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

LILLY & CO

Resolved vendor identity assembled from reviewed Texas Ethics Commission payee records.
Other
Canonical vendor · Vendor ID 191673 · Resolution: Canonical Vendor Id
Total Payments
$784,116.56
Client Filers
5
Payments
106
Activity Range
07/14/2009–12/04/2024
Largest Payment
$27,273.93
Graph: 5 connected filers · 106 payments · $784,116.56 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
1Patterson, Jerry (Mr.)$617,843.947806/04/2013
2Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$101,336.82902/11/2016
3Gates Jr., Gary W. (Mr.)$36,294.16705/27/2016
4Brissette, Lori Massey (Mrs.)$14,726.66812/04/2024
5Guillen, Ryan A. (The Honorable)$13,914.98404/08/2022

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
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS
Vendor ID 261858
5 100.0% 1,571 0.3%
OFFICE DEPOT
Vendor ID 230284
5 100.0% 3,017 0.2%
Lilly & Company
Vendor ID 191676
4 80.0% 126 3.1%
CAPITOL GRILL
Vendor ID 51404
4 80.0% 277 1.4%
OFFICEMAX
Vendor ID 231066
4 80.0% 407 1.0%
WHATABURGER
Vendor ID 352769
4 80.0% 541 0.7%
FEDEX OFFICE
Vendor ID 111594
4 80.0% 649 0.6%
HEB
Vendor ID 142370
4 80.0% 1,480 0.3%
TARGET
Vendor ID 304420
4 80.0% 1,174 0.3%
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Vendor ID 338453
4 80.0% 1,445 0.3%
FACEBOOK
Vendor ID 109240
4 80.0% 1,638 0.2%
UT PARKING GARAGE
Vendor ID 341277
3 60.0% 38 7.5%
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
12/04/2024Brissette, Lori Massey (Mrs.)$1,531.74fundraising assistance
11/26/2024Brissette, Lori Massey (Mrs.)$500.00fundraising assistance
11/21/2024Brissette, Lori Massey (Mrs.)$2,550.99Fundraising Event Expense
11/01/2024Brissette, Lori Massey (Mrs.)$2,780.60fundraising assistance
04/08/2022Guillen, Ryan A. (The Honorable)$10,000.00CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR CAMPAIGN/OFFICEHOLDER PURPOSES
04/08/2022Guillen, Ryan A. (The Honorable)$1,607.18CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR CAMPAIGN/OFFICEHOLDER PURPOSES
03/14/2022Guillen, Ryan A. (The Honorable)$2,246.91CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR CAMPAIGN/OFFICEHOLDER PURPOSES
03/11/2022Guillen, Ryan A. (The Honorable)$60.89CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR CAMPAIGN/OFFICEHOLDER PURPOSES
05/27/2016Gates Jr., Gary W. (Mr.)$209.11Fundraising Consultant
05/04/2016Gates Jr., Gary W. (Mr.)$7,581.24Fundraising
04/15/2016Gates Jr., Gary W. (Mr.)$4,447.11Fundraising
02/11/2016Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$11,398.59Fundraising consulting
01/14/2016Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$25,313.21Fundraising consulting
12/01/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$11,864.64Fundraising consulting
11/24/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$14,125.18Fundraising consulting
10/16/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$9,264.05Fundraising consulting
09/15/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$6,513.03Fundraising consulting
08/13/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$6,179.65Fundraising consulting
07/17/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$15,380.29Fundraising consulting
07/17/2015Justice Eva Guzman for Supreme Court$1,298.18Fundraising consulting
Evidence basis: The canonical vendor was opened by stable vendor ID. 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.