Texas Ethics Commission data
Release v1.4
Source snapshot September 17, 2026
Latest eligible reported transaction September 15, 2026
Canonical Vendor
ECTOR COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Resolved vendor identity assembled from reviewed Texas Ethics Commission payee records.
Canonical vendor · Vendor ID 98886 · Resolution: Indexed Canonical Identity
Total Payments
$9,171.88
Client Filers
6
Payments
81
Activity Range
08/12/2005–06/07/2026
Largest Payment
$1,682.47
Graph: 6 connected filers · 81 payments · $9,171.88 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.
- Ector County Democratic Party
Top Client Filers
Canonical client relationships from vendor_clients_canonical.
| # | Filer | Paid | Payments | Last Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ActBlue Texas | $7,743.49 | 73 | 06/07/2026 |
| 2 | Texas Black Democrats PAC | $500.00 | 1 | 05/01/2021 |
| 3 | Ector County Democratic Club | $346.39 | 1 | 06/29/2022 |
| 4 | Gibson III, Joseph | $272.00 | 4 | 09/06/2008 |
| 5 | Sandill, Ravi K. (The Honorable) | $250.00 | 1 | 10/21/2020 |
| 6 | White, William H. | $60.00 | 1 | 11/03/2010 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 310744
|
4 | 66.7% | 1,669 | 0.2% |
|
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 163803
|
3 | 50.0% | 39 | 7.1% |
|
GALVESTON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 125418
|
3 | 50.0% | 71 | 4.1% |
|
TEXAS COALITION OF BLACK DEMOCRATS
Vendor ID 310334
|
3 | 50.0% | 83 | 3.5% |
|
TARRANT COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 304835
|
3 | 50.0% | 140 | 2.1% |
|
HARRIS COUNTY TEJANO DEMOCRATS
Vendor ID 140583
|
3 | 50.0% | 157 | 1.9% |
|
HARRIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Vendor ID 140343
|
3 | 50.0% | 492 | 0.6% |
|
STAPLES
Vendor ID 294208
|
3 | 50.0% | 1,045 | 0.3% |
|
FACEBOOK
Vendor ID 109240
|
3 | 50.0% | 1,638 | 0.2% |
|
OFFICE DEPOT
Vendor ID 230284
|
3 | 50.0% | 3,017 | 0.1% |
|
MTA NYC Transit
Vendor ID 219435
|
2 | 33.3% | 2 | 33.3% |
|
River City Taxi
Vendor ID 265216
|
2 | 33.3% | 2 | 33.3% |
Method: Focal Coverage = shared clients ÷ this vendor's client count.
Network Overlap = Jaccard similarity: shared clients ÷ union of both client sets.
Recent Reported Payments
| Date | Client Filer | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/07/2026 | ActBlue Texas | $145.99 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 04/26/2026 | ActBlue Texas | $48.02 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 11/02/2025 | ActBlue Texas | $4.80 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 11/03/2024 | ActBlue Texas | $192.10 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 10/13/2024 | ActBlue Texas | $38.42 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 09/29/2024 | ActBlue Texas | $9.60 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 08/18/2024 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 07/28/2024 | ActBlue Texas | $28.81 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 01/01/2023 | ActBlue Texas | $24.01 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 11/06/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $43.22 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 10/09/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $43.22 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 10/02/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $24.01 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 09/04/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 08/07/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 07/03/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 06/29/2022 | Ector County Democratic Club | $346.39 | The bank balance was donated to the Ector County Democratic Party in order to close the account |
| 06/05/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 05/08/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 04/03/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $19.21 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
| 03/20/2022 | ActBlue Texas | $77.12 | POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION |
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.