Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Trevor Witt
Trevor Witt (Democratic Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 32nd Congressional District. He lost in the primary on March 5, 2024.
Witt completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Trevor Witt was born in Los Angeles, California. He earned a bachelor's degree in international security and conflict resolution with minors in Arabic and Islamic studies from San Diego State University in 2010. His career experience includes working in cafes and restaurants and as a full-time ride-share driver.[1][2]
Elections
2024
See also: California's 32nd Congressional District election, 2024
California's 32nd Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 top-two primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 32
Incumbent Brad Sherman defeated Larry Thompson in the general election for U.S. House California District 32 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Brad Sherman (D) | 66.2 | 212,934 |
 | Larry Thompson (R)  | 33.8 | 108,711 | |
| Total votes: 321,645 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 32
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 32 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Brad Sherman (D) | 58.6 | 91,952 |
| ✔ | | Larry Thompson (R) | 19.1 | 29,939 |
 | James Shuster (R) | 10.6 | 16,601 | |
 | Christopher Ahuja (D) | 8.1 | 12,637 | |
 | Douglas Smith (D) | 1.6 | 2,504 | |
| Dave Abbitt (D) | 1.1 | 1,665 | ||
 | Trevor Witt (D) | 1.0 | 1,635 | |
| Total votes: 156,933 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- David Brown (D)
- Geoffrey Wolfe (D)
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Witt in this election.
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Trevor Witt completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Witt's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
- If we want to address local or global issues, cooperation and conflict resolutions skills are essential. This means we need to practice active listening - on an interpersonal level and on the international stage. If we want to mitigate or reverse climate change, we need to have difficult discussions within our communities about walkability and shifting away from car culture. If we want to address Israel-Palestine, we need to hold space for immense, ongoing trauma and grief. If we want to heal this country, we need to listen - without needing to agree or to convince - to those on the other side.
- To build sustainable communities and a sustainable economy, we need to shift our economic priorities from those policies favoring billionaires and arms manufacturers to those favoring working class folks and investment in human capital. That means closing tax loopholes and funding free universities, healthcare for all, universal pre-K, and public housing. This can all be done without significantly raising taxes - by making billionaires pay their fair share. For more details, see my website.
- Many of our politicians - and many around the world - are stuck in a 20th century mindset. We are not 195 nations separated by nationalism. We are 195 large groups of humans separated by artificial barriers and linguistic and cultural differences. I grew up with Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean friends. I had friends from Iran, Israel, and Egypt. We need to break this mindset of "us versus them." A global community emerged with the advent of the internet and global trade - and while there have been many challenges, globalization is not going away. A human is a human is a human. Individual rights need to be protected everywhere - whether they are Palestinian or Israeli, Hindu or Muslim, Uyghur or Han Chinese.
Similarly, each person dying in the US, on the streets, is someone's child. We need to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor -- and to get them case managers.
I look up to:
Mike Gravel - for speaking out against the Vietnam War.
John McCain - for pushing for campaign finance reform, standing up to Bush against torture, for standing up against bigoted supporters of his when facing Obama, and for standing up for Obamacare.
Bernie Sanders - for speaking up regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians, for taking on party leadership, and for taking on the billionaires.
Barack Obama - for expanding healthcare coverage, for working to address climate change and to protect the environment, for his unbelievable composure, respect, patience, and class in dealing with his opposition.
Mitt Romney - for going against his party in voting to convict former president Donald J. Trump in both impeachment trials.
I have always been interested in politics - since my dad would watch the news, read the paper, and discuss current events at the dinner table. I realized in middle school that history affects us today. I had a teacher whose family fled the terrorism of the KKK in the South. I had friends who were Japanese and Chinese - two countries which were once at war. We are lucky as children - not to be burdened with the trauma of adults.
Climate change will affect food security, immigration, political stability of fledgling and established states, and the spread of diseases. While many of us believe that switching to an electric car and adding solar panels will solve everything, we can do so much more.
We can significantly reduce greenhouses gases and prepare for the worst. We can reduce the carbon dioxide in the air by implementing soil-based carbon sequestration through regenerative agriculture and agroforestry on large scales. We can also reduce the impacts of climate change by sharing technologies across borders - which may require changes in patent and intellectual property law in some cases. Moreover, partnerships based in comparative advantages can help us all. There is currently a partnership between Jordan and Israel regarding solar electricity production and desalination.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Witt’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
What are your foreign policy priorities? The US has legal mechanisms for protecting civilians in war and in peace from despotic regimes -- including respecting and enforcing the Geneva Conventions, the Alien Tort Statute, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the issuance of international arrest warrants, and application of the Leahy Law and the Magnitsky Act, among other pieces of US legislation. While the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of noncombatants in war time, the ICCPR applies whether or not there is a war going on and guarantees a myriad of rights and is similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Leahy Law is supposed to prevent the US from arming countries involved in human rights abuses. In practice, the US ignores these requirements for many despotic allied regimes. Additionally, the Magnitsky Act was enacted to put sanctions on individuals involved in human rights abuses, to seize their assets, and to ban them from entering the US. Originally targeting Russian oligarchs, this law has also been ignored on various occasions. Specifically, Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu and Egypt under Abdel Fatah El-Sisi have imprisoned various individuals without charge or trial. Additionally, some of these individuals face conditions amounting to torture and occasionally die in custody. According to Physicians for Human Rights - Israel and Al Jazeera, Omar Daraghmeh and Arafat Hamdan died in custody this October in Israel. Daraghmeh had no known medical issues, while Hamdan was diabetic and was allegedly refused his medication. The Committee For Justice, based in Switzerland, documented three deaths in Egyptian custody in the first two months of 2023. This inconsistent application of human rights laws has adverse impacts for Americans illegally detained abroad, such as Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovich, and the recently released Eyvin Hernandez. If international law is to be a credible deterrent for dictators, war criminals, and nefarious individuals, then it must be applied equally to nations and organizations which are friends and foes. Dictators like Vladimir Putin and Mohammed Bin Salman are made stronger by Joe Biden's refusal to get tough with allies who abuse civilians. The hypocrisy on the part of the US in enforcing international law makes it more domestically palatable for world leaders to ignore our pleas for justice and to shirk their responsibilities to sanction and arrest human rights abusers. It also makes US foreign policymaking more difficult by weakening US government credibility at home. The United States - led by Congress - must uphold international humanitarian law if it is to protect Americans abroad and if it is to be a beacon of hope, justice, and freedom in the world. Israel/Palestine As my father grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, antisemitism in America was still rampant. Only a decade before he was born, America had rejected Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. America rejected them after the Holocaust too -- until it finally accepted a small portion of them in 1948. In the 1960s, there were still places with signs which read, "No blacks, no Jews." Jews were not considered "white" or "Europeans" by many people. While some Jews could pass as "white," my dad had slightly darker complexion and he would get mistaken for Cuban, Native American, Italian, Greek, Mexican, and other ethnicities. As a very empathetic young man, my dad identified strongly with oppressed peoples - from Jews, to baseball players of color who were discriminated against, to Native Americans. One of his favorite athletes was Muhammad Ali -- a Muslim boxer who changed his name from his "slave name," Cassius Clay, and who went to prison for his refusal to fight in Vietnam. And yet, there were still stereotypes -- rooted in perceptions of world events, his own experiences, and ignorance. To his credit, he learned, but when my dad was growing up, there was a perception that the Arabs, especially Egyptians, hated "the Jews" and hated Israel because it was a Jewish state -- as there had been multiple wars between Egypt and Israel, in which many Arab states fought Israel all at once. When I was studying for my Bar Mitzvah, I always heard this same stereotype from my Hebrew school teachers -- as a general Israeli point of view of why the Arab countries fought so many wars with Israel. They were all Israeli women, some of whom served in the armed forces. But, when I was a teenager, I had two friends who were Coptic Christian Egyptians. My dad asked, innocently worried, "Do they know you are Jewish?" I replied that they did and that they did not care. He was surprised, but glad to hear that response and his perspective underwent a shift. Still, we both generally accepted the official Israeli talking point that the many Arab countries hated Israel because it was a Jewish state -- even if some individuals did not. But something did not make sense to me, my Egyptian friends did not hate me. Why did some Egyptians hate Israel, while others did not? My dad -- and his dad -- would probably say that it does not matter why. When you are attacked, you have to fight back. And you have to win. That was how they were raised. In the shadows of the Holocaust and in the shadow of October 7th, I suspect it is how many Jews feel. In high school, I met an Egyptian Muslim friend who also did not care that I was Jewish and we would debate about Israel and Palestine -- among other topics such as time travel and pop-culture. After my Bar Mitzvah, I joined a Jewish youth fraternity in high school called AZA and met friends who had relatives in Israel and relatives who survived the Holocaust. I identified strongly as Jewish, had bouts of keeping Kosher, and considered the idea of becoming a rabbi. At the same time, I felt some discomfort over the facts that my friend Ramsey had presented to me, regarding Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Furthermore, the fact that religion was never a point of contention for us made it clear to me that Islam -- other than extremist elements -- was not necessarily the root of the conflict between Jews and Arabs, or between Jews and Palestinians specifically. I met Palestinian students while taking an Arabic class in college. In my class, neither my teacher, nor any of the students cared that I was Jewish or that some of the other students were or that one of them had relatives in Israel. My dear Arabic teacher Ghassan was a Palestinian from Jordan. He would years later be unjustly accused of antisemitism for using an Arabic map which called the land "Falastin." He did not make the map and he did not make up the Arabic name for the land. I also took a course on the "Arab-Israeli Conflict" with an Israeli professor. As I learned more about the conflict, I learned how 750,000 Palestinians were made refugees and 15,000 were killed in the context of the Israeli War for Independence. I learned how some fled early on, some fled at gunpoint, and some were massacred in different villages and towns. And I learned how Israel used the fear of massacres as a tool for the "transfer" of the Palestinian populations out of hundreds of towns and villages. 1948 was indeed a "Catastrophe," or "Nakba" in Arabic, for the Palestinian people. When I went to Israel on a free "Birthright" trip, we met some Bedouin folks and some Druze and we met IDF soldiers, but we never talked about the Palestinians. "The Arabs" who remained under Israeli rule after 1948 lived under a military dictatorship for the first 18 years of the state of Israel. My great political science professor Farid told us a snippet of his experience growing up as a Palestinian under Israeli rule -- though I cannot recall the details. His standout lecture brilliantly illustrated the idea that none of us are born inherently a member of any nation, race, ethnicity, or religion. None of us are stamped on our feet at birth "Made in China," "Made in the USA," Palestinian, Jewish, or Hindu. We are all the same. For years, the Israeli state called the indigenous people "Arabs" and not "Palestinians," which served the argument that the people could be expelled because they could just go to another Arab country and it would be a homeland for them. It was a callous strategy that treated people as pawns and sought to justify the resulting violence and trauma. And it denied the connection of the indigenous Palestinians to the land and to the culture that they had built over time -- distinct and not simply "Arab." To prevent any semblance of nationalism or political activism among "Israeli Arabs," Israel banned national symbols, such as the Palestinian flag and used police brutality to suppress protests such as the "Land Day" protests of 1976. The Israeli government continues to expropriate land from the Palestinians by allowing settler outposts to be established illegally, and then retroactively legalizing them. Additionally, some IDF soldiers turn a blind eye to settler attacks against Palestinian civilians in places like Masafer Yatta. This policy of using violence, harassment, and intimidation to encourage "transfer" is a continuation of the Nakba. Towards the end of college, I learned that an Israeli friend had lost a relative in a terrorist attack. It was heartbreaking. Terrorist attacks against civilians are never justified. Israelis have been traumatized by generations of war -- including the 1956 War, the 1967 War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Intifadas. The Second Intifada was particularly traumatizing -- as suicide bombings and bus bombings could occur at any time. Years of rockets have created additional trauma. At the same time, Palestinians have been continually dispossessed of their lands since 1948. When the war ended, refugees were supposed to be able to return -- but they were never allowed to do so. Nor was their trauma of the Nakba ever acknowledged by Israel. And, since 1967, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have endured military rule -- where individuals can be held without charge or trial in a system called "administrative detention," where individuals can be beaten or tortured -- though there are disputes about whether it is the norm, and where houses of families can be demolished for the actions of one family member who commits violent acts. After the Second Intifada, Israel envisioned a complete separation from the Palestinian Territories -- but one in which they did not relinquish control. In service of that vision, Israel built security/separation barriers between Israel and the West Bank and between Israel and Gaza. This was framed by some Israeli commentators as a divorce. But, to Palestinians, this was just further imprisonment -- especially as this move was unilateral and Israeli security forces would continue to conduct raids and arrests at will. Israel also continued to take more land in the West Bank through settlements -- which were even illegal according to Israeli laws and courts. Meanwhile, I had friends in America on both sides. I had a friend who defended Hezbollah -- as a social services organization and as a defender of Lebanon. I had a couple more friends who served in the IDF -- who did not hate Palestinians, but who wanted peace for Israelis. And I later became friends with two women from Gaza -- one who volunteered with a peace organization, despite having lost many relatives to Israeli bombing, and another who was a former boss. This is painful for me, as I care for all of these people deeply -- and as I care for the Jewish people deeply, half of whom live in Israel. Hamas's attack on civilians on October 7th, which kicked off the latest round of violence in the region, were despicable and unforgivable. Kidnapping civilians and sexual violence are abhorrent. At the same time, while unjustifiable, these events did not occur in a vacuum. The cycles of violence have been going on since 1920s. This year was deadliest for Palestinians in the West Bank since 2005, even before the October 7th. Violence by Israeli settlers and the IDF against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank is unacceptable. The carpet bombing of Gaza is unacceptable. Even if the IDF drops leaflets telling people to evacuate, it has destroyed entire neighborhoods and killed people in the process of evacuating and people in "safe" areas. The continuous cycles of violence will not resolve the conflict or end the Occupation -- as evidenced by the First Intifada, the Second Intifada, the "Intifada of the Individuals," Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Returning Echo, Operation Pillar of Defense, Operation Protective Edge, etc. The leaders of Hamas and of Israel are lying to their peoples when they claim that continued violence will result in a strategic or moral victory. There are no winners in war -- only bereaved families. I have friends in Israel and with relatives in Israel. I have friends with relatives in Gaza. I fear for them both. I support a ceasefire between the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian militant factions, the mutually agreed return of hostages and prisoners, and long-term peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The current hostilities have inflamed emotions and fueled hate crimes against Palestinians, Israelis, Jews, and Muslims. There is plenty to be angry about and many of us are grieving. Yet hate and prejudice damage our capacity for compassion and injure our humanity. This hatred masks our anger and our fear, which rip away our sense of safety and belonging. We cannot let our pain and our legitimate anger morph into baseless hatred for one another. There are currently two peoples living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That is not going to change. Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve equality, justice, and a thriving, peaceful, and sustainable future. It is in the interests of the diaspora communities in the United States, in the interests of the U.S. government, and in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis themselves to support efforts to re-humanize Palestinians and Israelis and to build such a future. The return to the status quo of a military occupation of the Palestinian people, with unequal rights vis-a-vis Jewish Israelis is unacceptable. It is just as unacceptable to return to a situation in which an armed group committed to Israel's destruction rules the Gaza Strip. In order to pursue a sustainable, long-term peace agreement, the US also ought to support direct and indirect negotiations between the Israeli government and all Palestinian factions, mediated by Qatar and Egypt, as well as joint programs between Palestinian and Israeli civil society. Reports of war crimes ought to be investigated and -- unless and until there is some sort of negotiated truth and reconciliation agreement including amnesty between the parties -- perpetrators ought to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. To protect civilians and to encourage de-escalation, the US should also support an international arms embargo against all parties attacking civilians. All people deserve the right to live in peace and dignity -- especially civilians, who are by their definition noncombatants. Palestinians and Israelis deserve an equitable, just, peaceful and thriving future. Ukraine/Russia The US ought to continue to encourage negotiations and while taking active steps to reduce Russia's military capabilities, including the imposition of sanctions on members of the government and the issuance of arrest warrants for members of the Russian government, and psychological warfare operations including the dissemination of photos of Ukrainian casualties, the translation of Ukrainian war reports into Russian, and the release of embarrassing information about Russian military and political elites. Immigration What are your domestic policy priorities? Yet there is hope. By shifting our ways, we can mitigate our harm to the environment, adapt to the changes to come, and heal the damage we have caused to our ecosystems. We need to build sustainable communities. We need to eliminate fossil fuels and carbon emissions, establish food security, justice, and sovereignty locally, reduce our energy footprint in travel for work and leisure, and foster sustainable economic growth through partnerships with each other and with the planet. Key elements for building sustainable communities and combating climate change include:
This will take massive investment, but will yield high-paying jobs in green manufacturing, building retro-fits, and solar panel maintenance, which cannot be shipped overseas. Additionally, such changes will enable local communities, small and large, to thrive despite the ongoing threats of crop failure, food insecurity, and extreme weather events. Sustainable product design, business development, and education will ensure that communities face less pollution and stay healthier in the long run. In fact, the United States already has a strategy to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 -- logically titled "The Long Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050" and published in November 2021. The tools of this approach include federal leadership, subnational and local government leadership, industry innovation supported by federal policies, and all-sectors on-deck in the pursuit of five paths to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those paths to reduced emissions included decarbonizing electricity, electrifying the economy from industry to end-uses and switching to other clean fuels, cutting energy waste, and reducing methane and non-CO2 emissions. According to the report, through these strategies, which it lays out in more detail, the United States can reduce "net GHG emissions 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030" and reach net-zero by 2050. Not only will such improvements help the world avert the dangers of a 1.5°C increase in planetary warming, but they will save lives. According to the same report, reducing air pollution alone, through clean energy, will help prevent nearly 300,000 premature deaths. If we can afford to invest $1.7 trillion in a fighter jet program, we can afford to invest in sustainable communities -- especially when such investments yield a virtuous cycle of good paying jobs, more resilient communities, and billions of dollars in savings by reducing the negative impacts of climate change such as crop failure, flooding, droughts, and weather-related deaths. The War Economy and Taxes - Shifting to Sustainability and Conflict Resolution If we are to provide the equipment, services, and leadership our veterans need, we must be judicious about how we spend our money. If equipment is faulty or if programs are not yielding results for our veterans, then the public has a right to know. And if there is funding disappearing into programs that no one knows about or which are failing audits, the chances for fraud, waste, and corruption are manifold. This detracts from the commitments our government makes to our servicemembers and makes our military weaker. It is also a slap in the face to Americans who sacrifice their hard-earned dollars in taxes to pay the troops. Lastly, it is unsustainable to fund a war industry forever. Weapons - by their nature - are often destroyed in war. If we want a sustainable military, we need a system of equipment, personnel, expertise, and R&D which is sustainable. This means less investment in resources which will be thrown away in the ash-heap of unnecessary wars. This means maintaining reserves of equipment, weapons, personnel, but not seeking to expend them. This means investing in de-escalation, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding mechanisms and research. The Peace Economy We have a moral obligation and a fiduciary duty to invest in preventing the costly ravages of war by funding our development of peacebuilding capabilities. Such investments would benefit Americans abroad and the research of the USIP could also be used to reduce conflict domestically as well. The cost savings in dollars and in lives would well be worth the expenditure. Taxes Free College Paying For It Universal Healthcare Each year 650,000 individuals face bankruptcy related to medical debt -- approximately 60% of all personal bankruptcies, according to Public Citizen. According to a report by KFF, one in ten Americans has significant medical debt -- with a total estimated US medical debt of more than $195 billion. Individuals would have better health outcomes and save billions by avoiding bankruptcy related to medical costs. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the NHEA estimated US total healthcare spending in 2022 was $4.5 trillion. And a study published in PLOS Medicine on January 15, 2020, concluded that 19 out of 22 economic analyses predicted that a single-payer healthcare system would save the US an average of 3.5% net savings of total healthcare costs within the first year of implementation. According to these analyses, Americans would save $157 billion in the first year of a single payer system. The majority of savings would come from streamlined, simpler billing and from reduced drug costs. With savings expected to increase every year, the boost to the US economy would be significant. A different study by several Yale scholars, published in the Lancet in 2020 claimed that Medicare for All would cost $458 billion less than that year's estimate of the national healthcare expenditure. In any case, such a savings is significant and would enable people to avert personal financial ruin. Medicare for All would ensure that Americans can get the coverage they need when they need it -- regardless of their income. According to the US Census Bureau, roughly 26 million Americans, about 7.9% of the total population, were uninsured for all of 2022 -- meaning that they had no coverage for routine checkups, illnesses, or injuries, let alone chronic or acute conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, a stroke or cancer. According to the Commonwealth Fund, 43% of working age Americans had inadequate insurance in 2022. That means that 89 million people in 2022 were either underinsured, uninsured, or had gaps in their health insurance which left treatment beyond their reach, due to their inability to pay. It is common sense that untreated conditions may get worse without proper medical treatment. Medicare for All would prevent this commonplace tragedy from continuing to debilitate American workers. By ensuring that Americans have access to affordable healthcare when they need it, Medicare for All would make Americans healthier and would strengthen the US economy. With more prompt treatment, Americans would have better health outcomes, miss less time from work, and be less likely to spread any contagious illnesses. As we saw with Covid-19, all Americans are safer when people are given the ability to take care of themselves when they are sick. Additionally, the removal of the burden of paying for healthcare from businesses benefits both employees and their employers. Because healthcare would not be tied to employment, employees would have more flexibility to choose jobs which more align with their ambitions. Additionally, companies would have less overhead, and the ability to reinvest their savings either in workforce raises or in research and development. In the end, everyone wins with a single payer system. It is our moral duty to pursue a system which does not leave any member of society behind due to their inability to pay. Going to see a doctor ought to be as easy as calling the Fire Department or going to the library. Medicare for All will make it that easy. Paying for It Homelessness Ending Homelessness Universal Pre-K |
” |
| —Trevor Witt’s campaign website (2024)[1] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Trevor Witt for Congress, "FAQ," accessed February 9, 2024
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on February 15, 2024
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
