Back to the library

Funding profile

Doris O. Matsui

Democrat · Representative for California’s 7th district

Career totals · 11 elections · 20062026

$15.1 million

raised by Matsui’s campaigns, everything from 2006 to 2026 added together.

57%

of it came from organized groups rather than from people giving on their own: at least $8.6 million from PACs, plus donations that organizations collected and directed.

$144,000

was spent about Matsui by outside groups. These are ads for or against them that their campaign cannot control, and none of it is part of the money above.

Every number on this page comes from Federal Election Commission filings, read on August 24, 2026. An election still under way keeps raising money, so its figure will have grown since. Check Matsui on FEC.gov

Where the money came from

Everything Matsui’s campaigns have reported raising, split by who gave it.

$15.1 millionraised
  • Individual donorsMoney given by people, in their own name.34%$5.1 million
  • Political action committeesOrganized groups: company-run committees, unions, trade associations.57%$8.6 million
  • Other sourcesParty transfers, the candidate's own money, loans and smaller categories.10%$1.5 million
Federal Election Commission filings across 11 elections. Percentages may not total 100 because each is rounded.

Money bundled through organizations

Not every “individual” donation arrives on its own. An organization can collect checks from its members, already earmarked for Matsui, and deliver them in a bundle. The law counts that as individual money, but the organization still chose where it went.

$1,323

reached Matsui this way, <1% of everything they raised from individuals. Each donation came from a real person. The organization picked who got it.

  • AIPACThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee's political arm. It backs candidates of both parties it considers strong supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship.$1,323

We can only count the organizations we have measured, so the real figure could be higher than this, never lower. Bundling is legal and widely used, and appearing here is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Who gave the most

Committee contributions from the 2024 and 2026 election periods, grouped by how the FEC classifies each giver. This covers a slice of the career total, and giving to a campaign is legal and ordinary.

  • Corporation40%$743,000
  • Trade association21%$393,000
  • Labor union8%$150,000
  • Membership organization10%$193,000
  • Co-operative3%$48,000
  • Corporation without capital stock1%$18,000
  • Unclassified17%$319,000

Which industries

  • Technology & telecoms43% · $99,000
  • Energy & utilities25% · $57,000
  • Retail & consumer9% · $20,000
  • Health & pharmaceuticals8% · $18,000
  • Other17% · $39,000

The FEC records that a committee is a corporation; it does not record its industry. Those labels are ours, kept in a published list anyone can check. Where we have not labeled a giver we say “Other” rather than guessing.

Largest committee givers

  1. 1American Crystal Sugar CompayAgriculture & food · Co-operative$30,000
  2. 2CTIA - the Wireless AssociationTechnology & telecoms · Trade association$20,000
  3. 3Charter Communications Inc.Technology & telecoms · CorporationThe cable and internet company's PAC, funded by employee contributions.$20,000
  4. 4Cox Enterprises PAC (Coxpac) Inc.Technology & telecoms · Corporation$20,000
  5. 5American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-CioLabor · Labor union$20,000
Show all 10 giversShow fewer
  1. 6T-Mobile US, Inc. Political Action Committee (T-PAC)Technology & telecoms · Corporation$20,000
  2. 7Dish Network CorporationOther · Corporation$20,000
  3. 8National Association of Convenience StoresRetail & consumer · Trade association$20,000
  4. 9International Association of Machinists and Aerospace WorkersOther · Labor union$20,000
  5. 10PG&E CorporationEnergy & utilities · Corporation$19,000

“Unclassified” means the FEC records no organization type for that committee, which usually means a leadership PAC. We show it as unclassified rather than guessing which industry it belongs to.

Their money and their votes, side by side

For each industry that gave to Matsui: the money, then the bills they voted on in that industry’s area of law. The Library of Congress assigns each bill’s subject, not us, so nothing here is picked to make a point.

This is not evidence that money bought a vote. People often donate to politicians who already agree with them. We show what was given and how Matsui voted; the judgment is yours.

Technology & telecoms$99,000 given

Matsui voted on 12 bills in this area. The 3 most substantive are listed first.

  • H R 901On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassResearch Security and Accountability in DHS Act This bill requires the Science and Technology Directorate in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a department-wide policy for safeguarding research and development from unauthorized access or disclosures of sensitive information in related acquisitions.Yes
  • H R 1534On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassInnovative Mitigation Partnerships for Asphalt and Concrete Technologies Act or the IMPACT Act This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a temporary program that supports advanced production of low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt.Yes
  • S 146On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Passor the TAKE IT DOWN Act This act generally prohibits the nonconsensual online publication of intimate visual depictions of individuals, both authentic and computer-generated, and requires certain online platforms (e.g., social media platforms) to promptly remove such depictions upon receiving notice of their existence.Yes
Show 5 more bills with full summariesShow fewer
  • H R 1681On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassThis bill establishes an interagency strike force to support federal land management agencies' review of requests for communications use authorizations. (A communications use authorization is required to modify or locate communications facilities on public lands.) The strike force must (1) conduct periodic calls with strike force members to ensure that each agency prioritizes the review of requests for communications use authorizations, (2) establish goals for the review of the requests, and (3) monitor and facilitate agency accountability for meeting the established goals.Yes
  • H R 5200On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassThis bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate and report on emergency communications outages (e.g., 9-1-1 outages).Yes
  • H R 5201On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassThis bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to publish a report on the enforcement of Kari’s Law, which requires multiline telephone systems to be preconfigured to allow users to dial 9-1-1 directly from any phone without dialing any additional code or prefix.Yes
  • H R 1223On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassAccelerating Networking, Cyberinfrastructure, and Hardware for Oceanic Research Act or the ANCHOR Act This bill requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a plan to improve the cybersecurity and telecommunications capabilities of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet (ARF). ARF is comprised of U.S.-flagged vessels that provide at-sea laboratories where oceanographic scientists, educators, and students research and learn about marine science.Yes
  • S 1003On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassThis act requires the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order explicitly permitting the transmission of wireless emergency alerts to mobile phones in the event of a shark attack. (Under current regulations, authorized government authorities are permitted to send wireless emergency…Yes

Energy & utilities$56,000 given

Matsui voted on 45 bills in this area. The 3 most substantive are listed first.

  • H R 5184On Passageor the Affordable HOMES Act This bill rescinds Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency regulations applicable to manufactured housing and eliminates DOE’s authority to issue similar regulations.No
  • H R 4593On PassageSaving Homeowners from Overregulation With Exceptional Rinsing Act or the SHOWER Act This bill provides statutory authority for a revised definition of showerhead for the purpose of federal water efficiency regulations.No
  • H R 375On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassContinued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2025 This bill establishes requirements to research and control Rapid Ohia Death, which is the disease caused by the fungal pathogen known as Ceratocystis fimbriata that affects the tree of the species Metrosideros polymorpha .Yes
Show 5 more bills with full summariesShow fewer
  • H R 26On PassageProtecting American Energy Production Act This bill prohibits the President from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless Congress authorizes the moratorium.No
  • H J RES 35On PassageThis joint resolution eliminates an annual waste emissions charge on oil or gas facilities under the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.No
  • H J RES 20On PassageThis joint resolution nullifies the rule titled Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters and submitted by the Department of Energy (DOE) on December 26, 2024.No
  • H R 4090On PassageThis bill directs the Department of the Interior to address mineral supply chain vulnerabilities, including by accelerating and expanding mineral production on federal land (i.e., National Forest System land, public lands, and any land that may be leased for the exploration, development, or production of hardrock minerals).No
  • H J RES 61On PassageThis joint resolution removes emission regulations on hazardous air pollutants under the rubber tire manufacturing source category, specifically from the rubber processing subcategory.No

Health & pharmaceuticals$18,000 given

Matsui voted on 5 bills in this area. The 3 most substantive are listed first.

  • H R 2493On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassThis bill reauthorizes through FY2030 grant programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that provide funding to health care service providers and related entities in rural areas.Yes
  • H R 2483On PassageSUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 This act reauthorizes and revises programs and activities relating to addressing substance use disorders, overdoses, and mental health.No
  • H R 4541On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as AmendedThis bill reauthorizes and revises programs of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that support services and education addressing breast and cervical cancer.Yes
Show 2 more bills with full summariesShow fewer
  • H R 6703On PassageLower Health Care Premiums for All Americans ActNo
  • H R 498On PassageThis bill prohibits federal Medicaid payment for specified gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18. The bill defines these procedures to mean those that are intended to change the body of an individual to no longer correspond to the individual's biological sex (male or female), including specified surgeries, implants, and medications (e.g., hormones).No

We do not score these or say which way a vote favored an industry, because that would be our opinion dressed up as a finding. Each bill links to the chamber’s own roll-call record. Industries where fewer than three bills came to a vote are left out, because a handful of votes cannot show a pattern.

Money spent about this member

Outside groups, usually super PACs, may spend without limit on ads for or against a candidate, as long as they do not coordinate with the campaign. Matsui has no legal control over any of it.

This is not a donation. Nobody gave this money to Matsui. It was spent on advertising about Matsui, and money spent against a candidate is plainly not funding them. So it never gets added to the figures above.

$144,000

has been spent for or against Matsui by outside groups. $3,765 supported Matsui; $140,000 opposed Matsui.

Largest outside spenders

Summed across 9 elections, using the Commission's aggregated totals so amended filings and 24-hour notices are not double-counted.

Spent supporting

$3,674

Ads urging people to vote for this member. Still not their money, and they cannot direct how it is spent.

  • COURAGE CALIFORNIA SUPER PAC$2,330
  • TOGETHER WE THRIVE$750
  • SIERRA CLUB POLITICAL COMMITTEE$360
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES$105
Show all 6 groupsShow fewer
  • NEA ADVOCACY FUND$67
  • WE VOTE - NOSOTROS VOTAMOS - PPAMM COMMITTEE$62

Spent opposing

$140,000

Ads urging people to vote against this member. This money was spent to defeat them.

  • JUSTICE DEMOCRATS PAC$120,000
  • WORKING FAMILIES PARTY PAC$20,000

Election by election

The career figures above are the sum of these elections. Each row links to the Commission’s page for that election, where the numbers match line for line.

ElectionRaisedFrom PACsOutside spending
2026in progress$3.2 million$937,000 29%$140,000
2024$1.2 million$872,000 70%$197
2022$1.4 million$777,000 55%$913
2020$1 million$749,000 73%$2,121
2018$1.1 million$819,000 77%$149
2016$1.1 million$820,000 74%$20
2014$1.1 million$793,000 75%$10
2012$908,000$623,000 69%$329
2010$835,000$567,000 68%$16
2008$965,000$552,000 57%none
2006$2.3 million$1.1 million 46%none

Raised is everything the campaign took in for that election. From PACs is the slice of it given by political action committees. Outside spending is what other groups spent on ads about the race, for and against—it is not part of “Raised”. An election marked in progress is still raising money, so its figures are not final.

We never publish the names of individual donors, and anything we cannot source stays off the page. The methodology explains every such choice.