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
Electing women's & communities' candidatesGroups whose purpose is electing, or mobilizing voters for, candidates from a shared community: women, or Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander candidates, among others. The community has to be an identity people share, not an age bracket or a political stance.Causes
Hybrid PAC (nonqualified)Washington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: Pro-Choice Majority 2024
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00863472 · files monthly
Notices dated after Oct 14, 2026 are added; earlier ones are already in the regular reports.
“History is clear, more women in Congress means policies that better uplift women and families. EDW Action Fund is dedicated to protecting women’s reproductive healthcare, addressing pay disparities, and the cost of child care, long-term care and education, by electing more Democratic women to Congress.”
EDW Action Fund, on its own site, edwactionfund.com
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Other PACs and committees | 2 | $923K · 100% |
| All recipients | 2 | $923K |
No recipient here is matched to a candidate with a state on record.
Bars drawn to $876K, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
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 |
|---|---|
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 6 payments | $2.4M |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to PRO-CHOICE WOMEN · 9 payments | $1.6M |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 3 payments | $560K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 2 payments |
Tap a row with to see who gave.
The 15 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $9.4M from 26 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 $9,742,502
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
18% to named individuals, 42% to organizations, 7.2% to tax-exempt organizations that need not name their donors, 31% not itemized.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Organization · 22% | $2,175,000 |
| Organization · 5.7% | $560,000 |
| Organization · 5.1% | $500,000 |
| Organization · 2.6% | $250,000 |
| Organization · 1.5% | $150,000 |
| Person · Co-Founder, SV Angel · Belvedere, CA · also behind 2 other groups · 1.5% | $150,000 |
| Organization · 1% |
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 |
|---|---|
| 15 contributions · 76% | $3,097,138 |
| 1 contribution · 12% | $500,000 |
| 3 contributions · 3.7% | $151,500 |
| 1 contribution · 3.7% | $150,000 |
| 6 contributions · 2.2% | $91,500 |
| 2 contributions · 1% | $40,000 |
| 3 contributions · 0.9% | $35,500 |
Tap a row with to see who was paid.
Total reported disbursements $9,354,629
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, 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.
$9.4M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $2.5M, June 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
EDW Action Fund is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a Hybrid PAC (nonqualified). Its FEC record names Pro-Choice Majority 2024 as an affiliate. 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.
EDW Action Fund is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| $200K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · 5 payments | $132K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE · 1 payment | $75K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · Connected to PRO-CHOICE MAJORITY 2024 · 2 payments | $55K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION · 2 payments | $45K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to INT'L UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW · 1 payment | $20K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to ANNIE KUSTER VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $3.5K |
$5.1M from 11 committees, 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 (nonqualified) · 3 payments | $876K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · Connected to PRO-CHOICE MAJORITY 2024 · 1 payment | $47K |
$923K across 2 recipient committees, or 9.9% 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.
| $100,000 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 10% | $978,411 |
| Organization · tax-exempt organization that need not name its donors · 6.4% | $624,884 |
| Organization · 0.8% | $73,895 |
| Person · Founder, Elliott Investment Management · New York, NY · also behind 22 other groups · 0.6% | $54,157 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 11% | $1,059,477 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1.5% | $148,166 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1% | $96,798 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Person · Investor, Self Employed · Greenwich, CT · also behind 13 other groups · 3.5% | $342,763 |
| 0.8% | $75,305 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2% | $189,987 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Person · Founder, Bloomberg Inc. · New York, NY · also behind 16 other groups · 1.4% | $138,076 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1.1% | $107,983 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 0.8% | $79,370 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Person · Philanthropist, Self Employed · Carmel, IN · also behind 9 other groups · 0.7% | $64,446 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Organization · 0.5% | $51,417 |
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 0.5% | $50,035 |
1147 smaller sources, $1.5M in all (16%), 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.
| $10,000 |
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.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1 contribution · 47% of ranked | $150,000 |
| Written instead of an employer · 8 contributions · 19% of ranked | $60,500 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.2% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 2 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.2% of ranked | $10,000 |
A further $3,771,138 came from donors whose answer names no employer (Information requested, 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.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1 contribution · 47% of ranked | $150,000 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 7 contributions · 14% of ranked | $45,500 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $25,000 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 1 contribution · 4.7% of ranked | $15,000 |
| 1 contribution · 3.2% of ranked | $10,000 |
| 2 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $10,000 |
A further $3,771,138 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (Information requested, 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.
Total itemized disbursements $10,274,278
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 330 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, $670 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 |
|---|---|
| 26 payments · 65% of all spending | $6,120,000 |
| 10 payments · 19% of all spending | $1,746,525 |
| 3 payments · 9.4% of all spending | $876,000 |
| 1 payment · 2.7% of all spending | $253,750 |
| 8 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $167,405 |
| 21 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $105,669 |
| 1 payment · 1.1% of all spending | $100,000 |
| 31 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $99,548 |
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.
Transfers, refunds, and everything else the committee itemized outside candidate giving. 291 payments totaling $7.1M.