What proportion of Forward Blue's reported 2023–2024 receipts went to media buys versus direct candidate support?

1. The raw totals: what Forward Blue reported receiving and how that money is characterized

Public reporting compiled by OpenSecrets and summarized by secondary reporting puts Forward Blue’s receipts for the 2023–2024 cycle at about $22,001,726, a figure used as the baseline for calculating spending proportions ^[1]. The committee is registered with the FEC as an independent-expenditure-only committee (a Super PAC), which legally can accept unlimited contributions and spend on communications but cannot give money directly to candidate committees ^[3].

2. Media buys as the headline share of spending

A breakdown cited in available reporting states Forward Blue spent approximately 53% of its receipts on “media” — national and targeted ad buys and other paid communications — which translates to roughly $11.6–11.7 million of the reported $22.0 million ^[1]. That categorization is consistent with how outside-spending groups typically classify large line items in OpenSecrets’ “expenditures” and “outside spending” databases, though the detailed line‑by‑line FEC entries are the primary records for verification ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Direct candidate support: zero contributions, but independent expenditures exist

Forward Blue made no direct contributions to federal candidates in the 2023–2024 cycle—a fact OpenSecrets explicitly records (Forward Blue gave $0 to federal candidates) and which aligns with its Super PAC status ^[2]. However, the group did make independent expenditures that directly supported or opposed federal candidates; one reporting source attributes about $4.4 million in independent expenditures to Forward Blue for the cycle, a separate channel of influence from direct contributions ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Putting proportions together: media buys vs. direct candidate support

Framed as proportions of total receipts, the clearest available reporting indicates roughly 53% of Forward Blue’s receipts went to media buys (≈$11.7M), while 0% went as direct contributions to candidate committees (explicitly $0) and about 20% (≈$4.4M / $22M) took the form of independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections ^{[1] [2]}. These numbers imply that more than half of receipts funded paid communications, a meaningful minority purchased independent support for candidates, and none were transferred directly into candidate campaign coffers.

5. Caveats, alternate interpretations and source limitations

The primary public sources for PAC activity are FEC filings and OpenSecrets’ compilations; the FEC committee page confirms the committee’s registration and that it discloses spending for/against candidates but does not itself present an easily summarized percentage split in the snippets available here ^[3]. The detailed percentage breakdown cited above derives from a law‑firm blog summarizing OpenSecrets data (JonathonSpire) and OpenSecrets’ own expenditure/independent‑expenditure pages, but the available snippets do not show the raw FEC line items; therefore the 53% media and $4.4M independent‑expenditure figures should be read as reported summaries that require confirmation against the underlying FEC transaction reports for complete granularity ^{[1] [4] [6]}.

6. What this means politically

Operationally, Forward Blue behaved like a modern Super PAC: most money purchased paid communications (media buys), some was spent on independent political activity referencing candidates, and none was routed as direct donations to candidate committees—consistent with the legal structure and strategic incentives of outside‑spending groups ^{[3] [6]}. Observers favoring greater transparency or different resource allocation might argue the split underscores how donors fund messaging and influence rather than bankrolling candidate organizations directly, while defenders would say independent expenditures and media are the most effective route for an outside group to influence outcomes within legal boundaries ^{[3] [6]}.