Funding profile
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
Democrat · Senator from New York
Career totals · 5 elections · 2010–2030
$68.6 million
raised by Gillibrand’s campaigns, everything from 2010 to 2030 added together.
11%
of it came from organized groups rather than from people giving on their own: at least $7.8 million from PACs, plus donations that organizations collected and directed.
$390,000
was spent about Gillibrand 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 Gillibrand on FEC.gov
Where the money came from
Everything Gillibrand’s campaigns have reported raising, split by who gave it.
- Individual donorsMoney given by people, in their own name.74%$50.9 million
- Political action committeesOrganized groups: company-run committees, unions, trade associations.10%$7.2 million
- Other sourcesParty transfers, the candidate's own money, loans and smaller categories.15%$10.5 million
Money bundled through organizations
Not every “individual” donation arrives on its own. An organization can collect checks from its members, already earmarked for Gillibrand, and deliver them in a bundle. The law counts that as individual money, but the organization still chose where it went.
$592,000
reached Gillibrand 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.$469,000
- EMILY's ListA group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, and one of the oldest donation bundlers in politics.$71,000
- NORPACA New Jersey-based pro-Israel PAC that bundles member donations for candidates of both parties.$52,000
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.
- Corporation12%$117,000
- Trade association10%$99,000
- Labor union16%$158,000
- Membership organization14%$136,000
- Unclassified49%$481,000
Which industries
- Retail & consumer100% · $13,000
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
- 1American Israel Public Affairs Committee Political Action CommitteeThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee's political arm. It backs candidates of both parties it considers strong supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship.$74,000
- 2NorpacA New Jersey-based pro-Israel PAC that bundles member donations for candidates of both parties.$29,000
- 3Fab Four for Senate$22,000
- 4Moms Fed Up$15,000
- 5National Association of Convenience Stores$13,000
Show all 10 giversShow fewer
- 6International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$12,000
- 7International Association of Fire Fighters$10,000
- 8Treasure State PAC$10,000
- 9American Association for Justice (Aaj)$10,000
- 10International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers$10,000
“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.
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. Gillibrand has no legal control over any of it.
This is not a donation. Nobody gave this money to Gillibrand. It was spent on advertising about Gillibrand, and money spent against a candidate is plainly not funding them. So it never gets added to the figures above.
$390,000
has been spent for or against Gillibrand by outside groups. $86,000 supported Gillibrand; $305,000 opposed Gillibrand.
Largest outside spenders
Summed across 4 elections, using the Commission's aggregated totals so amended filings and 24-hour notices are not double-counted.
Spent supporting
$83,000Ads urging people to vote for this member. Still not their money, and they cannot direct how it is spent.
- PROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECT$46,000
- WE ACT 4 CHANGE$29,000
- BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE - VOTER EDUCATION FUND$4,100
- NARAL Pro-Choice America$2,952
Show all 5 groupsShow fewer
- JEWISH DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL OF AMERICA$1,097
Spent opposing
$305,000Ads urging people to vote against this member. This money was spent to defeat them.
- NATIONAL HORIZON$182,000
- REBUILDING NEW YORK PAC, INC.$78,000
- AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE HEALTH CARE$44,000
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.
| Election | Raised | From PACs | Outside spending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2030in progress | $2.8 million | $153,000 5% | none | FEC |
| 2024 | $15.7 million | $884,000 6% | $30,000 | FEC |
| 2018 | $20.9 million | $1.3 million 6% | $307,000 | FEC |
| 2012 | $15.7 million | $2.5 million 16% | $27,000 | FEC |
| 2010 | $13.4 million | $2.4 million 18% | $26,000 | FEC |
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.