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

ACT BLUE Texas

Resolved vendor identity assembled from reviewed Texas Ethics Commission payee records.
Canonical vendor · Vendor ID 6291 · Resolution: Indexed Canonical Identity
View relationships →Reported names
Total Payments
$42,167.86
Client Filers
26
Payments
817
Activity Range
02/23/2008–06/30/2026
Largest Payment
$1,729.46
Graph: 26 connected filers · 817 payments · $42,167.86 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
1Wendy R Davis for Governor Inc$15,110.034712/07/2014
2River Oaks Area Democratic Women$5,129.7919708/23/2021
3Area 5 Democratic Club$5,042.187406/30/2026
4Texas Rural Democrats$2,640.8320506/29/2026
5Texans for Beto$2,500.621003/03/2024
6McGill, Lorena Perez (Ms.)$2,409.654209/27/2018
7Rosenthal, Jon E. (Mr.)$1,979.811310/07/2019
8Denton County Democratic Party (CEC)$1,720.612608/22/2022
9Texas Democratic Women of the Harris County Metro Area$1,678.33412/31/2021
10Johnson, Eric L.$725.383212/25/2011
11Israel, Celia M. (Ms.)$679.20106/30/2013
12Texas Democratic Women PAC$564.532806/28/2026
13Brazos County Democratic Party (CEC)$474.41206/15/2020
14Ryan, Dawn Michelle (Mrs.)$319.98510/27/2018
15Democratic Women of Grayson County$198.663210/31/2022
16Workers Defense in Action$197.50101/30/2023
17Nevarez, Alfonso (The Honorable)$146.15512/09/2016
18VuLe, Sandra Phuong (Mrs.)$145.071602/08/2009
19Thomas, Gary D. (Mr.)$122.892901/04/2021
20We Deserve Better GPAC$115.253006/29/2022

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
OFFICE DEPOT
Vendor ID 230284
 20 76.9% 3,017 0.7%
TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 310744
 19 73.1% 1,669 1.1%
USPS
Vendor ID 340732
 16 61.5% 1,958 0.8%
FACEBOOK
Vendor ID 109240
 15 57.7% 1,638 0.9%
WALMART
Vendor ID 348446
 15 57.7% 1,876 0.8%
TARGET
Vendor ID 304420
 14 53.8% 1,174 1.2%
HEB
Vendor ID 142370
 14 53.8% 1,480 0.9%
OFFICE MAX
Vendor ID 230798
 13 50.0% 1,327 1.0%
BEST BUY
Vendor ID 32133
 12 46.2% 1,101 1.1%
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Vendor ID 338453
 12 46.2% 1,445 0.8%
ACTBLUE
Vendor ID 6335
 11 42.3% 592 1.8%
HOME DEPOT
Vendor ID 148817
 11 42.3% 1,536 0.7%
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
06/30/2026Area 5 Democratic Club$9.91Processing Fees
06/29/2026Texas Rural Democrats$6.13cost for usage
06/28/2026Texas Rural Democrats$44.91charge for usage
06/28/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$43.45Service Fee
06/24/2026Texas Rural Democrats$5.56charge for usage
06/22/2026Texas Rural Democrats$10.75charge for usage
06/21/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$110.61Service Fee
06/18/2026Texas Rural Democrats$42.30cost for usage
06/14/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$38.75Service Fee
06/14/2026Texas Rural Democrats$21.34charge for usage
06/07/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$22.63Service Fee
06/05/2026Texas Rural Democrats$5.53cost for usage
05/31/2026Texas Rural Democrats$4.95cost for usage
05/31/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$0.28Service Fee
05/30/2026Texas Rural Democrats$0.67usage cost
05/24/2026Texas Rural Democrats$8.00charge for usage
05/17/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$2.77Service Fee
05/16/2026Area 5 Democratic Club$290.48Processing Fees
05/10/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$1.98Service Fee
04/26/2026Texas Democratic Women PAC$2.06Service Fee
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.