John W. Hickenlooper
U.S. Senate District (at-large)
2026 general election.
Incumbents
Challengers
Campaign finance
Federal Election Commission filings for the 2026 two-year cycle. Candidates appear in the order they are listed on this page. They are not ranked by money, and these measures are never combined into a single score.
Every candidate below reports through Jun 30, 2026.
| Candidate | Total receipts | Cash on hand | Direct PAC receipts |
|---|---|---|---|
| John W. Hickenlooper Democratic incumbent | $8,119,380 | $2,083,870 | $896,273 |
| Mark Baisley Republican | $138,147 | $50,021 | $0 |
| Robert Chew Forward Party | $1,270,007 | $1,044,358 | $0 |
Each measure below has its own scale and starts at zero, so bars can be read against each other within a measure but not across measures. Every figure is reported through Jun 30, 2026.
Total receipts
Everything the authorized campaign committee took in, including contributions, loans, and transfers.
Highest total receipts: John W. Hickenlooper at $8,119,380. Lowest: Mark Baisley at $138,147. The largest reported value sets this scale at $8,119,380.
Cash on hand
The balance the campaign reported at the end of its coverage period.
Highest cash on hand: John W. Hickenlooper at $2,083,870. Lowest: Mark Baisley at $50,021. The largest reported value sets this scale at $2,083,870.
Direct PAC receipts
Money the campaign received from PACs and other political committees. This is not outside spending.
Highest direct PAC receipts: John W. Hickenlooper at $896,273. Lowest: Mark Baisley at $0. The largest reported value sets this scale at $896,273.
Outside spending supporting
Independent expenditures by other organizations supporting the candidate, not coordinated with the campaign and never received by it.
Highest outside spending supporting: John W. Hickenlooper at $510,004. Lowest: Mark Baisley at $0. The largest reported value sets this scale at $510,004.
Outside spending opposing
Independent expenditures by other organizations opposing the candidate, not coordinated with any campaign.
Every compared candidate reported $0 for outside spending opposing. The largest reported value sets this scale at $0.
Where each campaign's committee money came from
Each column is one candidate and each figure is that candidate's own money, taken over that candidate's own itemized total. Nothing here is added across candidates, and the two groupings below are never added to each other: the first is who the FEC says runs the giving committee, which covers every dollar, and the second is what interest a source says that committee advances, which is a claim MyRepTracker makes and covers only part of the money.
Contributions each campaign received, by who runs the committee
| Category | John W. Hickenlooper Democratic |
|---|---|
| Leadership PACs | $362,00037.2% |
| Trade association PACs | $231,25723.8% |
| Non-connected committees | $109,75011.3% |
| Membership organization PACs | $83,9258.6% |
| Labor union PACs | $83,5008.6% |
| Party committees | $62,0006.4% |
| Corporate PACs | $24,9202.6% |
| Other candidates' committees | $10,5001.1% |
| Cooperative PACs | $5,0000.5% |
| Itemized total | $972,852 |
Contributions each campaign received, by interest advanced
| Category | John W. Hickenlooper Democratic |
|---|---|
| Public sector unions Labor | $43,0008.0% |
| Real estate Finance, insurance, and real estate | $39,0007.2% |
| Physicians and medical specialties Health | $35,0006.5% |
| Agribusiness Agriculture | $33,0006.1% |
| Food and beverage Agriculture | $22,1774.1% |
| Securities and investment Finance, insurance, and real estate | $20,5003.8% |
| Transportation unions Labor | $20,5003.8% |
| Building trades unions Labor | $15,0002.8% |
| Commercial banking Finance, insurance, and real estate | $14,0002.6% |
| Lawyers and law firms Professional services | $12,5002.3% |
| Renewable energy Energy and natural resources | $12,5002.3% |
| Hospitals and nursing homes Health | $11,5002.1% |
| Technology Communications and technology | $9,5001.8% |
| Electric utilities Energy and natural resources | $9,0001.7% |
| Oil and gas Energy and natural resources | $8,0001.5% |
| Accounting Professional services | $7,5001.4% |
| Pharmaceuticals Health | $7,5001.4% |
| Pro-Democratic Party Ideological and single-issue | $7,5001.4% |
| Telecommunications Communications and technology | $7,5001.4% |
| Construction Construction | $6,0001.1% |
| Air transport Transportation | $5,0000.9% |
| Credit unions Finance, insurance, and real estate | $5,0000.9% |
| Health insurance Health | $5,0000.9% |
| Industrial unions Labor | $5,0000.9% |
| Media and entertainment Communications and technology | $5,0000.9% |
| Trucking Transportation | $5,0000.9% |
| Automotive Transportation | $2,5000.5% |
| Democracy and election reform Ideological and single-issue | $2,5000.5% |
| Gun control Ideological and single-issue | $2,5000.5% |
| Insurance Finance, insurance, and real estate | $2,5000.5% |
| Nurses and nursing specialties Health | $2,5000.5% |
| Mining Energy and natural resources | $1,0000.2% |
| Leadership PACs, party committees, and other candidates' committees | $434,500 |
| Committees not yet categorized | $153,67528.5% |
| Itemized total | $972,852 |
Independent spending supporting each candidate, by who runs the committee
| Category | John W. Hickenlooper Democratic |
|---|---|
| Non-connected committees | $495,25097.1% |
| Membership organization PACs | $14,7542.9% |
| Itemized total | $510,004 |
Independent spending supporting each candidate, by interest advanced
| Category | John W. Hickenlooper Democratic |
|---|---|
| Real estate Finance, insurance, and real estate | $14,7542.9% |
| Committees not yet categorized | $495,25097.1% |
| Itemized total | $510,004 |
These candidates are compared in the table above but have no stored breakdown of where their committee money came from, so they are named here rather than shown as a column of zeroes.
- Mark Baisley: no breakdown is stored for this record yet
- Robert Chew: no breakdown is stored for this record yet
Last-minute contributions reported before an election
Within 48 hours of receiving a contribution or loan of $1,000 or more in the days just before an election, a campaign must notify the FEC. These notices are provisional: the same money appears again in the regular report covering those days, so it is not added to the amounts above and is not compared as a measure. Candidates file them only while their own election is close, so an absence here says nothing about a campaign's fundraising.
| Candidate | Reported on notices | Notices | Covers | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John W. Hickenlooper Democratic | $142,265 | 6 | Jun 11 to Jun 26, 2026 | Covered by regular reports |
Candidates not compared
These candidates are left out of the comparison rather than shown as zero, because a missing or partial record is not the same as no money.
- Adam Withrow (Unity): No FEC data is stored for cycle 2026.
- Blake Huber (Libertarian): This candidate is not linked to a federal candidate identity, so FEC coverage does not apply.
- Chris Baum (Approval Voting): This candidate is not linked to a federal candidate identity, so FEC coverage does not apply.
Direct contributions are money the campaign received. Independent expenditures are spending by other organizations that is not coordinated with any campaign, and are never added to a candidate's receipts. Source: Federal Election Commission ↗.