Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC)
Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) is a political committee registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 cycle. It reported $94,621 from 696 contributors.
- 2026 cycle
- Political Committee
- PDC ID 15737
- $94,621 raised · 2026
- $109K spent · 2026
- 696 contributors
$94,621
raised
$109K
spent
$136
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VECA Electric & Technologies | Seattle | $15,069 |
| PRIME ELECTRIC, INC. | BELLEVUE | $12,980 |
| COCHRAN ELECTRIC | SEATTLE | $9,757 |
| Titan Electric, Inc. | Bellevue | $6,879 |
| Valley Electric | Everett | $6,507 |
| SEQUOYAH ELECTRIC, LLC | REDMOND | $4,966 |
| ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO. | PORTLAND | $3,735 |
| OEG, INC. | PORTLAND | $2,682 |
| PRECISION ELECTRIC GROUP | REDMOND | $2,135 |
| MCKINSTRY CO., LLC | SPOKANE | $1,829 |
| OZZ ELECTRIC WA, INC. | REDMOND | $1,827 |
| EVERGREEN POWER SYSTEMS, INC. | SEATTLE | $1,435 |
| HOLMES ELECTRIC CO. | KENT | $1,250 |
| NELSON ELECTRIC, INC. | SEATTLE | $1,194 |
| MASS ELECTRIC COMPANY | OMAHA | $1,019 |
| MACDONALD MILLER | SEATTLE | $865 |
| DATSKIY ELECTRIC, LLC | ANACORTES | $850 |
| BURKE ELECTRIC, LLC | TUKWILA | $744 |
| FOY INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC CORP. | SEATTLE | $710 |
| ARTISAN ELECTRIC, INC. | SEATTLE | $710 |
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 · $77,144 of $94,621 shown across 20 of 696 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 | $94,621 | 100% | 696 |
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 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 2026-07-28
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.
70.3%
from the top 10 donors
Out of 696 itemised contributors in total.
Source Public Disclosure Commission contribution filings · as of 2026-07-28
05
Money out — where it went
$109K
total spent
115.4%
of what it raised
Above 100% means it spent more this cycle than it took in — ordinary for a committee carrying a balance forward.
15
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Leadership Council | $30,000 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Evergreen Leadership Fund | $30,000 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Campaign Compliance Solutions | $2,523 | 4 | Accounting, legal, regulatory compliance, etc. |
| Erika Creydt for Senate | $2,400 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| People for Pedersen | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Friends of Adison Richards | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Friends of Gloria Mendoza | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| Friends of Jeremie Dufault | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| COMMITTEE TO ELECT STEPHANIE MCCLINTOCK | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| COMMITTEE TO ELECT DREW MACEWEN | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| APRIL FOR WASHINGTON | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| FRIENDS OF CHRIS CORRY | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| WATERS FOR HOUSE | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT ED ORCUTT | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
| NIKKI TORRES FOR STATE SENATE | $1,200 | 1 | Monetary contributions to PAC or candidate |
A further $41 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
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 | $13,384 | $1,023 | ||
| Feb 2026 | $13,213 | — | ||
| Mar 2026 | $13,687 | $600 | ||
| Apr 2026 | $13,039 | — | ||
| May 2026 | $13,836 | $600 | ||
| Jun 2026 | $14,746 | $341 | ||
| Jul 2026 | $12,715 | $107K |
Source WA PDC contribution and expenditure schedules, transaction dates as filed · as of 2026-07-28 · bars scaled to the largest month, $107K
08
Across cycles
Other filings under the same PDC committee id.
Only one cycle on file. We hold a single filing for committee 15737. 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 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 2026-07-28
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 Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC)?
- Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) is a political committee registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission for the 2026 election cycle.
- How much money has Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) raised?
- Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) reported $94,621 in contributions for the 2026 cycle from 696 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 Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) spent?
- Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) reported $109,164 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 Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC) come from?
- Every figure on this page is read from Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA 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.
“Puget Sound Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association PAC (NECA PAC),” WashingtonIndependents.org, data as of 2026-07-28, accessed 2026-08-29. https://washingtonindependents.org/committee/puget-sound-chapter-national-electrical-contractors-association-pac-neca-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.