All figures come from the official Kansas Public Disclosure Commission filing. These are reported contributions supporting one side of a contested constitutional ballot question.

1. In-Kind Contributions (~$260,516 total — fully detailed in the provided Schedule B)

Key observation: In-kind support is heavily concentrated in reproductive-rights groups, with ACLU entities as the clear secondary source.

kansasvaluesinstitute.org

2. Overall Contributions (Cash + In-Kind, ~$7.64 million)Public summaries of the full Schedule A and contemporaneous reporting show a similar progressive/advocacy tilt at much larger scale, with these major categories:

• National and state progressive nonprofits / advocacy groups (largest category by far):
  Multiple large gifts from ACLU entities (national and Kansas affiliates — hundreds of thousands to over $1 million combined in various reports), Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes (hundreds of thousands combined), Open Society Policy Center (Soros-linked, reported at $400,000), National Education Association (NEA, reported at $250,000), and related foundations (e.g., Health Forward Foundation). Kansas Values Institute (a left-of-center 501(c)(4) focused on issues including “fair and impartial courts,” education funding, and opposition to changes in judicial selection) also appears as a contributor.
  @EarlGlynn
• Individual high-dollar donors:
  Notable example includes Lynn Schusterman (reported at $1 million). Many smaller-to-mid five- and six-figure gifts appear from Kansas-based individuals.
• Law firms, trial lawyers, and individual attorneys:
  Numerous contributions in the $50,000–$100,000+ range from law firms and individual lawyers (common in judicial-selection fights, as the plaintiffs’ bar has a stake in the current merit-selection system). Kansas Women Attorneys Association and similar professional groups also appear.
• Labor / education unions:
  National Education Association and related education interests.
• Local Democratic Party and allied political entities:
  Smaller relative to the national progressive nonprofits (e.g., the Sedgwick County Democratic Party in-kind example).
• Other / unitemized / interest:
  Small unitemized contributions (<$50) plus minor bank interest; these are a tiny fraction of the total.

Overall Patterns and Context

• Dominant donor types: Progressive national nonprofits (especially reproductive-rights and civil-liberties groups) + high-dollar individuals + the plaintiffs’ trial bar/law firms. Local Democratic Party money is present but secondary.
• Geographic mix: Significant out-of-state money (national ACLU, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Open Society, NEA, URGE/Unite) alongside Kansas-based law firms, individuals, and the Kansas Values Institute / ACLU of Kansas.
• Alignment with the ballot measure: The group opposes the August 2026 constitutional amendment that would alter the method of selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices (moving away from the current merit-selection system toward greater electoral accountability). The donor profile is consistent with organizations that have historically supported the status-quo merit system and progressive policy priorities in Kansas.
• Limitations: Exact percentages for the full $7.6 million require summing every line of the multi-page Schedule A PDF. In-kind data is complete and cleanly categorizable; cash data follows the same ideological/interest-group pattern at larger scale. The group’s own expenditures ($6.6 million) are not broken out by vendor or purpose in the summary materials provided.