Citizens for Responsible Governance
Citizens for Responsible Governance is a political committee registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 cycle. It reported $234,858 from 7 contributors.
- 2026 cycle
- Political Committee
- PDC ID 28938
- $235K raised · 2026
- $235K spent · 2026
- 7 contributors
$235K
raised
$235K
spent
$33,551
average contribution
The total divided by the reported contributor count.
Registration
- type
- Political Committee · 2026 cycle
- treasurer
- Named on the C-1 registration, which is not in the extract we hold — it is in the PDC filings linked above.
A political committee is not a legislative committee. For the four kinds of committee on file and why they are never ranked together, see the committee directory.
Source Public Disclosure Commission committee filings · as of 2026-09-15
01
Money in — who funds this committee
The largest reported contributions. Washington requires committees to itemise contributions above a threshold; smaller gifts are reported in aggregate.
| Contributor | City | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Jobs PAC | Lacey | $234,858 |
Contributions are not broken down by size, and employers are not named. Washington collects an employer field for individual contributions, and gift-size banding is what separates a committee funded by a hundred neighbours from one funded by three donors. We store only the largest contributors, so neither analysis is possible here — and computing concentration from a top-ten list would produce a confident number that is simply wrong.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Source WA PDC C-3 contributions · as of 2026-09-15 · rows $234,858 of $234,858 shown across 1 of 7 contributors · note amounts are printed, not charted; a sub-threshold aggregate is included in the total above and is not a giver
02
How the money was gathered
The PDC types every contributor. This does not follow a committee’s own money back to a person — see what this page does not show — but it does say how much arrived from individuals rather than from other organisations.
| Band | Gifts | Dollars | Share of dollars |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under $100 | 0 | $0 | no contribution fell in this band — an empty band, not missing data |
| $100 to $999 | 0 | $0 | no contribution fell in this band — an empty band, not missing data |
| $1,000 to $4,999 | 1 | $3,875 | 1.6% |
| $5,000 to $24,999 | 2 | $38,000 | 16.2% |
| $25,000 and over | 4 | $192,983 | 82.2% |
| All contributions reported | 7 | $234,858 | 100.0% |
6 of the 7 gifts this committee reports one at a time — 85.7% of them — supplied $230,983, or 98.4% of the money it can be said to have raised gift by gift.
| Contributor type | Amount | Share | Gifts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political Action Committee | $186,796 | 100% | 5 |
The aggregated small giving cannot be split into givers. Washington lets gifts below the itemisation threshold be reported as a single total with no contributor named. This committee reports no such row, so every dollar above is attached to a filed contributor — but the threshold means a committee that used it would show a lump here, and its givers would be in no public record.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Source WA PDC C-3 contributions · as of 2026-09-15 · rows 7 contribution rows, every one on exactly one line above — the lines add to $234,858 · bands the cut points are ours, not the state’s — Washington’s itemisation rule turns on one aggregate per contributor, not on a five-way split. An empty band is a fact, not missing data · note amounts are printed, not charted
03
Employers behind the individual gifts
The employer of each individual contribution, as self-reported by the contributor. A company named here did not give and did not report — the string is the donor’s, normalised by us.
Colleagues who gave on the same day
Three or more people sharing an employer, giving to this committee on a single date. Money arriving together is the pattern; a shared employer on its own is not.
No same-day bundles were detected for this committee. No date shows three or more contributors sharing a stated employer giving together. That is what the filings hold, not proof no coordinated giving happened — the employer field below is blank on most gifts, so a bundle whose donors left it empty would not appear.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Employers behind more than one donor
Across the whole cycle rather than a single day. Weaker than the table above, and included because a slow accumulation from one workplace is still worth being able to see.
No employer is shared by more than one contributor. Either no two itemised donors reported the same workplace, or the employer field was left blank on the gifts that would have matched. The field is optional and self-reported, so an empty table here is a gap in what donors disclosed, not a committee with no colleagues among its givers.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Only 0% of itemised donors stated an employer. The field is filled in by the donor and left blank more often than not, so both tables above show what we can see rather than everything that exists. Treat the counts as a floor. Occupations reported in the employer box — “retired”, “self-employed” — are excluded, because they are not a shared workplace.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Source WA PDC C-3 contributions, employer field as self-reported by contributors · as of 2026-09-15 · caveat employer strings are normalised by us; no employer gave and none reported this
04
How concentrated the money is
Computed from every itemised contribution rather than from the largest few, which is what makes the share meaningful.
100%
from the top 10 donors
Out of 7 itemised contributors in total.
Source WA PDC C-3 contributions · as of 2026-09-15 · note concentration is a fact about how the money was gathered, not a verdict on the committee
05
Money out — where it went
$235K
total spent
100%
of what it raised
Spending as a share of contributions received.
6
largest payees listed
Who it paid
Largest payees, with the category the committee chose when filing. A consultancy, printer or polling firm appearing across many committees is a fact about who runs campaigns in Washington.
| Payee | Amount | Payments | Category as filed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Impact Strategies | $39,153 | 2 | Independent Expenditure |
| Push Digital | $28,250 | 3 | Independent Expenditure |
| Mudshare | $19,000 | 1 | Independent Expenditure |
| Push Digital | $8,750 | 1 | Utilities, phone, and other overhead costs |
| Push Digital | $675 | 1 | Management and consulting services |
| Strategic Impact Strategies | $50 | 1 | Bank and payment processing charges |
Spending for and against other people
Independent expenditures and electioneering communications — money this committee spent advocating for or against a candidate or measure, without coordinating with them. It is reported separately from the committee’s own operating spending, and is not a contribution to anyone.
| Kind | Position | Amount | Filings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electioneering communication | Not stated | $112,395 | 8 |
| Electioneering communication | Against | $112,395 | 7 |
This shows the totals, not the targets. The filings name who each expenditure supported or opposed. We hold the amounts and the stance but have not yet joined them to the candidates and measures they name, so this says how much and which way, not against whom.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Source WA PDC C-4 expenditures · as of 2026-09-15 · note independent expenditures and direct contributions are listed separately and never added together on a candidate’s page
06
Independent expenditures
Money this committee reported spending for or against someone without coordinating with them. Kept apart from its ordinary spending, because folding the two together would misstate both.
| Kind | Stance as filed | Filings | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electioneering communication | Not stated | 8 | $112K |
| Electioneering communication | Against | 7 | $112K |
Grouped by the stance the committee itself filed, which is the direction it put on the form. Not by party: where an independent expenditure names a candidate the filing carries that candidate’s PDC id, and the party they filed is a published fact rather than an inference — so the grouping the design asks for is available for spending aimed at candidates, and is not built yet. It would say nothing about this committee either way, whose independent spending named a ballot measure; a measure has no party.
Source WA PDC C-6 independent expenditures · as of 2026-09-15 · note the committee declares support or opposition on the form itself, so the direction is theirs, not our reading of it
07
When the money moved
Itemised contributions in and expenditures out, by the month on the filing. Unitemised small-dollar totals carry no dates and are not in this chart — the money-in section states them.
Not enough dated activity to chart. This committee’s itemised transactions fall in fewer than two months. The totals above are complete; there is simply no timeline to draw.
Last checked 2026-09-15
08
Across cycles
Other filings under the same PDC committee id.
Only one cycle on file. We hold a single filing for committee 28938. That means it registered for one election, or that our sync covers only the cycles this one falls in — the filings do not distinguish the two.
Last checked 2026-09-15
09
Does it add up
The arithmetic, in the open. Reported contributions less reported spending is what the committee should still be holding.
This committee reports spending more than it raised. That is not necessarily an error and is not an accusation. Contribution and expenditure reports are filed on different schedules, so a committee can appear overdrawn simply because its latest contribution report has not landed yet. We publish the subtraction rather than hiding it; the filings themselves are linked below.
Last checked 2026-09-15
Source WA PDC committee filings, as reported · as of 2026-09-15 · note where our arithmetic and the committee’s filing disagree, both numbers are printed and neither is silently corrected
10
What this page does not show
Each of these is a number a reader might reasonably expect. None of them follow from the records we hold, so we do not publish them.
- Who is really behind a committee that funds this one
- We show every contributor the committee reported, and how much of its money came from organisations rather than individuals. A committee funded by another committee is common, and following that chain to the people at the end of it means joining filings across organisations and cycles — a join we have not made, and one that would be wrong to guess at.
- Who the independent spending was aimed at
- The filings name the candidate or measure each independent expenditure supported or opposed. We hold the amounts and which way they cut, but have not joined them to those records, so the page says how much and not against whom.
- Whether the spending worked
- We hold what was raised, what was spent, and in some cases the result. Connecting them would be a causal claim from two numbers, and spending is not the only thing that moves an election.
- Anything below the itemisation threshold
- Washington lets small contributions and small expenses be reported as lump sums with no counterparty. That money is in the totals and cannot be broken out by anyone, including the PDC. Where a lump is large, the page says so.
- Money that never had to be reported
- Everything here is money the law required someone to disclose. Spending that fell below a threshold, arrived after the last report, or was never reportable at all is absent, and nothing on this page can measure it. A committee’s reported total is a floor, not a ceiling.
- Whether committees on the same side are working together
- An independent expenditure that was coordinated with anyone would not be independent. Committees spending the same way in the same race may be allies, rivals for the same donors, or strangers; the filings record none of that, so we draw no bloc, alliance or network from them. No coordination edge exists anywhere in this graph — Washington has no coordination filing, so there is no document to read and no field to join on.
11
Common questions
- What is Citizens for Responsible Governance?
- Citizens for Responsible Governance is a political committee registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 election cycle.
- How much money has Citizens for Responsible Governance raised?
- Citizens for Responsible Governance reported $234,858 in contributions for the 2026 cycle from 7 contributors. The largest itemised contributions are listed in the money-in section above, and how that money was gathered is broken down by contributor type.
- How much has Citizens for Responsible Governance spent?
- Citizens for Responsible Governance reported $234,933 in expenditures. The “Does it add up” section subtracts reported spending from reported contributions in the open, and prints the residual even when the two filings do not yet reconcile.
- Where does the data on Citizens for Responsible Governance come from?
- Every figure on this page is read from Citizens for Responsible Governance’s own filings with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, published at the PDC. Nothing here is modelled or inferred; where a filing is silent or late, the page says so rather than filling the gap.
- What is a political committee in Washington?
- A political committee is any person or group, other than an individual, that raises or spends money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure in Washington. State law requires it to register with the Public Disclosure Commission and to file regular contribution and expenditure reports, which are the records this page is built from.
Answers are generated from the same fields as the sections above and emitted as FAQPage structured data, so a machine reader gets the identical text a person sees.
Cite this page
This is public-records reporting. Use it, and say where it came from.
“Citizens for Responsible Governance,” WashingtonIndependents.org, data as of 2026-09-15, accessed 2026-09-19. https://washingtonindependents.org/committee/citizens-for-responsible-governance/
JSON endpointReport a correction
Our tables, figures and notes on this page are released under CC BY 4.0 — reuse them, including commercially, with attribution. The underlying records are public records of the State of Washington and were never ours to license.
12
Where this page comes from
Every figure above is read from a primary source and rebuilt on a schedule. Nothing here is modelled or inferred; where a source is silent the page says so rather than filling the gap.
- Public Disclosure Commission committee filings
- Registration, contribution and expenditure totals, and the largest reported contributors. The original record is at the PDC.
- Not loaded
- Itemised expenditures, contributor employers, gift-size banding, and independent expenditure filings. Each is named where the page would otherwise use it.