Arizona has $1.2B in tracked subsidies across 2389 beneficiary companies. 318 of these companies also donated to political campaigns (13% donor rate). County-level data available for 15 of 15 counties.

$1.2B Total Subsidies Tracked
2,389 Beneficiary Companies
318 Donor-Beneficiaries Matched 13% donor rate
$91.5M Total Donated by Beneficiaries

About these scores and findings: Scores, donor rates, and spike counts on this page are pattern-detection outputs computed from public records. They document correlations and timing patterns in the data; they are not findings of wrongdoing by any company, official, or agency.

Companies that donated to political committees affiliated with IDA-appointing officials received tax exemptions. This analysis documents a correlation between donations and exemptions; it does not establish that donations caused approvals.

County Overview

15 counties ranked by subsidy total. Click any county for full details.

Key Findings

  • 318 of 2,389 subsidized companies (13.3%) made campaign donations — $91.5M total.
  • $58.3M in donations flowed from beneficiaries to 620 political committees. Top recipient: Arizonans For Affordable Electricity ($40.0M).
  • $1.20B in total subsidies tracked across 2,389 beneficiary companies in Arizona.

Political Committee Activity

$58.3M Total donated to committees
620 Committees receiving funds

Top recipient: Arizonans For Affordable Electricity ($39992K — 25% beneficiary-funded)

All Counties

County-level subsidy data for Arizona
CountyScoreTotal SubsidiesCompanies
Maricopa96.3$387.4M0
Pima87.70
Yavapai86.70
Pinal86.0$126.5M0
Mohave84.70
Apache80.70
Yuma77.70
Coconino72.70
Navajo70.70
Graham68.70
Gila64.70
Cochise60.70
Greenlee60.70
La Paz60.70
Santa Cruz60.70
How we calculated this

State summaries aggregate county-level data from Good Jobs First subsidy records cross-referenced with state campaign finance databases. Donor rates reflect the percentage of subsidy recipients matched to campaign contributors. County scorecards use a composite weighted score (subsidy concentration 35%, donor overlap 30%, tax burden 20%, WARN notices 15%).

Full methodology →