Nimble Technology and the 2010 FEC cycle

The Nimble Technology–2010 intersection

This page is not a restatement of the Nimble Technology industry hub and not a restatement of the 2010 cycle hub. It is the inner join: employer string in one column, two-year FEC cycle in the other, dollars only where both match. $2,035,487 is that match. Twenty-one itemized gifts produced it. One unique donor produced those twenty-one gifts.

A midterm cycle often looks quieter than a presidential year in national totals. Inside this employer bucket the opposite pattern appears: nearly half of all Nimble Technology-grouped money in the table sits in 2010. That is a statement about this cell’s share of this grouping, not a claim that 2010 was an unusually political year for a company.

FEC individual filings list an employer as typed by the contributor or the committee. Nimble Technology is the normalized bucket for those strings. The Commission does not audit whether the donor was on payroll, on a board, or simply using a familiar name.

One donor, twenty-one contributions

A donor count of 1 next to a contribution count of 21 means repeated itemized gifts from the same person (or the same unique-donor key the aggregate uses) inside the 2010 window. Average gift size is about $96,928 if you divide $2,035,487 by 21. That average is a ratio, not a typical check size, and it can mix primary, general, and joint-fundraising receipts that all carried the same employer text.

Concentration this tight is easy to misread as a corporate treasury. Individual contribution files are still personal receipts. They are not PAC filings, not super PAC independent expenditures, and not proof that Nimble Technology as an entity authorized the giving.

Share of the grouping’s lifetime total

The industry-wide Nimble Technology total is $4,602,166. The 2010 cell is $2,035,487, about 44.2%. Other cycles therefore hold a little more than half of the grouping. If a reader only opened the 2010 overlay, they would see the larger single-cycle pile and miss that the remaining dollars live elsewhere on the industry page.

Because one donor dominates this cell, year-to-year swings in the grouping can be the biography of a single filer rather than a change in a workforce. The table cannot separate those stories; it can only show the dollar split.

2010 as a cycle, not a motive

The 2010 election cycle covers federal races in 2009–2010. House seats, Senate seats, and any special elections that fell in the window share the same cycle tag on these aggregates. Nimble Technology’s $2,035,487 is one employer slice of that tag. The cycle page lists many other employer strings; this tie isolates one of them.

Nothing in the join assigns party, candidate, or issue. Recipients live on the overlay and on committee pages. This relationship record stops at industry × cycle.

Why a 21-row cell is easy to over-read

Twenty-one itemized rows is a short enough list that a researcher can read the overlay without drowning in volume. The dollar total is still $2,035,487. That combination — large money, small paperwork — is the practical signature of a one-donor cell. This page still does not name the donor; unique-donor keys are not published here.

The 2010 cycle is a two-year window, not a single Election Day. Gifts dated 2009 and gifts dated 2010 share the same cycle tag. The $2,035,487 figure therefore mixes both calendar years. Compressing it into “November 2010 money” would shrink a two-year file into a headline the table does not support.

When one donor accounts for an entire cell, a later amendment to a handful of receipts can move tens of percent of a grouping’s lifetime total. The 44.2% share is accurate for the current aggregate and more fragile than a 612-donor cell. Keep the industry hub in view so a revision in this window is not mistaken for the whole Nimble Technology story.

Limits of the employer-cycle join

Do not treat the 44% share as evidence that Nimble Technology “peaked” in 2010 in any business sense. FEC coverage, itemization, and a single donor’s calendar explain the cell. Do not treat the dollars as federal contract money. Campaign receipts and USAspending awards are separate ledgers.

For receipt-level browsing use the Nimble Technology 2010 overlay. For other years stay on the industry hub. For the rest of 2010 use the cycle hub. Other employer-cycle pairs live on the ties index.

Questions

How much FEC money is in the Nimble Technology 2010 join?

The 2010-cycle cell for the Nimble Technology grouping is $2,035,487 in itemized individual contributions from FEC.gov aggregates. That amount is 21 contributions attributed to 1 donor. It is not PAC spending and not the grouping’s $4,602,166 all-cycle total.

Why is almost half of Nimble Technology’s FEC total in 2010?

The 2010 cell is about 44.2% of $4,602,166 because $2,035,487 landed in that cycle. With only one donor in the cell, a small number of large itemized gifts can dominate the lifetime mix. The share describes the table split, not a corporate strategy.

Does one donor mean one person wrote twenty-one checks to the same committee?

Not necessarily. The aggregate counts 21 itemized contributions and 1 unique donor inside this employer-cycle cell. Those gifts can go to different committees, candidates, or joint fundraising vehicles. The join does not list recipients; the overlay does. The overlay lists itemized rows for this cell; the industry hub holds other cycles; the cycle hub holds other employer strings from the same window.

Is this the same as federal awards to Nimble Technology?

No. These numbers are FEC individual contribution aggregates. They do not record contracts, grants, or loans from USAspending. Sharing an employer name across datasets is not evidence that donations funded awards. The overlay lists itemized rows for this cell; the industry hub holds other cycles; the cycle hub holds other employer strings from the same window.