Who got paid to build the data centers, and what they delivered

A QPQ study of data center political money, the politicians who took it, and the policy results. Started 2026-10-14. Status: published 2026-10-22. The guided walk through the data is at /data-centers, the findings at /data-centers/findings, this document at /data-centers/report and the case study at /newsroom/who-paid-for-the-data-centers. Every figure here was re-derived from the database on 2026-10-22 (section 12.3); the figures on the site are recomputed from the loaded rows nightly.

Headline findings (each sourced in section 6).

1. In the states, the payer of record is the utility, not the data center company. Dominion gave about $33.8M net to Virginia candidates and committees from 2023 to October 2026, including $2.89M to the Speaker's campaign and leadership PAC ($3.11M all-time); Georgia Power's ecosystem supplied 61% and 87% of two PSC incumbents' money before they certified ~10 GW for data centers; an Entergy executive wrote the motion a Louisiana commissioner adopted to approve 2,200 MW of gas plants for Meta.
2. The data center companies' own money is small and indirect: trade group PACs, inaugural committees, caucus committees, charitable "community" funds, landowners. Federally it is super PAC money: Leading the Future took in $75.8M (a16z and the Brockmans) and spent through affiliates, including $8.16M to defeat the author of New York's AI safety law; Anthropic put $40M into the opposing network.
3. The policy results are consistent. State sales-tax exemptions survived everywhere they were challenged (Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, Texas); gas plants were certified on data-center demand (Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia); cost allocation was pushed into PSC dockets rather than statute. Federally, the industry's top ask (state-law preemption) failed twice in Congress and was pursued instead by executive order and DOJ litigation; the one bill that passed a chamber (Ratepayer Protection Act, 417-3) is voluntary and died in the Senate 57-43.
4. The reversals have come from voters and courts, not legislatures: Georgia's PSC incumbents, Prince William's chair and the Digital Gateway, Port Washington's referendum, North Carolina's three override Democrats, Tucson's council. The 2026 ballot carries the Ohio Senate race, four governorships and PSC seats in three states.

---

1. The question

Between January 2023 and October 2026 the United States committed more capital to data center construction than to any other category of private building, and the companies behind it became, for the first time, a political bloc with its own PACs, super PACs, trade association and state-by-state lobbying operation. This study asks three linked questions, in the order the money flows:

1. Who paid. Which companies, utilities, trade groups and super PACs spent money to shape data center policy, through which vehicles, and how much, by money type.
2. Who took it. Which officeholders and candidates received that money, and which of them then held a vote, a signature, a permit, a rate order or a rulemaking that the payer wanted.
3. What happened. Which laws, orders, tariffs, tax exemptions, zoning decisions and permits followed, and which attempts to constrain the build-out were killed, vetoed or watered down.

The unit of analysis is a chain: payer → vehicle → recipient → action → policy result, with a source URL on every link. A chain with a missing or inferred link is reported as such and never promoted to a finding.

2. Why this study, and why here

Data center politics is unusual in three ways that make it tractable.

• The money is new and concentrated. The AI super PAC network (Leading the Future and its affiliates, launched August 2025) and the counter-network backed by Anthropic appeared inside one cycle, with named funders and announced targets. That is the same structure the crypto industry used in 2024 (see study 6 in QPQ-Research-Case-Studies.md), and it allows a before/after design rather than a correlation.
• The policy results are discrete and dated. A sales-tax exemption, a large-load tariff, a rezoning vote, an executive order and a veto each have a date and a text. The 2025 Senate vote stripping the 10-year state-AI-law preemption from H.R. 1 (99-1) is already in the database with every senator's position.
• Most of it happens in state capitals and county boardrooms, where corporate contributions are often legal and disclosure is thinner. That is where the public has the least visibility and where QPQ's entity-resolution work adds the most.

3. Universe definitions

3.1 Payers (five classes, kept separate in every total)

Utilities are in the universe because in most of the fights below the utility, not the hyperscaler, is the party in the room: it files the rate case, seeks the gas-plant approval, and funds the PSC campaigns.

3.2 Money types (never summed across rows)

1. Corporate PAC contributions to candidates and party committees (FEC).
2. Executive and employee individual contributions (FEC, state).
3. Super PAC independent expenditures for or against named candidates (FEC Schedule E; state equivalents).
4. 501(c)(4) and other undisclosed-donor spending, where traceable.
5. Corporate direct contributions where legal (Virginia and ~20 other states allow them).
6. Lobbying client spend (Senate LDA; state lobbying registries).

3.3 Politicians

Federal: members of Congress, the President, and the heads of FERC, Commerce/BIS, DOE and EPA. State: governors, legislators, attorneys general, and elected or appointed public service commissioners. Local: county boards and city councils that hold rezoning and permitting votes.

3.4 Policy results (what counts as an outcome)

Enacted or vetoed legislation; executive orders; agency rules and orders (FERC large-load and co-location; BIS export controls; EPA permitting); PSC/PUC rate and tariff orders and generation approvals; tax exemptions and incentive packages; local rezonings and permits; court rulings on any of the above. Each is a policy_outcomes row with an official_url.

4. What the QPQ database already holds (inventory, 2026-10-14)

All dollar figures in this section are as ingested, carry the label of what they measure, and have not yet been reconciled to FEC/OpenSecrets cycle totals. Do not quote them on the site until section 7 clears them.

4.1 Federal lobbying (Senate LDA, 2023 – 2026 Q2)

• 458 filings whose specific-issues text mentions "data center", totalling $336.5M of lobbying client spend on filings that mention data centers (LDA). This is an upper bound on data-center lobbying: an LDA amount covers every issue on the filing, and the U.S. Chamber alone accounts for $87.7M of it across 2025–2026. Where a registrant amended a quarterly report, only the amendment is counted.
• Largest clients on those filings, 2025: Google Client Services $13.1M, Amazon.com Services $13.2M, Duke Energy $10.75M, Edison Electric Institute $9.8M, Oracle $9.2M, Dow $5.5M, Entergy $2.7M, Equinix $2.2M (10 filings, 2 registrants).
• The Data Center Coalition appears as a client on 19 filings, 2025–2026, $2.75M.
• Utilities with data-center-mentioning filings include Dominion ($1.9M, 2026), AEP ($6.45M, 2024), Entergy, Xcel, PSEG, Exelon, FirstEnergy, Ameren, Vistra. The utilities' cumulative LDA client spend (all issues, 2023–2026) is much larger: AEP $19.0M, Entergy $13.0M, Dominion $10.4M, Southern Company $9.8M (its services affiliate another $3.6M).
• OpenAI OpCo $8.8M and Anthropic $7.6M of LDA client spend (all issues, 2023–2026) are in the table. OpenAI has no PAC row; Anthropic PBC's PAC (C00946111) is loaded (section 6.1).

4.2 Federal contributions (FEC)

Corporate PAC giving by the payer set is loaded for the 2024 and 2026 cycles from the PACs' own Schedule B reports (67,692 rows table-wide carry cycle = 2026). 2024-cycle direct giving, excluding transfers between a committee's own accounts and conduit memo lines:

Top recipients of the five hyperscaler PACs combined are the party committees (DSCC $150K, NRSC $150K, NRCC $120K) and leadership PACs; the largest candidate committees are Scalise ($37.5K), Pete Aguilar ($30.5K), Tim Kaine ($30K), Jacky Rosen ($29.5K), Angus King ($26K), Suzan DelBene ($25.5K) and Brett Guthrie ($22.5K, chair of House Energy & Commerce).

Committee→candidate map. Campaign committees are stored as pac entities (e.g. "KAINE FOR VIRGINIA"). 1,378 principal campaign committees carry their FEC candidate id, which ties PAC money to the member's votes; section 6.1 uses that join.

4.3 Federal policy outcomes and votes already in the graph

• One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1, 119th), enacted 2025-07-04: 3,296 votes, 532 relationships.
• Blackburn Amdt. 2814 striking the AI/state-law preemption, Senate roll 363, 2025-07-01, 99-1: 100 votes (Tillis the lone nay).
• Executive Order "Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure", 90 FR 35385, 2025-07-28 (one issued_rule edge).
• BIS "Data Center Validated End User Authorization" final rule, 2024-10-02, and "Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion", 2025-01-15.
• ADVANCE Act (S. 870, enacted July 2024) and Atomic Energy Advancement Act (H.R. 6544) — nuclear licensing reform the industry lobbied for.

Missing: the December 2025 executive order on a national AI policy framework; FERC's large-load and co-location orders; EPA's 2025–2026 permitting changes for on-site generation; any 2026 federal data center or ratepayer legislation; the Stargate announcement.

4.4 Virginia (the one state with votes ingested)

scripts/ingest/va-ga-votes.js loaded floor roll calls for the 2024 (regular and special), 2025 and 2026 sessions: 163 General Assembly members, 3,015 bills, 6,696 roll-call summaries (2025–2026 alone: 1,713 bills, 3,715 roll calls). House roll calls for the 2026 session run only to Feb 5, 2026. The data center bills and their floor history:

The April 2, 2025 rolls are the reconvened session acting on Gov. Youngkin's recommended amendments, not veto overrides. From the LIS history file (lis.blob.core.windows.net/lisfiles/20251/HISTORY.CSV):

• HB 1601: "Governor's recommendation received by House" (Mar 24); "House rejected Governor's recommendation (11-Y 85-N)" and "Motion to pass in enrolled form rejected (51-Y 44-N)" (Apr 2); "Vetoed by Governor" (May 2, 2025).
• SB 1449: "Senate rejected Governor's recommendation (16-Y 24-N)" (Apr 2); "Vetoed by Governor" (May 2, 2025).
• SB 960: "Failed to Pass from conference" (Feb 22, 2025). Conferees were Sens. Perry, Deeds, Obenshain and Dels. Shin, Ward, Kilgore.

The 2026 bills, from the 20261 history file: HB 153 and SB 94 "Approved by Governor" Apr 13, 2026 (Chapters 567 and 568); HB 507 Apr 8 (Chapter 397); HB 496 and SB 553 Apr 13 (Chapters 623 and 896). SB 253 and HB 1393 went to Gov. Spanberger Mar 31; her recommendations came back Apr 13; the General Assembly adopted amendments 7, 9 and 10 and passed by the rest on Apr 22; she signed both May 14, 2026 (Chapters 1124 and 1123).

So the 2025 policy result is: both siting-assessment bills passed both chambers, the legislature refused the governor's rewrite, and the governor vetoed them; the cost-allocation bill never reached him. The only real floor "flip" is three House Republicans (Higgins, Webert, Ennis) who voted for the HB 1601 conference report on Feb 22 and against passing it in enrolled form on Apr 2. The 24 Senate Democrats who voted "nay" on Apr 2 were rejecting the governor's amendments, not the bill.

Structural gap (closed 2026-10-14). When this inventory was taken, one of the 163 Virginia legislators had any contribution in the database, because VPAP was not ingested, and the 2025 bills still read introduced. Both are fixed: VPAP is ingested (DC-4; 154 of 163 legislators carry rows after the identity repair, section 6.2), and every enacted or vetoed bill above carries its final status and governor action from the LIS history files (DC-5; migrations 206 and 166); HB 338 (2024) and SB 336 (2026), which died, still read introduced.

4.5 Other states

No state-level contributions, votes or PSC orders outside Virginia are in the database. The payer entities exist for the federal side only.

4.6 Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s

No entity rows exist for Leading the Future, Think Big, Build American AI, Public First / Public First Action, Meta's American Technology Excellence Project or its California PAC. No Schedule E rows exist for the 2026 cycle.

5. First federal cut

The Blackburn vote is the cleanest federal event: a 99-1 vote against the industry's top federal ask of 2025. Joined to the payer PACs' rows through the committee→candidate map, 62 of the 100 senators show hyperscaler or utility PAC money, $908,850 in all ($446,850 from the hyperscaler PACs, $462,000 from the utility PACs); section 6.1 reads the vote against that money.

6. Findings

Every chain below is a dated sequence of money, action and result with a URL per link in the evidence files. A sequence is not causation. The only records in this study that establish intent are Entergy's ghost-written commission motions (WWNO, Aug 11, 2026) and Oncor's $31M in payments to a company co-founded by the Texas senator who wrote its bills (Texas Monthly, Oct 31, 2024). Everything else is reported as "took money, then acted," and should be written that way on the site.

6.1 Federal

Evidence file: evidence-federal.md (FEC API pulls dated 2026-10-14 with committee ids; lda.gov API tabulation; congress.gov, senate.gov, clerk.house.gov, Federal Register). Items re-checked against the primary record on 2026-10-14 are marked ✓.

Who paid. The federal money is of a different kind from the states': almost none of it is corporate PAC giving to members. It is super PAC money, routed through affiliates.

Two trackers put total AI-focused super PAC independent expenditure in the 2026 cycle at about $62M, roughly $27M on the "pro-innovation" side and $35M on the "pro-safety" side, with more than $30M of the underlying funds from undisclosed donors.

Who took it and what they did. Corporate PAC receipts below are FEC Schedule A rows on the member's principal committee, 2025–2026 cycle, updated on 2026-10-22 from the payer PACs' own reports in the database (fec_pac_outflows, through Aug 2026), which carry later cheques.

What happened (federal policy results, dated).

• Jan 21, 2025: Stargate announced at the White House.
• May 13, 2025: Commerce rescinded the Biden AI Diffusion rule.
• Jul 1, 2025: Senate struck the 10-year state-AI-law moratorium from H.R. 1, 99-1 ✓.
• Jul 4, 2025: One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted (100% first-year expensing and Opportunity Zone provisions used by data centers).
• Jul 23, 2025: EO 14318, Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure (NEPA categorical exclusions, federal land, Commerce financing for >100 MW projects), with the AI Action Plan; DOE opened Idaho, Oak Ridge, Paducah and Savannah River to private AI campuses the next day.
• Oct 23, 2025: DOE Section 403 directive to FERC on large-load interconnection; Dec 18, 2025: FERC found PJM's co-location tariff unjust (EL25-49); Jun 18, 2026: six show-cause orders to the RTOs; no final rule.
• Dec 2025: second moratorium attempt omitted from the FY2026 NDAA; Dec 11, 2025: EO 14365, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (90 FR 58499 ✓) created the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force and BEAD funding conditions; Apr 24, 2026: DOJ intervened against Colorado's AI law alongside xAI; Jun 15, 2026: DOJ moved to dismiss the NAACP Clean Air Act suit over xAI's turbines on national-security grounds.
• Jan 15, 2026: EPA turbine rule with a conditional "nonroad engine" path for data center turbines; May 2026: EPA proposed letting construction begin before an air permit.
• Mar 4, 2026: the voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge signed by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI; Sep 16, 2026: House codified it as a "consider" standard 417-3 ✓; Sep 30, 2026: Senate cloture failed 57-43 ✓.
• FERC, outside the Federal Register: Feb 20, 2025 show-cause order on co-location in PJM; Oct 23, 2025 DOE section 403 directive opening the large-load ANOPR (RM26-4-000); Dec 18, 2025 order finding PJM's tariff unjust and unreasonable for co-located load and directing new transmission services (193 FERC ¶ 61,217) ✓; Apr 16, 2026 order on compliance; Jun 18, 2026 six section 206 show-cause orders to every RTO/ISO (EL26-67 to EL26-72), with cost-recovery agreements and credit support meant to keep stranded-upgrade costs off other customers and explicit protection of existing negotiated deals ✓. The only LDA clients whose filings name the ANOPR docket are the American Public Power Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems; no hyperscaler filing names either docket (migration 165).
• No federal statute specific to data centers, AI preemption or ratepayer protection has been enacted as of Oct 14, 2026. Of 49 "data center"-titled bills in the 119th Congress, one passed one chamber.

Readiness. DC-1 to DC-3 landed on 2026-10-14 (migrations 208, 209 and 161, federal session; the first two ran live as 159 and 160 and were renumbered the same day). 1,325 principal campaign committees now carry FEC candidate ids, 406 person twins were merged, and the Blackburn Amdt. 2814 join returns hyperscaler-PAC money for 62 of 100 senators (it was 8 of 100): $908,850 from the five hyperscaler PACs' own filed Schedule B lines (2024 $446,850; 2026 $462,000), corporate PAC contributions (FEC Schedule B), run 2026-10-16 after migrations 203, 251 and 252. Earlier runs gave $1,007,200, $939,200, $836,350 and $880,350. The first two counted recipient-side copies of the same cheques. The later ones were taken before 203 let the PACs' own lines replace those copies, and before migrations 215, 216, 248, 251 and 252 linked more committees to their candidates. Every AI super PAC in the table above exists as an entity with its FEC id, and its 2026-cycle receipts and Schedule E reconcile to the FEC committee totals within 10% (Leading the Future $75,788,077 against $75,788,224; American Mission and Think Big exact; Jobs and Democracy PAC independent expenditures 2.0% under; Anthropic PBC PAC receipts 4.8% under because small-dollar gifts are unitemized; docs/reports/DC3-AI-SuperPAC-Reconciliation.md). Build American AI and Public First Action are 501(c)(4)s with no public donor filings, and Meta's 527s file IRS Form 8872 and Cal-Access, so none of them has FEC rows here. Meta's 527s and its California committee were loaded from those two sources on 2026-10-15, labelled as 527 nonfederal money (section 10, DC-3). The LDA figures carry the whole-filing label (DC-9).

Follow-up on 2026-10-15. Payer PACs' 2026-cycle giving reconciles to the FEC for all 14 PACs that have filed. The largest gap is Meta's at 4.0%, and NVIDIA's PAC has not filed yet (DC2-Payer-PAC-2026-Reconciliation.md). The 2024 Schedule B rows were rebuilt for 257 PACs that filed voided or uncashed checks. Each void now cancels its original instead of being stored as a second gift (FEC-ScheduleB-Void-Reingest-2024.md, with the Google and sweep repairs beside it). Migration 202 merged 156 PAC rows that duplicated a committee under a second key into 148 rows, among them Google, Microsoft, ENPAC, Constellation and Vistra. Incoming money for the merged families is unchanged and outgoing money fell by exactly the 13 duplicate rows removed ($29,750).

The 2024 cycle was then re-loaded in full for the 13 payer PACs that filed that year (DC2-Payer-PAC-2024-Reingest.md). Before, seven of them (Amazon, Dominion, Duke, Entergy, Southern, Constellation, NextEra) had no rows from their own filings, and their stored 2024 giving ran 37–75% under the FEC. Their own filed lines now reconcile for all 13, within 0.0–3.9%. The older rows built from recipients' reports had sat beside the new ones, so stored 2024 totals double-counted (Meta 130% over, NextEra 31.6%, Amazon 34.7%). Migration 203, applied on 2026-10-15, moved those 1,240 rows ($4,412,300) into a reversible archive table. Among them were gifts the legacy loader had attached to the wrong recipients by name, including embassies and foreign ministries registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). A re-run then stored the lines the duplicate rule had refused. Every stored 2024 giving row for the 13 PACs now comes from their own filings, and all 13 are within 4.0% of the FEC (DC2-Payer-PAC-2024-After-203.md).

6.2 Virginia

Evidence file: evidence-virginia.md (VPAP, LIS, SCC, county records; every row carries a URL). Virginia allows unlimited corporate contributions directly to candidates, so the money below is corporate direct giving as reported by the recipient committee unless marked otherwise.

Who paid. Dominion Energy, not a data center company, is the dominant payer. VPAP's gross figure for 2023 through mid-October 2026 is $72.1M, but $38.4M of that is Dominion's transfer into its own committee; net giving to candidates and committees is about $33.8M (2023 $10.7M, 2024 $5.2M, 2025 $13.6M, 2026 to date $4.3M, by VPAP's year filter; the ingested rows, dated by cheque, give 2025 $13.74M and 2026 $4.15M, one $100,000 landing in a different year, with the same four-year total). The data center industry's own Virginia money is an order of magnitude smaller: the Data Center Coalition PAC raised $640K since 2024 (STACK $250K, CloudHQ $175K, Vantage $100K, Amazon $75K) and gave $405K; Amazon gave $1.31M corporate-direct 2023–2026, $500,000 of it to the four caucus committees ($100,000 each, in $25,000 cheques) and one $100,000 cheque to the governor's inaugural; Google $610,000 2023–2026 (VPAP donor page re-read 2026-10-14, replacing the $150K 2026-only view in the evidence file); CloudHQ $435,500; Vantage $192,250. Meta gives in Virginia as "Facebook/Meta" (VPAP donor 168908): $33,640 corporate direct in 2023–2026, twelve cheques, eleven of them $1,000 to $7,500 to legislators in 2025 (Scott $7,500, Kilgore $5,000; Lucas, Surovell, Torian, McDougle, Peake, Bloxom, McNamara and Morefield $2,500 each; Seibold $1,000). Microsoft gave nothing in the period under either its corporate record or its Stakeholders Voluntary PAC (both re-read on VPAP 2026-10-15). QTS, Compass, Equinix and Digital Realty show no corporate giving under their own names; the developers' money surfaces instead through landowners and executives in the Prince William County races. The counterweight is Clean Virginia (Michael Bills), which funds only candidates who refuse Dominion money and gave $1.2M to Spanberger.

Verified directly against VPAP on 2026-10-14: Dominion to Speaker Don Scott's campaign and leadership PAC, $3,110,308 itemized all-time, of which $2,885,409 falls in 2023–2026 (three $200K checks on 10/10, 10/14 and 11/21/2025); Dominion's 2025 page ($28.09M gross, $14.45M self-transfer, Miyares $1.42M, Taylor $775K, Scott $500K, Locke $500K, Surovell $500K, Herring $425K, King $325K).

Who took it and what they did (the crosswalk). Dominion and industry columns are corporate or committee direct giving reported by the recipient (VPAP), 2023 through mid-October 2026, checked against the ingested rows on 2026-10-15. "Industry" means the data center payers: Amazon, Google, the Data Center Coalition PAC, CloudHQ, Vantage and STACK. Leadership committees are counted with their legislator, as VPAP associates them.

The subcommittee that tabled HB 155: Dominion money does not explain the vote. House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee #3 laid HB 155 (an SCC certificate for any new load over 25 MW) on the table 9-0 on Feb 10, 2026. Its three Republicans took Dominion money in the period: Kilgore $695,000 to his campaign (plus $327,500 to his leadership PAC), Tony Wilt $192,500, Wren Williams $155,000. Its six Democrats took none: Rip Sullivan (chair), Irene Shin, Michael Feggans, Nadarius Clark, Bonita Anthony and May Nivar. Five of the six are funded by Clean Virginia, the anti-Dominion counterweight: Feggans $512,469, Clark $414,001, Anthony $48,500, Sullivan $28,500, Nivar $25,000. The data center industry's own money to the nine is small, from $21,500 (Kilgore) to $0 (Nivar). Dominion's lobbyist and the Data Center Coalition testified against the bill. A reader should not be told that the 9-0 vote followed Dominion cheques; for six of the nine it did not.

What happened.

• The sales-and-use tax exemption (JLARC: $928M forgone in FY23; ~$1.6–1.9B/yr now) survived 2025 and 2026 intact through 2035. The Senate's repeal was traded for a temporary $0.011/kWh consumption tax capped at $600M/yr through June 2028 (budget passed June 22, 2026; Senate 36-4).
• 2025: of at least 33 data center bills, the only one with teeth that reached the governor (HB 1601 site assessment) was vetoed; SB 960 (cost allocation) died in conference; HB 2578 was tabled in subcommittee.
• 2026: HB 153/SB 94 re-passed the site assessment (its sponsor called it "the bare minimum") and HB 507 (Tier 4 generators) was enacted; HB 155/SB 619 (SCC certificate for new >25 MW load) was tabled 9-0; HB 503 (no cost recovery from other ratepayers) was continued to 2027.
• The SCC, not the legislature, made the two largest decisions, in two separate orders on Nov 25, 2025. In Dominion's biennial review (Case PUR-2025-00058) it approved base-rate increases of $565.7M for 2026 and $209.9M for 2027 against the $822M and $345M requested, set the return on equity at 9.8% (10.4% asked), and created the GS-5 rate class for customers of 25 MW or more, effective Jan 1, 2027, billed at no less than 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand and 60% of generation demand; that order is under appeal. Amazon Data Services, Google, CloudHQ, the Data Center Coalition, Microsoft, Iron Mountain Data Centers and STACK were respondents. In Case PUR-2025-00037 it certified the 944 MW, $1.47B Chesterfield Energy Reliability Center gas plant under the Clean Economy Act's reliability exception, with cost recovery through Rider CERC; that order was suspended Dec 16, 2025, reinstated Feb 12, 2026, and appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia on Feb 17, 2026. The Attorney General's Division of Consumer Counsel was a respondent in both. Sources: the SCC's final orders (https://www.scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/89g601!.PDF and https://www.scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/89g501!.PDF) and its docket records.
• Locally, the Digital Gateway rezoning was voided in court (Aug 2025, affirmed Mar 2026, abandoned Apr 2026); Loudoun ended by-right data centers (Mar 2025) and is voting on a 12-month pause (Oct 20, 2026); Prince William ended by-right countywide (Sept 22, 2026).

The full treatment, with the scale of the industry, the year-by-year money, the correlation between Dominion's recipient ranking and the gatekeeping votes, the timing of the cheques, political callouts and the district analysis, is in case-study-virginia.md.

Readiness. The Virginia money is in the database as of the evening of 2026-10-14 (DC-4, Virginia session, commits 8aeac75 and 9023b74): 2,553 rows, $90,890,194, 335 distinct recipient entities, every row labelled "corporate direct giving (VPAP, reported by recipient)" or "committee direct giving (VPAP, reported by recipient)". 154 of the 163 General Assembly members carry rows (Eric Phillips and Kannan Srinivasan hold theirs on separate candidate rows); the other seven appear in no payer's 2023–2026 listing. Speaker Scott reconciles at $2,885,409 ($1,720,409 campaign plus $1,165,000 to his Virginia Future Generations PAC), 92.8% of VPAP's all-time $3,110,308. The itemization is now complete for every recipient in every payer's listing (the first load reached 169 recipients; the 620 remaining recipient and committee pages were gathered through the Firecrawl connector and loaded from the cache the same evening), and the itemized rows sum to each payer's listing total to within VPAP's own $1–$4 rounding: Dominion $72,145,558 itemized against $72,145,562 listed, of which 52 self-transfer rows are exactly the $38,390,000 self-transfer, leaving $33,755,558 net; Amazon $1,314,079 against $1,314,080; Google $610,000, DCC PAC $405,000, STACK $250,000, CloudHQ $435,500 and Vantage $192,250 exact; Clean Virginia $15,504,167 exact. Inaugural committees are committee entities linked to the person by affiliated_with, so Spanberger's profile shows $0 campaign money from Dominion and the data center payers (and Clean Virginia's $1.2M), and her inaugural committee shows the $100,000 cheques, as the case study states. The chains above can now be rendered as entity-page numbers with those labels. Every figure in the crosswalk and the subcommittee paragraph was re-derived from the ingested rows on 2026-10-15 (section 11).

The outcome side is in the database too. The eight data center bills and SB 253 / HB 1393 carry their final status, dates and governor action (DC-5). The two SCC orders of Nov 25, 2025 are policy_outcomes rows (va-scc-pur-2025-00058-final-order and va-scc-pur-2025-00037-cerc-final-order, status challenged, migration 205). Each has an issued_rule edge from the SCC and a benefited edge from Dominion as applicant, and commented_on edges for Attorney General Miyares and for the data center respondents. The Miyares edge is commented_on, not shaped_policy, because the record shows his office participating, not the Commission adopting its position.

6.3 Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota, California

Evidence file: evidence-states.md. Every money figure in this table now comes from the state's own filing system, pulled on 2026-10-14 by the DC-7 sessions (Texas Ethics Commission, Ohio Secretary of State, Wisconsin Ethics Commission, Indiana Election Division, Arizona See The Money, Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, Louisiana Ethics Administration, Pennsylvania Department of State, Georgia Ethics Commission, North Carolina State Board of Elections), and on 2026-10-20 for Illinois (State Board of Elections bulk files) and Michigan (MiTN contribution exports; notes in dc7-il-mi-notes.md) and Oregon (ORESTAR transaction exports; notes in dc7-or-notes.md) and Minnesota (Campaign Finance Board bulk files, 2026-10-21; notes in dc7-mn-notes.md), and California (the Cal-Access bulk export, 2026-10-21; notes in dc7-ca-notes.md). The Energy and Policy Institute (EPI), Floodlight and Food & Water Watch tallies that supplied the leads are kept in the Status column as the figures each pull was reconciled against; where a press figure could not be reproduced (Floodlight's Louisiana decade shares, which rest on an employer classification the filings do not carry) the row says so and the session notes explain the gap. Items checked directly against the primary document on 2026-10-14 are marked ✓.

6.4 Cross-state pattern: national formulation, local execution

The state fights are not fifteen separate stories. They are one policy, formulated nationally and executed locally, and the evidence for that is on the record rather than inferred:

• One ask list, one wording. Keep the sales-tax exemption; certify gas generation on data-center demand; keep cost allocation inside the utility commission and out of statute; preserve by-right or fast-track siting; no moratorium. The same four items appear in Virginia, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arizona, often in the same phrases ("pay their own way", "reliable partner", "patchwork").
• One set of carriers. The Data Center Coalition (Leesburg, VA; revenue $583K to $2.5M in a year) lobbied in at least eight states, urged Georgia's veto, rewrote Indiana's local-payment clause in private meetings and ran an eight-state ad campaign; ALEC's model "Digital Infrastructure & Ratepayer and Resource Protection Accord" (Aug 12, 2026) opposes bans and endorses "cost responsibility", the industry's preferred frame; the White House proclaimed the industry's own voluntary pledge (Mar 2026) and enrolled 23 Republican governors and 187 utilities in it (Jul 23, 2026).
• One federal backstop. When Congress refused state-law pre-emption twice, the policy moved to EO 14365 and to DOJ litigation; when the House codified the pledge (417-3) the Senate let it die (57-43), and the binding decisions stayed where they had been all along, in PSC dockets and subcommittee tables.
• Local execution by whoever held the gavel. A House Labor and Commerce subcommittee in Richmond; a five-member commission in Atlanta; a four-to-one commission in Plaquemine; a lame-duck county board in Prince William; a city council in Port Washington voting a $458M TIF. The bodies with the least public attention carried the most consequential votes.

What reversed it was voters, acting around their representatives. Every reversal in this study came from outside the legislature that had the power to act: Georgia's PSC incumbents removed at the ballot (Nov 4, 2025); Prince William's board chair defeated in a primary over the Digital Gateway (June 2023) and the rezoning voided in court (Aug 2025, affirmed Mar 2026); Port Washington's first-in-the-nation referendum (Apr 7, 2026, ~66%); North Carolina's three override Democrats defeated in primaries (Mar 3, 2026); Tucson's 7-0 rejection under public pressure (Aug 6, 2025); the Loudoun and Prince William boards ending by-right development only after elections turned on the issue. Where a legislature then acted, voters had moved first (Arizona's pause after Tucson; New Jersey's Fair Share Act after a governor's race; Virginia's consumption tax after a governor's race in which Dominion gave the winner nothing). The polling is bipartisan: 77% fear higher bills (Reuters/Ipsos), 61% oppose a local data center (Annenberg), and more than 600 of the 700-plus 2026 campaigns that mentioned data centers in ads did so against them.

The editorial case built on this pattern, with its limits stated, is in case-study-national.md.

• The utility, not the hyperscaler, is usually the payer of record. Dominion in Virginia, Georgia Power's ecosystem, Entergy in Louisiana, Oncor/CenterPoint/Vistra/NRG in Texas, Duke in North Carolina, WEC in Wisconsin. The data center companies' direct political money is small and routed through trade groups (DCC), inaugural committees, caucus committees, charitable "community" funds, and local landowners.
• The policy asks are the same everywhere: keep the sales-tax exemption, get new gas generation certified, keep cost allocation out of statute and inside the PSC, and preserve by-right or fast-track siting. Where legislatures acted (Texas SB 6, Oregon, Missouri, New Jersey, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Tennessee) the model is "large loads pay their own way" without a moratorium; 28 moratorium bills in 14 states, none enacted (Maine's was vetoed).
• The reversals came from voters and courts, not legislatures: Georgia PSC incumbents removed (Nov 2025); Prince William's chair lost her primary and the Digital Gateway was voided in court; Port Washington's referendum; North Carolina's three override Democrats lost primaries; Tucson's 7-0 rejection. The 2026 ballot carries the Ohio Senate and governor races, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin governors, and PSC seats in Georgia, Louisiana and Arizona.
• Federal overlay: the White House "Ratepayer Protection Pledge" (Mar 2026; 23 Republican governors and 187 utilities by July 23, 2026) and the House-passed Ratepayer Protection Act (417-3, Sept 15, 2026, stalled in the Senate) are voluntary or pending; the binding decisions remain in state capitals and PSC dockets.

7. Data plan (what must be ingested before anything ships)

8. Methodology and credibility rules applied

• No dollar figure is rendered without a money-type label (section 3.2).
• LDA totals are whole-filing amounts and are labelled as such; they are never presented as "spent on data centers".
• Every chain link carries a URL to a filing, bill page, docket or order. Press reporting is used to locate a primary document, not to replace it. Wikipedia is never cited.
• Correlation is stated as correlation. "Took money and then voted" is reported as a dated sequence, not as causation, unless a primary record (a statement, an email, a filing) establishes intent.
• Reconciliation: payer PAC cycle totals are checked against FEC committee pages within 10% before a payer total is shown.

10. Plan to finish the data plan (as of 2026-10-15)

Merged into main on 2026-10-14 in this order: 162–165 (this session, d37c9da) → 157–158 and 166 (Virginia, 1b2e934) → 159–161 (federal, 1eaf744) → 170–172 (Texas, 58d6443) → 175–176 (Ohio/Wisconsin, 5661519) → 205 (Virginia SCC, bd094ed) → the 206–209 renumbering (fe506d5) → 193–195 (Indiana/Arizona/Tennessee, df4bbec) → 185–189 (Louisiana/Pennsylvania, 6815b65) → 177–178 (Georgia/North Carolina, 0037c20) → 202 and the void repairs (federal follow-ups, 9927457, 2026-10-15). 201 was applied live by the federal session at 04:38 UTC the same day, after every logged row had been accounted for. Every migration in the set is applied live; nothing is pushed. The numbers were assigned in advance so the branches do not collide with each other, but 157–160 collided with files origin/main had added in September under the same numbers (157_government_body_dedup, 158_fec_committee_id_dedup, 159_page_payload_cache, 160_anomaly_detection_in_postgres). On 2026-10-14 the four study files were renumbered on disk to 206–209 (157→206 Virginia governor actions, 158→207 corporate donation type, 159→208 DC-1 merge-pairs table, 160→209 DC-1 twin merges); the live ledger keeps the names they ran under and nothing was re-applied. The file-to-ledger map for 149–209 is docs/reports/data-center-study/migration-ledger.md (177–178, 185–189 and 193–195 were applied after it was written and are listed there as reserved; their ledger names match their file names except 195, which was applied through the project's Supabase client and recorded by hand).

11. Verification log

Every number that reached the database or a case study in this session, and how it was checked.

12. Proofing pass (2026-10-15)

A second read of every state load and of the merge machinery, after the loads were finished. Each fix below is a global rule, not a patch for one entity (credibility invariant 6). Every removed row is first copied to qpq_proof_removed_donations with the reason and the row it duplicated, so each removal can be reversed.

12.1 FEC employer search: individual giving by payer employees (2026 cycle)

The FEC's individual contribution records carry the donor's employer as the donor reported it. The search covered the principal campaign committees and leadership PACs of the six members who moved H.R. 9340 or Amendment 2814. It loaded every 2026 line whose employer is a payer company. Label on every row: "individual contributions from employees of <company> (FEC Schedule A, employer as reported)". Memo copies, redesignations and conduit earmark memos are excluded. Refunds and chargebacks are kept, so totals are net.

Totals: 247 rows, $301,757.40, every row tied to its FEC line id. Eleven of the thirteen committees match FEC's by-employer totals to the cent. Two committees have no lines at all. The one gap is Guthrie's campaign committee, $14,000 below FEC. That gap is two memo lines repeating earlier contributions, excluded by design.

Reading notes:

• Cruz's Microsoft line nets to −$1,350. It holds 2026 WinRed chargebacks that reverse 2024 gifts, and the 2024 originals are not loaded. No Microsoft-employee total for Cruz should be shown until they are.
• Vistra's $10,000 to Cruz is one executive's money (James Burke), passed through the Cruz Victory Fund joint fundraising committee. The same applies to the Team Husted and Blackburn Tennessee Victory Fund lines. The database holds no 2026 transfer from those committees to the candidates, so nothing is counted twice.
• Employer is self-reported. A name match was accepted only when the state or the employer agreed. One donor, Anthropic's Andrew Jones, would otherwise have been attached to a North Carolina lawyer of the same name.
• No Dominion Energy line exists in 2026 for these committees. Bare "DOMINION" employer strings were not counted.

Flagged but not changed, because the filed report has to be read first:

• Texas same-report repeats. 87 groups ($3.07M) have the same donor, recipient, amount and date listed twice on one TEC report. 55 rows ($1.1M) involve a payer, mostly in-kind lines from Texans for Lawsuit Reform. One pair is Harlan Crow's $25,000 to Abbott, inside the $425,000 the study reports. Texas filers do list real repeated in-kind lines, so these stay until each is checked against the TEC report image.
• Federal rows without a methodology label. The federal session labelled the 14 payers' 2024 and 2026 FEC rows (9,385 giving rows and 22,197 receipt rows). About 1.2 million other federal PAC rows still carry no label. A global labelling pass is needed before any of them is shown.
• Receipts that are not contributions (fixed 2026-10-18). The federal receipt loaders stored every Schedule A line as a donation, including loans, loan repayments, refunds, offsets and bank interest. Migration 255 archived 3,578 such rows ($293,858,144). It used each row's FEC form and line. Older rows that lacked the line were looked up at the FEC committee by committee for 497 recipients. Loans, loan repayments, offsets and refunds were removed outright. "Other receipts" lines were removed only when the text names interest, dividends, a refund, rebate, loan or sale. On party committees and hybrid PACs those lines also carry real gifts and transfers of joint fundraising money, which stay. The largest items were bank credit lines: Amalgamated Bank's $20M drawdowns to the DSCC, Chain Bridge Bank's $15M to the NRCC and Bank of America's $5M loans to the DCCC. A first pass also matched the word "proceeds" in joint-fundraising transfers; those 256 rows ($110.6M) were restored. The loaders now refuse these lines. For two very large filers the line queries timed out, so their 205 rows ($373,735) were looked up one filing page at a time; all are joint-fundraising transfers, redesignations or contributions, and all stay.
• 2024 Schedule E counted twice (fixed 2026-10-16). The federal session's audit (DC1-Dedupe-Rule-Audit.md) found 24- and 48-hour notices stored beside the report lines they duplicate. The fix compared every committee's stored 2024 independent-expenditure rows with its full FEC line set, line by line, using the FEC's own rule for its total (report lines count; memo lines and notices covered by a report do not) (FEC-ScheduleE-Reconcile-2024.md). It archived 7,231 rows ($916,596,389) and added about 2,201 report lines that had never been loaded ($230,982,450). Stored 2024 Schedule E fell from $2,319,672,266 to $1,634,058,327, so the overstatement was about $686M, well above the audit's $214–308M sample projection. 96 of 110 committee rows now sit within 10% of the FEC total, most of them exactly; MAGA Inc. went from $652.7M stored to the FEC's $376.9M, the Congressional Leadership Fund from $329.6M to $216.8M, House Majority PAC from $364.7M to $196.0M. Nine committees are held (the change would not move them toward the FEC total, usually because the FEC reports no IE total) and four were skipped. The study's Schedule E figures are 2026 and were not affected.
• PAC giving stored twice beyond the study PACs (fixed 2026-10-15). Migration 203 removed the duplicate copies for the 13 study payer PACs. Migration 250 did the same for every other PAC, matching row by row: a recipient's copy, or a legacy-loader or untagged row, was archived only when the same PAC had its own filed line to the same recipient (or the same candidate's committee) for the same amount within 60 days, paired one to one. That moved 4,338 rows ($46,582,824, 469 PACs) into donations_superseded. Of 188 PACs whose own filed lines reconcile, 110 now have stored 2024 giving within 10% of the FEC, against 38 before, and none fell below 90%. Copies dated more than 60 days from a filed line were left in place.
• The loader refused some of a PAC's own lines (fixed 2026-10-16). When a recipient's copy of a check had been loaded first, the loader's 14-day cross-filer rule dropped the PAC's own line for the same check. The rule now lets the PAC's own Schedule B line replace the copy, which is archived. Re-run on the three PACs left short: International Dairy Foods Association PAC now stores all 76 filed lines and National Farmers Union PAC all 42; both sit exactly at their own lines, which are themselves 9.5% and 7.6% under the FEC summary.
• More copies after the merges (migration 253). The 251 and 252 merges brought more copies onto the same rows as their PACs' own lines. The 250 rule, re-run unchanged, archived another 1,018 rows ($12,465,806, 268 PACs).
• Legacy-loader rows with wrong recipients (fixed 2026-10-17). The legacy loader read PACs' filings one page at a time and matched recipients by name, so on PACs whose own filed lines are stored each legacy row repeated a filed line, and many named the wrong recipient. Examples on Majority Committee PAC: $350,000 recorded to "Central Bank of Nigeria", $15,000 to the Trump Organization, gifts to the Azerbaijani embassy and a Japanese ministry. Migration 254 archived all 1,080 such rows ($10,451,880, 41 PACs). Majority Committee PAC now stores $1,600,000 against the FEC's $1,730,800. Legacy rows on PACs with no stored filings of their own were kept, since for those PACs they are the only record.
• The sector dashboard function. It does not skip conduit memo lines or self-transfers. This gap predates the study and is not fixed here.

12.2 Second proofing pass (2026-10-21): the Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota and California loads

A read of every row the five newest state loads wrote, and of the links between rows, outcomes, votes and edges, checking for double counting, wrong labels and broken links. Tags and retyping were applied in migration 266; removals and merges in migration 267, applied on the user's go-ahead. Every removed row is kept in an archive table.

Found outside the five loads: LDA amendments counted with the reports they replace. lobbying_filings holds both an original quarterly report and its amendment when a registrant amends, and the homepage's lobbying total (refresh_homepage_stats_cache) and the policy-event spending function sum every row. 1,854 superseded filings ($645,113,034, 7.3% of the $8,860,380,910 total) sit in quarters that have one original and one or more amendments. Another 126 quarters have two originals and an amendment, and 1,724 have two originals and no amendment (possibly entity merges that joined two clients); those need a closer look before any rule is applied. Fixed by migration 268 (applied 2026-10-21 on the user's go-ahead): the superseded filings carry metadata.superseded_by_amendment, the homepage total and the policy-event function skip them, and the tagging reruns at the start of every homepage refresh. Homepage lobbying total $8,215,267,876 on 54,198 filings (was $8,860,380,910 on 56,052); every one of the 29 policy events with lobbying fell 6.9% to 15.8%; §4.1 corrected. The site queries that read lobbying_filings directly (src/lib/queries/ lobbying, industry, coalition, deregulation, regulation-costs and policy-events, and the entity profile) and the two crypto-watch functions (migration 269) skip the tag too; the crypto-linked clients' lobbying is $30,881,643 on 321 filings (was $32,856,681 on 337). The lobbying page's summary cards and rankings had been computed from the first 1,000 rows PostgREST returns ("Total spent" $222.7M against $8.2B in the table); migrations 270-273 move them into database functions and a bill summary table, so they cover all 54,198 filings and all 12.6M LobbyView bill rows. The "Lobbying Firms" card and tab now count only lobbying for outside clients (1,056 of 2,053 registrants): organizations registered to lobby for themselves had been shown as firms with "1 client". "Bills Lobbied" had also shown 0 clients for every bill: the bill rows carry no names, which sit on the LobbyView report; the summary joins them (H.R. 1 of the 111th Congress leads with 2,108 clients). The page also stops Next's data cache from keeping RPC results.

The stats caches were not refreshed by hand: refresh_homepage_stats_cache runs past the connector's time limit. The nightly 05:00 UTC refresh picks up 266 and 267.

12.3 Figure-by-figure proof against the database (2026-10-22)

Every figure in this document that the database can reproduce was re-derived from the live tables, in five read-only passes (federal; Virginia; Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio; Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Arizona, North Carolina; Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota, California): about 1,070 figures checked, about 950 matching outright. The rest fell into three groups, all corrected in the text above:

• Wrong when written:
  • Sen. Warner was listed as taking nothing from the payer list; Amazon, Google, Microsoft and eight utility PACs gave him $51,000 in 2025–26.
  • AEP's PAC was credited with Ohio figures that were mostly its employees' and tech employees' money (Acton's $38,650 is all employee money).
  • California's largest-recipient sums counted each committee under one of its filed names only (PG&E to the No on Steyer committee is $13,575,000, not $12,600,000).
  • Smaller slips:
    • Michigan: Brinks and Tate were overstated by $1,000 and $900.
    • Louisiana: the Cleco figure contradicted itself.
    • Indiana: Soliday's "most of any legislator" lost its "in the set" qualifier.
    • Tennessee: Google's "all in September" missed one October gift.
    • North Carolina: two dates were in the wrong order, and Microsoft's federal PAC gifts were missed.
    • California: the roll-call count was off by one.
    • Virginia: the HB 496 / SB 553 tallies and the session scope of the vote load.
• Changed by later repairs: the 2026-10-14 inventory figures (sections 4.2 and 5) and several log rows predated migrations 202–268 (2024 re-ingest, duplicate archives, self-transfer tags, the identity repair, Meta's Virginia rows) and now carry the current figures.
• Not checkable here: press, regulator and FEC-API figures, and the payers' own-report reconciliations computed from the raw state files, which the database does not hold.

One data fix came out of the pass: Mike Braun for Indiana's $10,000 to Team Braun (2025-10-27), a move between the governor's own committees that migration 266's name patterns missed, is tagged self_transfer (migration 274).

Money links that are reported but not yet pulled from a primary portal:

1. Virginia. QTS and Compass executives' giving by employer search. The Loudoun Oct 20, 2026 pause vote. The Supreme Court of Virginia appeals of both SCC orders. Answered on 2026-10-15 and removed from this list: Google's 2023–2026 total ($610,000, itemized); the per-member totals for the HB 155 subcommittee (section 6.2); Meta's Virginia giving (VPAP lists it under "Facebook / Meta", donor 168908: 12 rows, $33,640, now loaded); Microsoft's (both of its VPAP donor ids, 135024 and its stakeholder PAC 374327, list no 2023–2026 giving).
2. Texas. Answered on 2026-10-20 from the TEC itemization (section 6.3): Energy Transfer's executives gave Abbott $3,032,108, Majestic's Ed Roski $3,000,000 and Harlan Crow $425,000 (Patrick $475,000); Oracle's co-CEO gave Abbott $12,500; Meta, Google and Crusoe gave none of the five anything. The two campaign claims, checked against the filed reports: "$600K from Energy Transfer co-CEOs" adds up ($500,000 from Kelcy Warren, report 101055764, and $100,000 from Thomas E. Long, report 101067772), but Warren is executive chairman, not a co-CEO; the co-CEOs, Long and Marshall McCrea, gave $200,000 in those periods. "$2.5M from data-center-connected donors in Q3" cannot be verified: the party published no donor list, and Abbott's Q3 report (101067772, $20.30M raised) shows $172,500 from the study's payer set. Still open: the 87 same-report repeat groups.
3. Louisiana. Pulled (13,060 rows after proofing). Still open: Floodlight-style attribution of executives and family members. The Ethics filings carry no employer field. The only primary source that does is the FEC's individual contribution records, which list employer and occupation; the employer search in section 12 uses them, but it reaches only federal giving. For state giving, the candidate is FollowTheMoney.org (now part of OpenSecrets), which codes state contributors to an entity and an industry and has an ENPAC Louisiana contributor page. Its state data stops at the 2024 election year and the site says it is no longer maintained, so it cannot cover 2025–2026. Whether its Louisiana records carry the employer link has to be checked on a sample before any figure is used. A spouse or child is not identified by any filing and would need a press or corporate source for each person. Also open: the Feb 2026 LPSC "ratepayer-risk investigation" vote (not in the Feb 25 minutes); one $4,832 Meta in-kind row to Sheriff George Eric Hatfield (2019, "Facebook Ads"), which looks like his own ad purchase filed as a gift. Office mapping for every recipient filer was done on 2026-10-20, and ENPAC's PAC rows were merged by migrations 202 and 235.
4. Georgia. Pulled (4,879 rows after the whole-state pass); the Jan 2025 rule is PSC docket 44280 (order Jan 28, 2025). Still open: statewide employee giving, which the bulk file cannot show because it leaves employer blank; links from the whole-state committees to legislators. HB 1192 roll calls were loaded on 2026-10-20.
5. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Arizona, North Carolina. Pulled. Still open: the NC Utilities Commission's ruling on the Duke large-load settlement, which Duke expects by mid-November 2026; the outcome row (migration 212) moves from pending when it issues. Closed on 2026-10-15: Arizona's HB 4168 per-legislator votes (migration 211); the twin review (migrations 214 and 248, section 12); DeWine's May 27, 2026 pause, found at the governor's canonical portal address (migration 213).
6. Causation. Every chain above is a dated sequence. The only documents that establish intent are the Entergy ghost-written motions (WWNO) and the Oncor–Select Mat payments (Texas Monthly). The study should say so in its first paragraph.
7. Federal. Leading the Future's self-reported $125–140M raised versus FEC receipts. Its Q3 report (e-filing 2022785, filed Oct 15, 2026, not yet processed by the FEC) shows $193,415.90 of Q3 receipts, all interest, and $75,981,640 for the cycle through Sept 30. The gap does not close, so the larger figure is a claim the filings do not support. The report adds one transfer, $2,000,000 to Think Big on Sept 14, 2026, now loaded. Building the Future and Guardrails Alliance filed Q3 reports the same day; they are not loaded. Public First Action's claimed $80M (only Anthropic's $40M is disclosed). Build American AI's ~$50M and the new Building the Future super PAC (no report yet). Individual giving by payer employees to the six members who moved H.R. 9340 is now loaded (section 12.1). Still open: the same search for the other members who voted, and the 2024 originals behind Cruz's chargebacks. Louisiana leads from the same search are same-name FEC rows, not attributions, and must be confirmed against filings before any use: William G. Fontenot (FEC employer Cleco Power, senior vice president and later president and CEO), Asher Genoot (Hut 8, CEO), Paul Rainwater (Cornerstone Government Affairs, a lobbying firm), Jeffrey Hildebrand (Hilcorp Energy, chairman) and Jonathan Bruser (MMR Group). Dana Bernhard's FEC rows name no Bernhard Capital employer, so her giving is not attributed to the company. No Entergy employer appears among the 20 names searched. Whether QTS, CyrusOne, Vantage, Switch, Aligned or xAI lobby federally under other names.