Life Science Washington PAC
Life Science Washington PAC is a political committee registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 cycle. It reported $13,490 from 55 contributors.
- 2026 cycle
- Political Committee
- PDC ID 1455
- $13,490 raised · 2026
- $1,200 spent · 2026
- 55 contributors
$13,490
raised
$1,200
spent
$245
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 2026-07-28
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 |
|---|---|---|
| SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS | $1,547 | |
| Gilead Sciences | Foster City | $1,100 |
| Omeros Corporation | Seattle | $750 |
| BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. | Redmond | $725 |
| SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. | Seattle | $715 |
| CellNetix Pathology & Laboratories | Tukwila | $577 |
| Cajal Neuroscience | Seattle | $565 |
| Rhyne Rhonda | Kirkland | $500 |
| Olympus Surgical Technologies America | Redmond | $340 |
| Hematologics, Inc | Seattle | $290 |
| RareCyte, Inc. | Seattle | $290 |
| IOPI Medical LLC | Woodinville | $290 |
| Boulder Associates | Seattle | $285 |
| DATEC INC. | Tukwila | $285 |
| Acrisure Northwest Partners Insurance Services, LLC | Lacey | $285 |
| PLURISTYX, INC. | Seattle | $282 |
| Hoylu Inc | Kirkland | $282 |
| Cocrystal Pharma Inc. | Bothell | $282 |
| Daggett Valerie | Mercer Island | $250 |
| McCormick Margaret | Mercer Island | $250 |
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 2026-07-28
Source Public Disclosure Commission contribution filings · as of 2026-07-28 · $9,890 of $13,490 shown across 20 of 55 contributors
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.
| Contributor type | Amount | Share | Gifts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business | $10,943 | 91.6% | 46 |
| Individual | $1,000 | 8.4% | 3 |
Contributions below the itemisation threshold are not broken out here. Washington lets small gifts be reported as a single total with no contributor named. The mix above therefore covers itemised money; the small-dollar total it leaves out is inside the amount raised and cannot be split by anyone, including the PDC.
Last checked 2026-07-28
Source Public Disclosure Commission contribution filings · as of 2026-07-28
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 2026-07-28
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 2026-07-28
Only 2.4% 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 2026-07-28
Source WA PDC C3 contributions, employer field as self-reported by contributors · as of 2026-07-28
04
How concentrated the money is
Computed from every itemised contribution rather than from the largest few, which is what makes the share meaningful.
49%
from the top 10 donors
Out of 55 itemised contributors in total.
Source Public Disclosure Commission contribution filings · as of 2026-07-28
05
Money out — where it went
$1,200
total spent
8.9%
of what it raised
Spending as a share of contributions received.
2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bronoske Dan | $600 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Street Chipalo | $600 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
Source Public Disclosure Commission expenditure filings · as of 2026-07-28
06
Independent expenditures by party
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.
No independent expenditures are on file for this committee this cycle. Most committees never make one — independent spending is concentrated in a few hundred filers. An empty section here is the PDC record, not a gap in ours.
Last checked 2026-07-28
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.
| Month | In | Out | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2026 | $4,132 | — | ||
| Feb 2026 | $925 | — | ||
| Mar 2026 | $1,499 | — | ||
| Apr 2026 | $1,964 | — | ||
| May 2026 | $951 | — | ||
| Jun 2026 | $4,019 | — | ||
| Jul 2026 | — | $1,200 |
Source WA PDC contribution and expenditure schedules, transaction dates as filed · as of 2026-07-28 · bars scaled to the largest month, $4,132
08
Across cycles
Other filings under the same PDC committee id.
Only one cycle on file. We hold a single filing for committee 1455. 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 2026-07-28
09
Does it add up
The arithmetic, in the open. Reported contributions less reported spending is what the committee should still be holding.
This is what the two filings imply, not a bank balance. Committees also report cash on hand directly, and the two figures can differ where a report is outstanding.
Source Public Disclosure Commission committee filings · as of 2026-07-28
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.
11
Common questions
- What is Life Science Washington PAC?
- Life Science Washington PAC is a political committee registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 election cycle.
- How much money has Life Science Washington PAC raised?
- Life Science Washington PAC reported $13,490 in contributions for the 2026 cycle from 55 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 Life Science Washington PAC spent?
- Life Science Washington PAC reported $1,200 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 Life Science Washington PAC come from?
- Every figure on this page is read from Life Science Washington PAC’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.
Cite this page
This is public-records reporting. Use it, and say where it came from.
“Life Science Washington PAC,” WashingtonIndependents.org, data as of 2026-07-28, accessed 2026-08-30. https://washingtonindependents.org/committee/life-science-washington-pac/
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.