During the 2023/2024 election cycle, a total of 1.5 billion U.S. dollars were raised by candidates in their campaigns for the United States Senate. About 962 million U.S. dollars was raised by Democratic candidates.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Senate Opportunity Fund

During the 2021/22 election cycle, a total of 1.78 billion U.S. dollars were raised by candidates in their campaigns for the United States Senate. About one billion U.S. dollars was raised by Democratic candidates.

As of 2024, over his entire career, Senator Ted Cruz had received a total of **** million U.S. dollars in donations from gun rights interest groups. Senator Mitt Romney received the second-highest amount of funding from gun rights interest groups, at around **** million U.S. dollars.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Senator Maurice and Florence Lipscher Charitable Fund

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Senate of the Economy

During the 2021/22 election cycle, a total of 1.44 billion U.S. dollars were raised via individual donations for candidates running for the U.S. Senate as of December 7th, 2022. Of that, about 871 million U.S. dollars have been raised by Democratic candidates. The midterm elections were held on November 8th, 2022.

During the 2023/2024 election cycle, a total of 1.14 billion U.S. dollars were raised via individual donations for candidates running for the U.S. Senate. Of that, about 763 million U.S. dollars have been raised by Democratic candidates.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Friends of Senate House

As of December 2022, the United States Senate race in Georgia spent the highest amount of funds in the midterm election cycle, followed by Pennsylvania and Florida. Pennsylvania and Georgia both played a key roll in securing Democrats a Senate majority after the 2022 midterms.

Outside spending in U.S. political races for 2024 shows the presidential contest dominating with over *********** U.S. dollars invested, dwarfing Senate and House races. This massive influx of funds highlights the outsized influence of external groups on American elections. Senate battlegrounds attract major outside money Key Senate races are drawing substantial outside spending, with Ohio leading at nearly *********** U.S. dollars. This investment proved impactful, as Republican Bernie Moreno secured a victory, flipping the previously Democratic-held seat. Similarly, Montana's Senate race, which saw ************* U.S. dollars in outside spending, resulted in Republican Tim Sheehy winning and flipping another Democratic seat. Presidential race funding reaches new heights The 2024 presidential race continues the trend of escalating campaign costs, with outside spending topping ********* U.S. dollars. This follows the pattern set in 2020 when Democratic candidates alone spent approximately ************ U.S. dollars. By December 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign had amassed about *********** U.S. dollars in committee funding, surpassing former President Donald Trump's committee. These figures reflect the intensifying financial arms race in presidential campaigns, highlighting the growing role of money in American politics.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Young Senators Program

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Broad Student Senate

This statistic shows the total funds raised by super PACs and other PACs supporting a candidate in the race for the U.S. presidential election, as of June 22, 2016. Super PACs and other PACs in support of Hillary Clinton collected the highest amount of funding with about 97 million U.S. dollars.

U.S. 2016 Elections: super PACs - additional information

Ahead of the February 9 New Hampshire primaries, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and longtime presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met face to face in the MSNBC's Democratic debate, which took place on February 4. After Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has withdrawn from the race upon finding out the Iowa caucus results, this was the first confrontation to feature the two major candidates for the Democratic nomination alone in the race. The debate saw Sanders and Clinton attacking each other on their weak notes, while pushing forward their strong suits.

One of Bernie’s biggest selling points throughout his campaign, which he brought up again during the debate, was the way in which he has been funding his candidacy. By insisting he does not employ super PACs and that most of the 75 million U.S. dollars raised by his campaign was acquired with the aid of “over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece,” he underlined Hilary’s fundraising strategies and her support from Wall Street giants, as well as the “entire establishment.” Clinton, in response, calls Sanders’ strategies an “artful smear” and her fundraising techniques as legitimate. The Democrat, who is hoping to become the first woman President of the United States, tops the list of candidates with the most funds raised during the early stages of the 2016 Presidential campaign – a total of over 163 million U.S. dollars as of February 1, 2016. In terms of funding by means of super PACs and other PACs, Clinton comes in second, after Jeb Bush, with almost 50 million U.S. dollars raised in this manner.

In the 2012 Presidential elections, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney was the most super PAC-supported candidate, with over 25 million U.S. dollars raised through such independent expenditure-only committees. Incumbent President Barack Obama came in second, with some 18 million U.S. dollars spent by super PACs in his support and a record 150 million U.S. dollars spent on campaigns against him.

Super PACs that rely heavily on funding from dark money sources are referred to as shadow parties. While super PACs ought to remain independent of candidates and parties, they seldom do in practice. Dark money siphoned via shadow party super PACs has increased throughout the last election cycles. In 2024, the Republican-led Senate Leadership Fund received ** million U.S. dollars from its dark money affiliates, an exponential increase from 2018 when only *** million U.S. dollars was contributed by dark money affiliates.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Senate Presidents Forum

aAgency success rates were derived from 1) data for the small grants programs within the NSF, available at http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp, 2) data from NASA at http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats/ and http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/03/19/ROSES_tracking_2013.03.18_web.pdf, and 3) data from NIH at http://report.nih.gov/fundingfacts/index.cfm (all accessed 16 April 2014). For this purpose, we considered R01 grants from the National Institute of Mental Health as representative for psychology success rates at NIH.Respondents’ proposal success rates and agency funding rates, 2009–2012.

This statistic shows the total funds raised by U.S. presidential election candidates as of June 22, 2016. As of June 22, Hillary Clinton had the largest funds total at about 335 million U.S. dollars.

br> U.S. 2016 Elections: the money race - additional information

As of February 2016, the United States presidential elections are still in the early stages, but already large sums of money have been raised and spent in support of candidates and their parties. According to the Center for Responsive Politics research group, Hillary Clinton raised almost 230 million U.S. dollars in her 2008 nomination campaign and left the race with an estimated 22.5 million U.S. dollars in debt, at least 11.4 million U.S. dollars of which came from her own finances. Most of her funds in 2008 were raised with the help of individual contributions. In 2016, she is criticized by her biggest opponent in the nomination race, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, for taking advantage of the Citizen United 2010 ruling. This controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision lifted the limitations corporations and labor unions had in donating to a so-called super PAC (political action committee).

As of February 1, 2016, Clinton benefited from funds provided by super PACs amounting to almost 48 million U.S. dollars, but she comes in only second in the ranking of nominees supported by such committees, after Jeb Bush. The former Florida Governor, who is the son and brother to two former U.S. Presidents, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively, has benefited from some 123 million U.S. dollars from super PACs. Almost 30 thousand television ads in support of his candidacy were funded by super PAC money, the most of any other presidential hopeful.

Super PACs are controversial because they are not the type of committee raising 50 dollar pledges, but rather millions of U.S. dollars from powerful and wealthy families and interest groups, which in turn can be suspected of wanting to influence their supported candidates’ views. According to the New York Times, generous donations to super PACs in 2015-2016 have come from such figures as billionaire philanthropist and investor George Soros, who pledged 7 billion U.S. dollars to Hillary Clinton or C.V. Starr & Company Inc., a company run by former CEO of the A.I.G insurance company Maurice R. Greenberg, who donated 1o million U.S. dollars to Jeb Bush. As opposed to 2012, when business magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam made the largest donation, in the 2016 election Donald Trump himself has made the largest contribution, almost 13 million U.S. dollars, naturally to his own campaign.

More information can be found at the CA DWR California Stream Improvement Program webpage at https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Technical-Assistance/Stream-Gage-Improvement-Program. Senate Bill (SB) 19 (Stats. 2019, Ch. 361, Section 2.) directed DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to develop a plan to deploy a network of stream gages to help address significant gaps in information needed for water management and the conservation of freshwater species. The SB19 legislation directs that priority be given to places where lack of data contributes to conflicts in water management or where water can be more effectively managed for multiple benefits, including water supply, flood, water quality, ecosystems, and reference gages. DWR and the State Water Board coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Conservation, and interested entities to develop the recommendations. Following the directions of SB 19, the interagency group developed, and the State Water Board published, the California Stream Gaging Prioritization Plan 2022 (SB 19 Plan). The SB 19 Plan includes recommendations to upgrade existing stream gages, install new stream gages, reactivate historical stream gages, and install water temperature sensors to existing stream gages. The plan identifies the top locations at a watershed level to make improvements based on analysis that was conducted for the development of the plan. The SB 19 Plan sets a robust foundation for where stream gages can be installed to maximize benefits for various management activities. While this CalSIP utilizes many of the recommendations and logic of that plan, it also recognizes operational limitations of operators that may not be able to install and operate gages in all high-priority locations. CalSIP serves to disburse fiscal resources to public agencies and federally recognized Tribes in a timely and judicious manner to best enhance the surface water monitoring network in the state. CalSIP serves to execute funding agreements as soon as reasonably possible with a deadline to award by March 1, 2025, and to fully execute agreements by June 30, 2025. Gages should be fully operational by October 1, 2026. This requires recipient local agencies to faithfully and diligently, permit and install gages within 15 months. Failure to make this deadline will require justification and coordination with DWR and may result in loss of funding. Final reimbursement invoices must be submitted to DWR by April 15, 2027.

This statistic shows a ranking of the top fraternities in the United States in 2012. To measure this, the daily beast considered the number of active collegiate chapters, the number of alumni who had since become members of the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives or President and finally the amount of money donated by the fraternity to nonprofit organizations. In this graph the variable of total amount of fund donated is depicted. Sigma Chi, the top ranked U.S. college fraternity for 2012, had donated a total of 1,436,883 dollars to charity.Sigma Chi fraternityThe Sigma Chi and the Alpha Gamma Rho are two of the top college fraternities based on the amount they have donated to charity in 2012, totaling 1.44 million U.S. dollars and 1.4 million U.S. dollars, respectively. The Sigma Chi has over 239 chapters across North America with over 300,000 members. For example, one of its chapters is located in Harvard University, Massachusetts, one of the richest colleges in the country, which had a endowment funds market value of 35.88 in 2014. The organization was founded in 1855 in Miami University in Ohio. One of its most notable fundraising events is “Derby Days”. This event normally lasts a week and the chapter hosts competitions and events to raise money through donations or fundraising events. Among the Sigma Chi, there have been 11 congressional alumni , including James Abdnor, a U.S. Senator for South Dakota between 1981 and 1987. About 46.73 billion U.S. dollars were donated to educational institutes in 2018, but is dwarfed by the 91.4 billion U.S. dollars given to political organizations. In 2011 to 2013, about half of the country’s donations were made through checkout donations and 32 percent as an honor or tribute gift.