Texas Ethics Commission data Release v1.4 Source snapshot September 17, 2026 Latest eligible reported transaction September 15, 2026
Canonical Vendor

SR3 Creative

Resolved vendor identity assembled from reviewed Texas Ethics Commission payee records.
Canonical vendor · Vendor ID 292415 · Resolution: Indexed Canonical Identity
Total Payments
$55,442.28
Client Filers
15
Payments
46
Activity Range
12/07/2015–10/07/2025
Largest Payment
$7,393.34
Graph: 15 connected filers · 46 payments · $55,442.28 represented
Canonical vendor assembled from reviewed Texas Ethics Commission reported payee identities. Source records remain unchanged.

Reported Names

Payee names preserved from the reported/curated source layer and resolved to this canonical vendor.

Top Client Filers

Canonical client relationships from vendor_clients_canonical.
#FilerPaidPaymentsLast Payment
1Krause, Matthew H. (The Honorable)$19,393.34411/23/2020
2Seth, Manish (Mr.)$15,685.172001/08/2021
3Bumgarner, Benjamin C (The Honorable)$3,788.76203/14/2024
4Massengale for Texas Supreme Court$3,050.00502/16/2016
5Norred, Warren V. (Mr.)$2,500.00108/31/2021
6Patterson, Jared L. (The Honorable)$1,932.50310/04/2019
7Gallagher, George W. (The Honorable)$1,894.38102/02/2024
8Klick, Stephanie D. (The Honorable)$1,811.88204/20/2024
9Save Austin Now PAC$1,625.00110/07/2025
10Kinard Jr., Steve A. (Mr.)$1,500.00111/08/2024
11La Rotta, Luis Humberto (Mr.)$1,000.00111/25/2020
12NE Tarrant Tea Party PAC$350.00108/02/2017
13French, Richard West (Mr.)$318.75103/28/2018
14Citizens for a Better Annetta$300.00104/07/2019
15Hall III, Robert L. (The Honorable)$292.50203/05/2018

Shared Client Network

Other canonical vendors paid by the same filer clients. Ranked by shared-client count. This is a structural overlap measure, not evidence of affiliation or coordination.
Vendor Shared Clients Focal Coverage Peer Clients Network Overlap
STAPLES
Vendor ID 294208
9 60.0% 1,045 0.9%
OFFICE DEPOT
Vendor ID 230284
9 60.0% 3,017 0.3%
HOME DEPOT
Vendor ID 148817
8 53.3% 1,536 0.5%
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS
Vendor ID 261858
8 53.3% 1,571 0.5%
WALMART
Vendor ID 348446
7 46.7% 1,876 0.4%
MAILCHIMP
Vendor ID 200740
6 40.0% 486 1.2%
AMERICAN AIRLINES
Vendor ID 14178
6 40.0% 677 0.9%
ANEDOT
Vendor ID 16982
6 40.0% 642 0.9%
KROGER
Vendor ID 181532
6 40.0% 785 0.8%
FACEBOOK
Vendor ID 109240
6 40.0% 1,638 0.4%
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Vendor ID 338453
6 40.0% 1,445 0.4%
USPS
Vendor ID 340732
6 40.0% 1,958 0.3%
Method: Focal Coverage = shared clients ÷ this vendor's client count. Network Overlap = Jaccard similarity: shared clients ÷ union of both client sets.

Recent Reported Payments

DateClient FilerAmountDescription
01/08/2021Seth, Manish (Mr.)$673.17Consulting Fee
02/25/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,250.00Consulting Fee
02/25/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$540.00Push Card Expense
02/25/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$175.76Office Supply Reimbursement
02/25/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$40.00Social Media Advertising Expense
02/10/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,410.00Social Media Advertising
01/06/2020Seth, Manish (Mr.)$875.00Social Media Advertising Expense
12/23/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$875.00Social Media Expense
12/05/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,000.00Social Media Expense
12/05/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$750.00Website Development Expense
10/28/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,000.00Social Media Advertising
10/28/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$750.00Website Development Expense
10/28/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$225.00Push Cards Expense
09/16/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$500.00Social Media Advertising Expense
08/30/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,200.00Social Media and Video Shoot Expense
08/30/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$225.00Push Cards Expense
08/30/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$96.24Postage Expense
08/08/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$1,250.00Website and Social Media Advertising
07/30/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$2,350.00Website and Social Media Expense
06/30/2019Seth, Manish (Mr.)$500.00Social Media Consulting
Evidence basis: A canonical vendor identity was resolved using the curated vendor layer. Raw reported-payee statistics remain separate from canonical vendor statistics so the source record and analytical identity are distinguishable.