BEAUMONT, TX: $27.5M on 57,928 FEC receipts

What $27,458,002 on the Beaumont city field covers

$27,458,002 divided by 57,928 is about $474 per itemized line. That mean is arithmetic from the two packet facts. FEC.gov does not publish a median, a unique-donor count, or a party split on this city aggregate. LobbyVault reports $27,458,002 and 57,928.

Jefferson County’s Beaumont is the filing city on these rows, not a score of refinery-corridor races. The city total can include a PAC or joint-fundraising committee address when that is the city filers typed. LobbyVault does not recode those rows out of the city string.

Beaumont is a contributor city, not a Golden Triangle recode

The city is the contributor-city value on FEC itemizations. Filers type it. LobbyVault does not geocode Beaumont against a municipal boundary file. A work address, a mail drop, or a household in a neighboring place that still typed BEAUMONT can sit inside $27,458,002.

Port Arthur, Orange, and Nederland are other Golden Triangle city strings. They are not inside $27,458,002 unless the filer typed BEAUMONT. Jefferson County is orientation, not an FEC roll-up. A Port Arthur household typed as BEAUMONT sits inside the pair; a Beaumont household typed as PORT ARTHUR does not. Amended reports can raise or lower both $27,458,002 and 57,928. If the live Beaumont hub reprints different figures, the newer FEC extract wins.

Not a Houston or Dallas sum

Houston, Dallas, and Austin keep separate Texas hubs. Adding them to Beaumont would be a recode. This packet publishes BEAUMONT, TX only: $27,458,002 and 57,928 lines. Southeast Texas, the Neches, and “the Golden Triangle” are useful for maps and news copy. They are not FEC dimensions on this hub.

State TX on the key is required in the citation. Recheck both facts on the live hub if a later extract lands. A citation that drops TX invites a merge with Beaumont, California.

What $27,458,002 from Beaumont omits

Unitemized federal contributions do not appear in $27,458,002. Many small gifts never become Schedule A city rows. Citing $27,458,002 as “all federal money from Beaumont” overstates the series. The 57,928 lines are the itemized book only.

Texas state campaigns file under state law. Those receipts are outside $27,458,002 and outside 57,928. Independent expenditures that never appear as contribution itemizations are outside both facts. County party activity that never becomes a federal Schedule A row is outside both facts as well.

ZIP codes under the Beaumont city string

The ZIP directory cuts the same FEC itemized series by five-digit contributor ZIP. A Beaumont city total of $27,458,002 is not automatically the sum of ZIPs the postal service assigns to Beaumont. Filers can type this city with a ZIP mapped to Port Neches or Lumberton, and the reverse. A researcher who adds those postal pages to this hub is mixing two cuts of the same series.

Do not treat a mean near $474 as proof that Beaumont ZIPs are mid-dollar donor ZIPs. This packet has no ZIP list and no income field. 57,928 is a line count. $27,458,002 is a dollar sum. Those two numbers move together when FEC.gov amends a receipt. They do not move because a map prefers Port Arthur as the “real” Golden Triangle. If the live hub reprints a different pair, the newer FEC extract wins.

Citing BEAUMONT, TX

Cite the pair in one sentence: contributor city BEAUMONT, TX, $27,458,002, 57,928 itemized federal contributions, source FEC.gov via LobbyVault. Dropping the line count hides Beaumont’s shape relative to a thinner or thicker city on similar dollars. Name the contributor-city field so readers do not treat this hub as a Jefferson County or Southeast Texas roll-up.

A mean near $474 is only $27,458,002 divided by 57,928. It is not a typical Beaumont household gift, not a typical refinery-office gift, and not a typical downtown gift. Occupation, recipient, and party live on other FEC fields. None of those fields are in this packet. Do not infer turnout. Do not infer that Beaumont is more or less politically active than Houston because the line counts differ. Houston is a different city string with its own hub. If a later extract disagrees, discard this snapshot. Original PDFs and electronic filings remain on FEC.gov for any named Beaumont receipt that needs a line-by-line check.

Questions

What is Beaumont’s federal contribution total on LobbyVault?

Itemized FEC.gov receipts listing contributor city BEAUMONT, TX total $27,458,002 across 57,928 contributions. That pair is a city-string roll-up of federal Schedule A rows, not a unique-donor count and not a census of Beaumont residents. Unitemized gifts sit outside both figures.

How should I read Beaumont’s 57,928 contributions?

LobbyVault counts 57,928 itemized lines for BEAUMONT, TX. That is a line count, not a headcount of unique people. Repeat gifts and memo entries can add rows without adding donors. This packet publishes no unique-donor figure. The matching dollar total is $27,458,002.

Does Beaumont’s total include Houston or Port Arthur?

Only if the filer typed BEAUMONT. Houston, Port Arthur, and Orange are separate city strings when they appear that way on the receipt. $27,458,002 is the BEAUMONT, TX match. The 57,928 lines follow the same rule. Metro labels are not an FEC dimension on this hub.

Where do the Beaumont facts come from?

Both facts come from FEC.gov itemized contribution aggregates indexed on LobbyVault: $27,458,002 and 57,928 lines. Original reports remain on FEC.gov. Texas non-federal filings are outside the pair. If a later extract disagrees, the Commission’s filing controls. The mean of about $474 is arithmetic from those two packet numbers.