As voters head to the polls in the NJ-12 Democratic primary, one topic keeps coming up in conversations, Facebook comments, campaign discussions, and community groups:
Where is all this money coming from?
During the past few weeks, many residents have heard claims about PAC money, Super PACs, outside groups, and campaign donations. Some of those claims are accurate. Others are misunderstandings. After reviewing Federal Election Commission filings, one thing became clear: much of the confusion comes from the fact that campaign fundraising and outside spending are two very different things.
This article focuses on Adam Hamawy, Brad Cohen, and Sue Altman, the three candidates who reported the highest fundraising totals in Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Eyes on EB.
For this article, Eyes on EB reviewed campaign fundraising reports, campaign expenditure reports, cash-on-hand reports, and independent expenditure filings available through the Federal Election Commission as of June 2, 2026.
Before diving into the numbers, it is important to understand that money donated directly to a campaign is not the same as money spent by outside organizations.
Campaign contributions go directly to a candidate’s campaign committee.
Independent expenditures are funds spent by outside organizations to support or oppose a candidate. The money never enters the campaign account and is reported separately to the Federal Election Commission. Independent expenditures are legal and a common part of modern federal campaigns.
That distinction is important because some candidates received significantly more support from outside organizations than from direct committee contributions.
The Numbers at a Glance
| Candidate | Total Raised | Outside Spending Activity Identified |
|---|---|---|
| Adam Hamawy | $1,028,937 | Approximately $1.9 million |
| Brad Cohen | $700,545 | Approximately $47,750 |
| Sue Altman | $490,068 | Approximately $535,000 |
The outside spending figures above do not represent money donated directly to candidates. Instead, they represent expenditures made by outside organizations attempting to influence the race through advertising, direct mail, digital outreach, voter contact efforts, and other campaign activities.
The Outside Spending Story
If there is one takeaway from the filings reviewed by Eyes on EB, it is that outside spending played a major role in this race.
While campaign fundraising often receives the most attention, outside organizations spent dramatically different amounts supporting or opposing the three leading fundraising candidates.
Based on the Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Eyes on EB, approximately $1.9 million in outside spending activity was identified in support of Adam Hamawy. Approximately $535,000 in outside spending activity was identified involving Sue Altman, including both support and opposition expenditures. Approximately $47,750 in outside spending activity was identified involving Brad Cohen.
In Hamawy’s case, the outside spending identified in the filings exceeded the amount raised by the campaign itself.
Adam Hamawy and Nearly $2 Million in Outside Support
Of the three candidates reviewed, Hamawy was associated with the largest amount of independent expenditure activity identified in the Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Eyes on EB.
American Priorities spent approximately $1.55 million supporting Hamawy. FEC filings reviewed by Eyes on EB show the organization’s two largest disclosed donors were Mohammad Waqas of New York and Omer Hasan of California, who each contributed $1 million to the Super PAC.
Organizations reporting expenditures supporting Hamawy included:
- American Priorities
- Justice Democrats PAC
- Medicare for All
- Christopher Street Project PAC
The largest spender was American Priorities, which reported approximately $1.55 million in expenditures supporting Hamawy through television advertising, digital advertising, and direct mail.
Additional expenditures supporting Hamawy were reported by Justice Democrats PAC, Medicare for All, and Christopher Street Project PAC.
Eyes on EB identified approximately $1.9 million in independent expenditures supporting Hamawy in the filings reviewed.
Again, these expenditures were reported by outside organizations and were not donations made directly to Hamawy’s campaign.
No independent expenditures opposing Hamawy were identified in the Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Eyes on EB as of June 2, 2026.
Sue Altman and More Than Half a Million Dollars in Outside Spending Activity
Outside spending was also a significant factor in Sue Altman’s campaign.
Organizations reporting expenditures supporting Altman included:
- Project 218
Project 218 reported approximately $393,740 in support expenditures.
At the same time, outside groups also reported expenditures opposing Altman.
Organizations reporting opposition expenditures included:
- Florence Avenue Initiative
- Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption
Combined opposition expenditures identified in the filings reviewed totaled approximately $142,000.
In total, Eyes on EB identified more than $535,000 in independent expenditure activity either supporting or opposing Altman.
Brad Cohen’s Outside Spending Activity Was Much Smaller
Compared to Hamawy and Altman, independent expenditure activity involving Brad Cohen was significantly lower.
Supportive expenditures identified:
- Voice of the Electorate (VOTE): approximately $41,000
Opposition expenditures identified:
- Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption: approximately $6,750
Total independent expenditure activity identified involving Cohen was approximately $47,750.
The Part Many People Are Missing
One of the most common misconceptions in political discussions is the belief that independent expenditures are donations made directly to campaigns.
That is not what these filings show.
For example, when a group spends $500,000 supporting a candidate, that money does not go into the candidate’s campaign account. Instead, the organization spends the money itself on advertising, mailers, digital campaigns, television commercials, and voter outreach efforts.
A candidate can honestly say they did not receive money from a particular organization while that same organization can also legally spend large amounts supporting that candidate.
Both statements can be true at the same time.
This distinction helps explain why there has been so much confusion in discussions surrounding PAC money, Super PACs, and campaign finance throughout the race.
What About Campaign Fundraising?
While outside spending has received much of the attention, campaign fundraising remains an important part of the story.
Looking strictly at campaign fundraising, the race appears much closer than the outside spending numbers.
According to Federal Election Commission filings through May 13, 2026:
| Candidate | Total Raised |
|---|---|
| Adam Hamawy | $1,028,937 |
| Brad Cohen | $700,545 |
| Sue Altman | $490,068 |
Campaign spending reported:
| Candidate | Total Spent |
|---|---|
| Adam Hamawy | $718,239 |
| Brad Cohen | $517,992 |
| Sue Altman | $289,698 |
Cash on hand reported:
| Candidate | Cash on Hand |
|---|---|
| Adam Hamawy | $310,697 |
| Sue Altman | $200,369 |
| Brad Cohen | $182,553 |
Once outside spending is included, however, the financial picture becomes much different, particularly in Hamawy’s case.
Direct Committee Contributions Were Relatively Small
Another finding from the filings is that direct committee contributions represented a relatively small portion of total fundraising for all three candidates.
Committee contributions reported:
| Candidate | Committee Contributions |
|---|---|
| Adam Hamawy | $31,398 |
| Brad Cohen | $14,750 |
| Sue Altman | $3,000 |
This means the biggest financial differences between the campaigns were not found in direct committee contributions.
Instead, the largest differences appeared in the independent expenditure filings, where outside organizations spent substantial amounts supporting or opposing candidates.
Another question raised by several readers is who funds the organizations making independent expenditures in the race. For example, FEC filings reviewed by Eyes on EB show that American Priorities, the Super PAC responsible for approximately $1.55 million in outside spending supporting Adam Hamawy, received contributions from donors across the country. Its two largest disclosed contributors were Mohammad Waqas of New York and Omer Hasan of California, who each contributed $1 million to the organization. Those contributions were made to the Super PAC itself, not directly to the Hamawy campaign.
Outside spending organizations often receive donations from individuals and groups across the country, and those contributions are separate from money raised directly by a candidate’s campaign.
Final Thoughts
The purpose of this article is not to suggest that any candidate did anything improper. Independent expenditures are legal, publicly reported, and common in modern political campaigns.
Instead, the goal is to help voters understand where political spending is coming from and why there is often confusion surrounding campaign finance reports.
Based on the Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by Eyes on EB, Hamawy was associated with the largest amount of outside spending activity identified in the records reviewed, with approximately $1.9 million in support expenditures. Altman was the subject of more than half a million dollars in outside spending activity, both supportive and opposing. Cohen’s filings showed significantly less outside spending activity by comparison.
As voters make their decision, these filings offer a clearer picture of not only what campaigns raised, but also how much money outside organizations spent attempting to influence the outcome of the race.
Note: Independent expenditure filings can be amended or updated after publication. Figures in this article are based on Federal Election Commission records reviewed by Eyes on EB as of June 2, 2026.
Source: Federal Election Commission fundraising reports and independent expenditure filings reviewed by Eyes on EB through June 2, 2026.
