Research guide
OpenSecrets, FEC.gov or GovMoneyGraph? A practical research workflow
The best starting point depends on what you need to establish. Finding a pattern, understanding its context and proving what a committee reported are related tasks—but they are not the same task. A strong investigation can use all three tools.
At a glance
| What you need | Start here | Then check |
|---|---|---|
| Connections among loaded federal records | GovMoneyGraph profiles and directories | Identity evidence, scope and source filings |
| Published money-in-politics context | OpenSecrets research and educational resources | The analysis’s definitions and reporting period |
| An original federal disclosure | FEC.gov filings and reports | The report, schedules and relevant amendments |
Source documentation and methodology links accompany the discussion below.
1. Turn a broad question into a measurable one
“Who funds this candidate?” can mean several things: the candidate committee’s contributors, transfers from other committees, or independent spending supporting the candidate. Pick one before comparing numbers.
A more precise question is: “Which reported employers are associated with itemized individual contributions to this committee during this cycle?” That tells you the recipient, the measure, the population and the period. It also avoids describing employee contributions as corporate spending.
2. Explore the connections in GovMoneyGraph
Search for the candidate or committee, choose an available cycle, and open a profile. Move from a receipt to the contributor, from the contributor to the reported employer, or from a disbursement to the payee. The employer, industry, occupation and geography directories provide other entry points.
Keep a short evidence trail as you navigate. Record the original name and the grouped display name separately when they differ. Note whether a party label is reported, linked, curated or derived from activity. Do not turn a recipient-party percentage into a claim about someone’s personal political identity.
If a profile is incomplete or a connection is unclassified, that is a limit of the available view—not proof that no relationship or activity exists. Use the source links and avoid filling the gap with an assumption.
3. Add context without changing the question
OpenSecrets’ money-in-politics research and educational resources offer context beyond a single transaction. Use relevant analysis to develop follow-up questions, while preserving the definitions and period of your own investigation.
Before comparing a published total with a GovMoneyGraph page, ask what each includes. Are the entities grouped in the same way? Are refunds treated the same way? Is an employer aggregate being compared with a company-and-PAC grouping? Are both figures from the same period?
An unexplained difference is a reason to inspect methodology. It is not, by itself, evidence that one provider is wrong or that someone has hidden money.
4. Verify the filing and make the finding reproducible
Use FEC.gov to inspect the original federal report. Its public-records guide explains access to reports and research resources. Check the filing and any relevant amendment rather than relying only on a search result.
Before sharing a conclusion, keep these details together:
- The candidate or committee identifier and the election cycle.
- The date window, transaction type, filters and meaning of the amount.
- The reported name and any uncertainty in an identity grouping.
- The source filing, relevant memo context and date accessed.
- The GovMoneyGraph page or other analysis that helped you find it.
Put it into practice
Start with a record. Follow a connection.
Published by GovMoneyGraph; not affiliated with OpenSecrets or the Federal Election Commission. Last editorial review: . Tool capabilities and coverage can change. This is a research guide, not legal advice.