid to
Bespeak Network LLC$475,000
Jackson Parker Agency LLC$78,000
Convergence Media LLC$48,524
Crosby Ottenhoff Group$38,011
Campaign Nucleus LLC$5,000
Digital and technologyWebsites, hosting, software subscriptions, databases, email, and texting platforms.$220.1K of it was independent spending against James Talarico$220,1397.3%
Filed as
SMS MESSAGINGIndependent spending in opposition to James Talarico$220,139
Paid to
Sparkfire Technologies, LLCIndependent spending in opposition to James Talarico$220,139
Fundraising and eventsThe cost of raising money: finance consultants, donor list rental and acquisition, event venues, catering, and donor processing.$166,6605.5%
Filed as
FUNDRAISING CONSULTING$166,660
Paid to
Cathy Scott and Co$166,660
OtherPayments whose filed description does not match any category above. Every one is listed so it can be read directly.$18,2250.6%
Filed as
IN KIND: EMAILS$18,225
Paid to
National Rifle Association of America$18,225
Taxes, fees, and bank chargesPayroll and income taxes, filing fees, bank and merchant processing charges.$4,5340.2%
Filed as
COMPLIANCE CONSULTING / FILING FEES$4,081
BANK FEES$453
Paid to
Crosby Ottenhoff Group$4,081
Chain Bridge Bank$453
Total itemized disbursements $3,018,593
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 Sep 30, 2026.
All 94 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
BCVM Services LLC18 payments · 17% of all spending
$528,000
Bespeak Network LLC4 payments · 16% of all spending
$475,000
Sparkfire Technologies, LLC2 payments · 7.3% of all spending
$220,139
Eyesover LLC3 payments · 7.1% of all spending
$215,500
Cathy Scott and Co19 payments · 5.5% of all spending
$166,660
Change NJ Inc.1 payment · 5% of all spending
$150,000
Jackson Parker Agency LLC2 payments · 2.6% of all spending
$78,000
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.
Draft legislation to reform IT Modernization across the federal workforce.
Draft legislation to ensure all criminal penalties imposed by the Federal Government are created by Congress.
Draft legislation to increase transparency of Judgment Fund settlements.
Draft proposal to rein in federal judges.
Legislation to provide for certain reforms pertaining to Chevron Deference in reconciliation and stand alone introduced legislation to be reintroduced from last Congress.
Legislation sponsored by Senator Cynthia Lummis (S. 238) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (H.R. 689) to establish a permit by Rule system to streamline the federal permitting process (FREE Act).
Draft legislation In support of reducing the amount of land the federal government owns. n support of Landowner Easement Rights Act HR 2730 by US Rep. Hageman to provide that the Secretary of Interior not enter into certain conservation easements with a term more than 30 years.
ESA delistijngs grey wolf.
Draft legislation In support of reducing the amount of land the federal government owns.
Draft legislation In support of ending conservation easements in perpetuity.
In support of Landowner Easement Rights Act HR 2730 by US Rep. Hageman to provide that the Secretary of Interior not enter into certain conservation easements with a term more than 30 years.
Draft legislation to reform the Antiquities Act by requiring Congressional approval of designations exceeding 5000 acres.