DeepSyte™
Bill FeedAll repsScoreboardsPrimariesProAboutSign inGet started
DeepSyte™™

A nonpartisan civic accountability tool. We match federal legislation to your stated values — without partisan bias.

Learn

  • About
  • About the name
  • Methodology
  • Glossary

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
  • Refund Policy
  • Contact

Sources

Bill data from Congress.gov. Summaries from the Congressional Research Service where available.

Follow

  • Bluesky — @deepsyte.app
  • X — @deepsyteapp
All content is for informational purposes only. Always verify against primary sources.
Back to bill feed
Deb Fischer official portrait

Deb Fischer

R

senate · NE

CompareSign in to get alerts
Read the record. Not the rhetoric.

See how Deb Fischer actually votes — against your values.

DeepSyte scores Deb Fischer's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.

Get started freeTake the values quiz
Official websiteSee this seat's 2026 race

Alignment with your views

Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Deb Fischer's votes line up with your views.

Prediction track record

We haven't made any vote predictions for Deb Fischer yet. Predictions are generated for bills with tagged effects; they show up here as soon as the predict-votes job covers this rep's upcoming docket.

Consistency insights

No paired statements and votes yet for Deb Fischer

We haven't yet found statement/vote pairs on the same topic for Deb Fischer. This usually means either the rep hasn't taken public positions on bills that have come to a passage vote, or those bills haven't been tagged yet. The checker runs as new press releases and votes come in.

Pro analysis

AI rep analysis — Pro

Get an AI-narrated read on Deb Fischer's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.

Sign in to use AI analysis

Campaign promises

We haven't extracted campaign positions for Deb Fischer yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.

Crossing the aisle

No party-break passage votes recorded for Deb Fischer. Either they've voted with Republicans on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.

Recent votes

  • Nay
    A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
    119-sjres-181··July 30, 2026
  • Yea
    SEED Act
    119-hr-5334··July 28, 2026
  • Nay
    A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Medicare Program; Implementation of Prior Authorization for Select Services for the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model".
    119-sjres-198··July 16, 2026
  • Yea
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027
    119-s-4784··July 14, 2026
  • Nay
    A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
    119-sjres-185··June 25, 2026
  • Yea
    Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act
    119-s-1318··June 5, 2026
  • Nay
    Secure America Act
    119-s-2·2 votes·Jun 5, 2026
    • ·June 5, 2026
    • ·June 5, 2026
  • Yea
    Secure America Act
    119-s-2··June 5, 2026
  • Nay
    Secure America Act
    119-s-2·2 votes·Jun 4, 2026
    • ·June 4, 2026
    • ·June 4, 2026
  • Nay
    A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units: Final Repeal".
    119-sjres-188··June 3, 2026
  • Yea
    Secure America Act
    119-s-2··June 3, 2026
  • Nay
    A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
    119-sjres-185··May 19, 2026
  • Yea
    An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
    119-sres-690··April 30, 2026
  • Nay
    A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
    119-sjres-184··April 30, 2026
  • Yea
    An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
    119-sres-690··April 28, 2026
  • Yea
    A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
    119-sconres-33··April 23, 2026
  • Yea
    A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
    119-sconres-33··April 21, 2026
  • Yea
    Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
    119-hr-7147·2 votes·Mar 25, 2026 – Mar 26, 2026
    • ·March 26, 2026
    • ·March 25, 2026
  • Not voting
    Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
    119-hr-7147··March 20, 2026
  • Yea
    Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
    119-hr-7147·2 votes·Mar 5, 2026 – Mar 12, 2026
    • ·March 12, 2026
    • ·March 5, 2026
  • Not voting
    Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
    119-hr-7147··February 24, 2026

Recent statements

June 25, 2026press_release_senate

ICYMI: Fischer Prescribes U.S. Strategic Deterrence Strategy for Indo-Pacific

Position: Senator Fischer advocates for increased U.S. defense spending focused on nuclear modernization, particularly the Sentinel ICBM program, and strengthening the nuclear triad as a deterrent against China and other strategic competitors in the Indo-Pacific region.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) delivered the keynote address at the Washington Times' Threat Status 2026 INDOPAC event. In her speech, she outlined her policy agenda on how to deter China by investing in our nuclear triad, revitalizing the U.S. defense industrial base, and supporting Golden Dome for America. Watch Fischer's speech here or by clicking the image above. Fischer's remarks as prepared for delivery: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you. I want to spend my time today discussing the strategic environment America faces in the Indo-Pacific, the steps Congress is taking today to modernize our forces to meet tomorrow's threats, and the work that lies ahead to ensure the United States deters the Chinese Communist Party. Informed discussions about U.S. investment priorities — whether nuclear modernization, shipbuilding, or autonomy — require a clear understanding of how fundamentally the geopolitical environment has shifted. For the first time in history, the United States faces two peer nuclear adversaries at once. In addition to Russia, China is expanding its nuclear arsenal at a breathtaking pace – consistently exceeding U.S. estimates. China is building new missile silos, increasing its warhead stockpile, and rapidly developing the full range of nuclear delivery systems. This is not the strategic environment we planned for. The structure of our nuclear forces today was determined during a very different geopolitical moment. The prevailing consensus was that China would remain a more limited strategic competitor. Those assumptions have been proven wrong. China is now an increasingly capable strategic rival. President Xi is working with our persistent adversaries — Iran, Russia, and North Korea. They are sharing weapons, technology, resources, and strategic objectives. Together, these countries are working to challenge American power, undermine stability, and threaten international security. That reality should inject urgency into everything we do — from force modernization to industrial capacity to alliance coordination to modernizing the bedrock of our national security: our nuclear triad. Our nuclear arsenal remains the foundation of American security, which means that maintaining the credibility of our deterrent must be a national priority. This means getting Sentinel back on track. The missile and warhead components are progressing, while much of the challenge lies in the infrastructure — the launch facilities and command centers that support the system. We now have a Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager overseeing the ICBM enterprise, with centralized authorities and direct reporting lines to the Pentagon's senior leadership. Major design and contract decisions are expected soon, which will provide greater clarity on the program's cost and schedule. Getting Sentinel right is critical to maintaining credible deterrence. Beyond the ICBM force, we must also ensure the rest of the nuclear triad remains strong. The current force structure – which again was set forth in a very different geopolitical environment – is not sufficient. We must size our forces to meet tomorrow's threats — not yesterday's assumptions. We must expand our bomber force beyond just the program of record. Considering STRATCOM's and PACOM's requirements, 100 bombers won't be enough. We need at least 200 to meet current demands. Additionally, given the threat posed by China, the president should have a full array of options to respond to limited nuclear strikes and deter our adversaries from employing an escalate-to-deescalate strategy. That's why I fought to authorize over $250 million for the nuclear-powered sea-launched cruise missile in the Senate version of this year's NDAA. It's also why I included a provision to authorize the development of two additional theater-range nuclear capabilities. Without these theater-range capabilities, the United States risks ceding strategic advantages to China in the Pacific that could undermine U.S. maritime power in the region. Of course, having a modern, credible nuclear deterrent with the right mix of capabilities is of little use without the assured ability of the president to command, control, and communicate with those forces. That's why a major focus of mine is not just modernizing our nuclear deterrent but also our NC3 systems. In the Senate FY27 NDAA, I included a provision limiting funds for the Secretary of the Air Force until the acquisition strategy for the Airborne Command Post capability has been delivered. This capability is important to ensuring command and control of nuclear forces in a crisis. There is another hard truth we must reckon with. The demand for ships and submarines is outpacing our building capacity. Meanwhile, China's shipbuilding capacity, in tonnage, is roughly 230 times greater than ours. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission said it clearly back in 2023. We need more nuclear-capable shipyard capacity. We need higher submarine production rates. And we need more missile capacity across our existing fleet. I believe the Navy should build additional shipyards that can maintain nuclear-powered ships and submarines. This will be expensive. It will take time. But we simply cannot meet future demand without more nuclear shipyards. During the Cold War, we had twice as many public shipyards as we do today. Right now, we're not even on track to meet our basic goal of producing two Virginia-class submarines and one Columbia-class submarine every year. And we're certainly not ready to take on any additional nuclear shipbuilding. We will need more Virginia-class submarines for the AUKUS security pact we agreed to with Australia and the United Kingdom. We will likely need more SSN(X) and Columbia-class submarines in the 2030s and 2040s. I also continue to prioritize strengthening our nuclear industrial base. After the Cold War, we essentially abandoned our nuclear enterprise. We let facilities age and capabilities atrophy. Now, we must modernize our entire nuclear enterprise – much of which contains one-of-a-kind facilities or date back to the Manhattan project era – without disrupting weapons production. The Strategic Posture Commission was clear that the nuclear industrial base is a national security vulnerability. The U.S. is not producing enough scientists, engineers, or skilled technicians. Part of remedying this means providing NNSA and the National Labs with the flexibility to recruit and retain talent competitively. But the private sector must play a larger role in developing the workforce needed to sustain this industrial base. These investments must not just focus on capital assets but must also include workforce development. We should be building stronger vocational pipelines, apprenticeship programs, and partnerships with technical colleges across the country. We need more welders, machinists, pipefitters, engineers, and technicians — and we need to treat workforce development with the same strategic urgency as weapons design. At the end of the day, our ability to modernize U.S. shipbuilding and scale the industrial base hinges on a workforce aligned with the magnitude of the task. Although it may not seem like it, another key influencer of U.S. maritime power in the Indo-Pacific region is homeland defense. That's because China has systems capable of holding U.S.-based assets at risk. The greater our vulnerability to homeland attacks, the more challenging it will be to project and employ power in the region during a conflict with China. This brings us to Golden Dome. The United States needs a stronger missile defense system. That's why, in 2024, I introduced legislation requiring the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive integrated air and missile defense architecture for the United States, which was ultimately included in the FY2025 NDAA. When President Trump began his second term, he supercharged these efforts. He brought the attention, the energy, and the resources needed. He did this by establishing Golden Dome for America. His focus here is welcome because the threat is real, and it's growing. China has built the world's most advanced hypersonic arsenal. And China has historically run up to twenty times more test flights than we have. It should alarm every American that our adversaries are racing ahead with these weapons. While the United States is protected against a limited ICBM attack from a rogue nation by ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, these systems were never built to stop advanced cruise and hypersonic missiles. This is precisely why Golden Dome is essential. As Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I'm working closely with General Guetlein and Department leadership as they finalize the design, the schedule, and the long-term funding needs. We provided initial funding last year. And I used this year's NDAA to update the annual reporting requirement for Golden Dome to help keep it on track. But this is going to require sustained investment over many years. Last August, I traveled to the Indo-Pacific. I visited Taiwan, Palau, Guam, and the Philippines. And earlier this year, I visited China. These trips made one thing clear. It is critical that we support our allies and partners in the region. We also need to ensure our U.S. presence in the Indo-Pacific is well defended, including over 170,000 U.S. citizens on Guam. I also secured a requirement for full, 360-degree radar coverage around Guam in this year's NDAA. And I authorized the funding to make that happen. Taken together, these provisions send a clear message that America's capabilities remain strong and credible to project power and deter Chinese aggression. Let me close with this. We face serious challenges as we navigate China's growing military buildup in the region. But with strong leadership and sustained investment, we can maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific. Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/6/icymi-fischer-prescribes-u-s-strategic-deterrence-strategy-for-indo-pacific

foreign_policy
Source
June 24, 2026press_release_senate

Fischer Introduces Bill Addressing Firefighter Equipment Safety

Position: The senators support authorizing $25 million annually for fiscal years 2027-2031 in federal grant funding to develop next-generation firefighter protective gear free of PFAS chemicals and other carcinogenic materials.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Curtis (R-UT), and Peter Welch (D-VT) have introduced the Protecting Firefighters and Advancing State-of-the-Art (PFAS) Alternatives Act to authorize grant funding for new protective gear for firefighters free of forever chemicals. "Our firefighters put everything on the line to keep us safe, and it's our job to make sure they are taken care of," Fischer said. "This bill gives us the resources for producing next-generation protective gear, free of PFAS chemicals, to protect the health and safety of firefighters in Nebraska and across the nation." "Our first responders put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and too many suffer or lose their lives from cancers caused by toxic exposures on the job — including from harmful PFAS chemicals in their protective gear. Our firefighters shouldn't have to worry that the gear designed to protect them is putting their health at risk," Heinrich said. "That's why I'm leading legislation to invest in the next-generation PFAS-free firefighting gear. Because we need to do more to protect the people who protect all of us." "Utah's firefighters shouldn't have to worry that the gear designed to keep them safe could expose them to harmful chemicals," Curtis said. "This bipartisan legislation invests in the research needed to improve turnout gear, helping ensure firefighters have the proper protective equipment they deserve." "From Vermont to Idaho and everywhere in between, firefighters put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. Their line of work is already hazardous enough without having to deal with toxic chemical exposure from the very gear meant to protect them," Welch said. "I'm proud to work across the aisle on this legislation to support investments into developing new, PFAS-free turnout gear that protects firefighters across the country." The PFAS Alternatives Act would authorize $25 million annually for fiscal years 2027-2031 for grants to develop new protective gear. The research will be conducted in a partnership between firefighters and scientists to achieve goals such as: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called "forever chemicals," are a hazardous group of compounds used in the production of modern firefighting protective gear and are linked to an increased cancer risk among firefighters. Research has associated PFAS exposure with serious health effects, including cancer, kidney disease, and reproductive harm. Additionally, the textiles used in protective gear can absorb carcinogens encountered during fires and other emergency responses, and these contaminants are not completely eliminated through standard laundering processes. Although materials science has advanced, protective gear continues to be a source of carcinogenic exposure for firefighters. Beyond PFAS-related risks, the gear can weigh nearly 45 pounds, restrict mobility, and lack features to indicate when cleaning or maintenance is necessary. This legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell (MI-06) and Sam Graves (MO-06) and has been referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/6/fischer-introduces-bill-addressing-firefighter-equipment-safety

infrastructure
Source
June 14, 2026press_release_senate

Fischer Joins FOX News Sunday to Discuss Iran, National Security

Position: Senator Fischer expresses support for the Trump administration's negotiation of a potential Iran deal from a position of strength, emphasizing the need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and control over regional infrastructure. She opposes the previous JCPOA agreement, arguing it allowed Iran to exploit U.S. diplomacy.

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined FOX News Sunday live with Shannon Bream to discuss the potential peace deal between the United States and Iran. BREAM: I want to go back to start with the Iran deal, because there are those out there who are skeptical across the political spectrum. John Heubusch writes about this. He was longtime director in the past of the Ronald Reagan Foundation and [has a] deep resume here on the hill. He says this, "Let's state the obvious: there is a difference between forcing Iran to sign a piece of paper and forcing Iran to change its nature. The first is diplomacy. The second is pure fantasy. The danger is not that Iran refuses to sign, the danger is that it signs and then does what it always does." So, can we do a deal with Iran? FISCHER: We're going to find out. I'm not going to listen to the rumors. I want to see what kind of deal the president has made here. When he gets it signed, we'll know all the facts to it. But let's remember we have gone through 47 years of Iran being the state sponsor of terrorism, killing Americans. This is not a country that we wanted to see continue down that path. They're enriching uranium, they were on their way to getting a nuclear weapon. They had short, medium, and long-range ballistic missiles that could reach cities like London, Rome, and then it's a hop, skip, and a jump until it reaches the United States. I support the president in going in and trying to take them out and being successful. We don't want to see Iran continue to have control over the Strait of Hormuz, but we also want to make sure that they are not capable of getting a nuclear weapon, and that we can account for the enriched uranium that's there. Let's remember the president is negotiating now from a position of strength. Iran is weak. We have gone in, we've showed the strength of America, and now the president is able to negotiate from a position of strength this time. BREAM: How do you answer your colleagues, like Senator Reed, who say this came at an enormous cost, that we didn't need to do this. We had the JCPOA, there was a way to stop their program diplomatically, and now we've had enormous costs financially, but more importantly, American lives as well. FISCHER: The American lives lost is a tragedy, but we have to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. We didn't do that with the JCPOA. I was not a supporter of the JCPOA. Iran played us on that, and we ended up sending pallets of cash to them. I doubt that that's going to happen under President Trump. BREAM: I want to get to some breaking news this morning as well, because Israel is carrying out some strikes in Lebanon, and there's been a lot of reaction to that. Our Trey Yingst is hearing from some folks who are on the other side of this conversation, saying that they feel like Israel is trying to scuttle the deal that President Trump is trying to get across the finish line today. There's some daylight between our interests, their interests in the region, although there's a lot of praise from Israeli leaders, including the prime minister on the president's birthday today. But what do you make of these allegations that Israel may be trying to quote unquote blow up the deal the president is trying to get done because they have different interests? FISCHER: Israel is defending its country, and it is defending its people. We understand completely the terrorists that are on Israel's border. When you have Hezbollah causing disruptions, bombings in northern Israel, they have a right—they have a right to go in and defend themselves. I doubt that they are trying to scuttle any kind of deal, because they know the importance of being able to have a secure area in the Strait. They know the importance of taking out the nuclear program of Iran, and so they want to see a negotiation that's going to be successful on those points. BREAM: I want to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act, because the committee has just worked through this. It's now headed to the full Senate for consideration. One of the components of this, the part of the framework for this, reportedly includes a provision that would authorize the Pentagon to establish a war reserve stockpile program for Taiwan. There have been concerns about our munitions, what we're able to supply to others, what Taiwan is able to get. What exactly would this provision do? Can Congress force the fulfillment of orders to Taiwan as it's waiting with these allegations that the president may be slow walking some of this to appease China? FISCHER: You know, munitions is something that I focused on for a number of years now. I think I was one of the first in Congress to bring it up after Russia invaded Ukraine, because I want to make sure that the United States has what we need to protect our homeland. We also want to make sure that our allies, our partners, have what they have. The provision that we saw in the NDAA, I think that is more of reassurance to Taiwan and a challenge to the defense contractors that this is something that needs to happen and needs to go forward. Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/6/fischer-joins-fox-news-sunday-to-discuss-iran-national-security

foreign_policy
Source

Recent news mentions

Articles from a curated list of national outlets that mention Deb Fischer.

  • Roll Call·August 5, 2026
    South Dakota Democratic nominee exits Senate race, bolstering independent rival
  • CBS News·July 15, 2026
    Will daylight saving time become permanent? Here
  • Omaha World-Herald·July 3, 2026
    Nebraska lawmakers weigh in on Trump refusal to renew trade deal with Mexico, Canada
  • CNN·July 2, 2026
    Senate race rankings july 2026
  • CNN·July 2, 2026
    Senate race rankings july 2026
  • CNN·June 19, 2026
    Dan osborn nebraska alerted ice claims undocumented workers
  • Fox News·June 10, 2026
    Europes 116b fighter jet failure raises fresh doubts about ability defend itself without us
  • Fox News·June 9, 2026
    GOP senators rally around new DHS proposal targeting sanctuary cities: 'Should pay a price'
  • Fox News·May 20, 2026
    Trump jolts immigration hawks with surprising defense of Chinese students in USA
  • New York Post·May 14, 2026
    Beware Democrats’ sneaky ‘independent-in-name-only’ midterm gambit
  • NBC News·May 13, 2026
    Nebraska secretary of state loses GOP primary to challenger questioning election security
  • Arkansas Democrat-Gazette·May 13, 2026
    Nebraska Democrats vie in ‘blue dot’ race | Arkansas Democrat Gazette
  • The Boston Globe·May 13, 2026
    Four takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries in Nebraska and West Virginia - The Boston Globe
  • NBC News·May 13, 2026
    Democrats pick Nebraska Senate nominee who could drop out and back independent Dan Osborn
  • Fox News·May 13, 2026
    Republican Ricketts wins GOP Primary in Nebraska, advances to key Senate showdown

Source: GDELT 2.0 GKG, filtered to a curated list of national outlets. Inclusion is not endorsement; opinion pieces and reported news are mixed.

Recent stock activity

Periodic transaction reports filed under the STOCK Act — disclosed by the rep, sourced from public filings.

No disclosed trades on record.

Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).

Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle

Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.

  1. 1.AIPAC PAC CONDUIT ACCOUNT12 contributions$106,679
  2. 2.2018 SENATORS CLASSIC COMMITTEE1 contribution$10,248
  3. 3.REINVENTING A NEW DIRECTION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEIdeological1 contributionPolitical action committee with a generic reform-oriented name — specific policy positions and affiliations not inferable from the name alone.AI · low$10,000
  4. 4.NEBRASKA SANDHILLS PAC1 contribution$10,000
  5. 5.TOMORROW IS MEANINGFUL PAC1 contribution$10,000
  6. 6.THOMPAC1 contribution$10,000
  7. 7.BLUEGRASS COMMITTEELeadership1 contributionMember-of-Congress leadership PAC affiliated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Directs contributions to Republican candidates and allied party committees.AI$10,000
  8. 8.OORAH PAC1 contribution$10,000
  9. 9.LETS GET TO WORK PACLeadership1 contributionLeadership or member-affiliated PAC — specific positions not clearly inferable from the name alone.AI · low$10,000
  10. 10.DENALI LEADERSHIP PAC1 contribution$10,000

Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.

Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle

Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.

  1. 1.MARQUIS MANAGEMENT$30,000
  2. 2.SELF$12,100
  3. 3.CQUENCE HEALTH GROUP$7,000
  4. 4.WEXFORD CAPITAL$7,000
  5. 5.HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION$7,000
  6. 6.1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA$7,000
  7. 7.KANA SYSTEMS$7,000
  8. 8.UNION PACIFIC$6,600
  9. 9.SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION$6,600
  10. 10.INNOVET$6,500

Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.