Political committee · Washington State
National Women’s Political Caucus of WA Campaign Fund (NWPC WA)
National Women’s Political Caucus of WA Campaign Fund (NWPC WA) is a political committee registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 cycle. It reported $15,315 from 41 contributors.
- 2026 cycle
- Political Committee
- 41 contributors
$15,315
raised
$2,181
spent
$374
average contribution
The total divided by the reported contributor count.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| RAY BERNSTEIN LESLIE | SEATTLE | $1,371 |
| SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS | $1,269 | |
| M-PAC | SEATTLE | $500 |
| ROBIDOUX MELODY | REDMOND | $485 |
| BERGERON GAIL | BATTLE GROUND | $485 |
| ARAKAKI SHELDON | BELLEVUE | $460 |
| HEIDERGOTT KAREN | SEATTLE | $460 |
| HENNESSEY LAURI | VASHON | $460 |
| CASNE SAMANTHA | SEATTLE | $460 |
| PICKER GALE | SEATTLE | $460 |
| WALEN AMY | KIRKLAND | $460 |
| BECK KELSEY | SEATTLE | $460 |
| LANDON SUSAN | MERCER ISLAND | $460 |
| BERRY LIZ | SEATTLE | $460 |
| WICKS EMILY | EVERETT | $460 |
| SANTOS SHARON TOMIKO | SEATTLE | $460 |
| FILLMORE-SARDINAS PAULA | ISSAQUAH | $460 |
| GEORGE CARRIE | SEATTLE | $460 |
| VILARDI ERIN | NEW YORK | $460 |
| WEBER LISA | BELLEVUE | $460 |
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 · $11,010 of $15,315 shown across 20 of 41 contributors
02
How concentrated the money is
Computed from every itemised contribution rather than from the largest few, which is what makes the share meaningful.
39.9%
from the top 10 donors
Out of 41 itemised contributors in total.
41
itemised contributors
Who it came from
The PDC types every contributor. This does not follow a PAC’s own money back to a person — see what this page will not compute — but it does say how much arrived from individuals rather than from other organisations.
| Contributor type | Amount | Share | Gifts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual | $13,296 | 94.7% | 32 |
| Political Action Committee | $750 | 5.3% | 2 |
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.
| Date | Employer | Donors | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | STATE OF WASHINGTON | 5 | $2,090 |
This shows money arriving together, not who arranged it. An office collection, a fundraiser one colleague hosted, a firm’s partners each writing a cheque on the day they were asked — all three look identical in the filings, and all three are legal. Nothing here says the employer knew, still less that it directed anyone.
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.
| Employer | Donors | Total |
|---|---|---|
| STATE OF WASHINGTON | 5 | $2,090 |
Only 43.8% of itemised donors stated an employer. The field is filled in by the donor and left blank more often than not, so both employer tables 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 Public Disclosure Commission contribution filings · as of 2026-07-28
03
Money out — where it went
$2,181
total spent
14.2%
of what it raised
Spending as a share of contributions received.
3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RAY BERNSTEIN LESLIE | $1,371 | 1 | Inkind contribution |
| BROWNSTEIN DEB | $405 | 1 | Inkind contribution |
| ABBOT TAYLOR | $207 | 2 | Accounting, legal, regulatory compliance, etc. |
A further $198 was reported as small expenses. Washington lets a committee report spending below a threshold as a single lump with no payee. That money is in the total above and cannot be broken out by anyone, including us.
Last checked 2026-07-28
Source Public Disclosure Commission expenditure filings · as of 2026-07-28
04
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
05
Across cycles
Other filings under the same PDC committee id.
Only one cycle on file. We hold a single filing for committee 20849. 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
06
What this page will not compute
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.
Cite this page
This is public-records reporting. Use it, and say where it came from.
“National Women’s Political Caucus of WA Campaign Fund (NWPC WA),” WashingtonIndependents.org, data as of 2026-07-28, accessed 2026-08-09. https://washingtonindependents.org/committee/national-women-s-political-caucus-of-wa-campaign-fund-nwpc-wa/
06
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.