Linda T. Sánchez
Democrat
· CA-41 · 119th Congress
House Committee on Ways and Means
Influence Score
70.5
Moderately exposed
↑ +3.8
vs 118th (66.7)
— ◊ —
This score measures financial influence across twelve categories. Each bar shows how this member compares to all others in Congress. Longer bars mean more exposure.
Score breakdown — twelve categories
Contributionsmoney from PACs (political action committees) and individual donors
7.3
/ 12
Outside spendingmoney spent by groups to help elect them
1.0
/ 6
Spent to help elect them
$301,566
Outside groups that spent to help elect this member — this drives the outside-spending bar above
Lobbyinghow hard lobbyists push the committees this member sits on
8.0
/ 10
Revolving door
former staff now working as lobbyists
0.0
/ 3
Vote alignmenthow often they vote the way their donors want
7.5
/ 12
Contribution timingmoney arriving near key votes
2.5
/ 6
Stock tradesbuying stocks in industries they regulate
0.0
/ 1
Dark moneyfunding from groups that hide their donors
< 0.1
/ 2
Outbound money distributionmoney this member sends out to the party and to colleagues
12.6
/ 16
Cluster network breadthhow many coordinated funding networks back this member
6.1
/ 10
Committee jurisdiction powerthe legislative reach of the committees this member sits on
3.3
/ 10
Foreign interestforeign-interest money — Israel-policy PACs and FARA-registered institutional lobbying allocated by committee jurisdiction
8.1
/ 12
Israel-policy PACs behind this score
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$10,303 direct
JSTREETPAC
$6,018 direct
FARA institutional lobbying
This member’s committees are targeted by $45.81M in lobbying from FARA-registered firms representing South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia. This exposure is weighted at 0.2% of face value in the score — $92K.
— ◊ —
Score across four congresses
Score and tier for each Congress. Members are ranked against others in the same Congress, so tiers are comparable across rows. Raw scores reflect different data availability per Congress.
| Congress | Score | Tier |
|---|---|---|
| 116th · 2019-2021 | 57.0 | Moderately exposed |
| 117th · 2021-2023 | 56.2 | Moderately exposed |
| 118th · 2023-2025 | 66.7 | Moderately exposed |
| 119th · 2025-2027 | 70.5 | Moderately exposed |
— ◊ —
Biggest funding source
The single network behind the most money and influence
Network
EQUALITY PAC
Total money from this network
$174,832
Number of funding networks contributing
1
— ◊ —
Where most of the money comes from
What share of their combined contributions and outside spending comes from a single network. Party committees are excluded.
Network
BOLD AMERICA
Share from this one network
9.4%
Amount from this network
$300,000
Total from all networks
$3,190,856
Networks contributing
377
— ◊ —
Who funds Sánchez
Every funding network we can measure, ranked by influence
$1,573,759
— ◊ —
Does the money match their power?
Whether their money comes from the industries their committees actually oversee
Money from industries they regulate
1.8%
Extra weight when money matches their committees
1.50×
Share of outside spending tied to their policy areas
89.0%
— ◊ —
Money timed to key votes
Donations arriving near key votes in the policy areas this member regulates
Times money arrived near a vote
8
Money that arrived near votes
$15K
Distinct donors
9
Distinct employers
6
Share of their total fundraising
2.05%
Biggest clusters of timed money
ARIEL INVESTMENTS
$3K
NATIONAL FINANCIAL
$3K
NATIONAL FINANCIAL PARTNERSS
$2K
WINDSOR INSURANCE
$2K
WINDSOR INSURANCE
$2K
FINANCIAL ARCHITECTS
$1K
NATIONAL FINANCIAL
$1K
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS
$1K
BUCKMAN CORNING FINANCIAL STRATEGIES
$500
FMS FINANCIAL
$500
— ◊ —
Top Donors
Biggest sources of contributions, grouped by employer, this cycle
FRAGOMEN
$21K
INVARIANT
$14K
KLEANSUPPLY
$12K
FULCRUM PUBLIC AFFAIRS
$10K
THORN RUN
$8K
GOLDEN GATE UROLOGY
$8K
CAPITOL COUNSEL
$8K
RIO GRANDE UROLOGY
$8K
COMCAST
$7K
HACKMAN CAPITAL
$7K
MILLER BARONDESS
$7K
MZA EVENTS
$7K
BLUE OWL CAPITAL
$7K
GOLDMAN SACHS
$7K
GOOGLE
$7K
D P CREATIVE STRATEGIES
$6K
GREATER BOSTON UROLOGY
$6K
AEROSCRAFT
$6K
AKERMAN SENTERFITT
$6K
BLUEWATER
$6K
Where the outside money comes from
How much of the outside spending for and against Linda T. Sánchez comes from groups that disclose their donors versus groups that hide them
Total outside spending received
$3K
Disclosed outside spending
$3K
Dark-money outside spending
$8
Share that is dark money
0.30%
Dark money tied to their policy areas
$0
Groups hiding their donors
1
By funding network
BOLD AMERICA
$300K
CENTER FORWARD COMMITTEE
$47K
COURAGE CALIFORNIA SUPER PAC
$2K
TOGETHER WE THRIVE
$750
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ADVOCACY PROJECT LOS ANGELES COUNTY ACTION FUND
$489
DEMOCRACY PAC
$195
NEA ADVOCACY FUND
$67
SIERRA CLUB INDEPENDENT ACTION
$50
DIGNITY CA SEIU LOCAL 2015
$7
Groups that hide their donors
1 smaller group under $500
$8
Likely donors behind the dark money supporting this member
Inferred
Donors who fund the disclosed PACs in the same network as the hidden groups above. "Coverage" is how many of that network's disclosed groups a donor funds — the more they fund, the more likely they also back the hidden group.
NEVADANS FOR STEVEN HORSFORD
$80K
TITUS FOR CONGRESS
$80K
SUSIE LEE FOR CONGRESS
$79K
GEORGE SOROS
$525.74M
SMP
$81.00M
BLACKPAC
$47.25M
AB PAC
$25.50M
HMP
$15.00M
HOUSE MAJORITY PAC
$15.00M
CARE IN ACTION PAC
$6.60M
— ◊ —
Pro-Israel network donors
This counts contributions to this member from individuals whose FEC filings also show contributions to one of the 16 pro-Israel political action committees tracked by the Index. It is a measure of donor overlap — not a claim about why any individual gave, and not part of the influence score.
30 individuals who also gave to pro-Israel PACs contributed $725K to Linda T. Sánchez across 69 contributions.
Total from shared contributors
$725K
Shared contributors
30
Contributions
69
By cycle
| Cycle | Shared donors | Gifts | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 12 | 25 | $208K |
| 2024 | 21 | 31 | $371K |
| 2026 | 6 | 13 | $146K |
— ◊ —
Linda T. Sánchez sits in the middle of this Congress on the index. There is a measured sponsor relationship, but the vote-alignment signal is weaker — money flows; the votes do not follow in lockstep.
Data: FEC (Federal Election Commission) filings · 118th–119th Congress · lobbying disclosures · VoteView recorded votes
All findings derived programmatically from public records · No prior knowledge required
All findings derived programmatically from public records · No prior knowledge required