Reported spending opposing Greg Stanton
AZ4 DESERVES MORE reported $2,910.15 in independent expenditures opposing Greg Stanton.
Text messages
One filing row · 2026 cycle
Source snapshot: October 16, 2026. Later filings or amendments may change the record.
Who, what, and why this record exists.
AZ4 DESERVES MORE
Explore the committee’s finances and other reported activity.
Committee record →Named candidate · reported oppositionGreg Stanton
Reported office: U.S. House · Arizona · District 4
Candidate record →- What was reported?
- Text messagesOriginal purpose text supplied by the filer.
- Who was the payee?
- The Resolute GroupThe named payee, not necessarily the publisher or platform.
- Which election?
- General2026 reporting cycle. The filing’s election designation is not proof of ballot qualification.
- Candidate party in this filing
- DEMOCRATIC PARTYFiler-supplied affiliation, not an independent check of current status.
When was it reported?
Reported date the communication was distributed.
Expenditure date supplied by the filer.
Receipt date for the report, not the ad’s publication date.
These fields describe different events and are shown as reported—not combined into a single “ad date.” FEC field definitions ↗
Outside spending, not a donation to the candidate.
The FEC defines an independent expenditure as spending on a communication advocating a candidate’s election or defeat, made independently of the candidate or party. That is the category reported here—not proof that the FEC has verified every claim in this filing.
How the FEC defines independent expenditures ↗A finance row is not the ad itself.
This connected record does not include the ad’s text, video, impressions, audience, or verified platform. Purpose and payee names alone cannot establish those details, effectiveness, coordination, or wrongdoing.
Support or opposition is the filer’s reported designation, not Electionpedia’s position.
More filing rows for this spender and candidate
From the October 16, 2026 snapshot; this is not a complete or live spending total. Dates below use dissemination, then expenditure, then receipt when earlier fields are absent.
Source details & filing identifiers
Identifiers let you match this row to the original source. They are not additional spending amounts.
- Spender FEC ID
- C00917286
- Candidate FEC ID
- H8AZ09040
- FEC file number
- 2021010
- Transaction ID
- SE.4196
- Filing image
- 202610139908708065
- Amendment code
- N
- Election code
- G
- Reported district code
- 04
- Office code
- H
- Electionpedia ID
- eop-ad-1ince3x
Source snapshot checked October 16, 2026. The filing links lead to the FEC; access and availability are controlled by that agency. Original and amended reports can overlap, so these rows should not be summed as a verified total without reconciliation.
How to interpret this record
AZ4 DESERVES MORE: reported spending opposing Greg Stanton
A useful public record has an identity, a scope and a source. Research becomes more reliable when those elements travel with the number or statement being discussed.
Write down the claim first
Identify exactly what you want to know: who holds an office, whether someone appears on a ballot, what a committee reported spending, or how a member voted on a question. Each claim calls for a different source. A biography, a campaign website and a financial report can all be useful without answering the same question.
Keep identity, scope and date together
Record the entity identifier, jurisdiction, election or reporting period and source publication. These details prevent a correct fact from being attached to the wrong person, place or time. A name-only match can be misleading, especially when campaigns or institutions have changed names or when a person has sought several offices.
Read the full researching public records guide →