Loading this committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
PACs › PAC (qualified) › 2025–2026
Building tradesUnions of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, laborers and other construction trades.Labor unions
PAC (qualified)Lobbyist/registrant PACLabor organizationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
Political fund of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00001016 · files monthly
“The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC) is one of North America’s largest building trades unions, with over a half-million members. With pride in our more than 135-year history, we strive for job fairness and family-sustaining wages and benefits.”
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the organization this committee is the political fund of, carpenters.org
Quoted from the committee's site, or its sponsor's or funder's where its own says nothing. Any side it takes is in its own words.
9 priorities from the site of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the organization this committee is the political fund of, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
The dollar amounts at stake as a result of wage theft in construction are not small.
Misclassifying workers costs taxpayers within each state mentioned in this report tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Misclassified construction workers in California cost the state over $1 billion in taxpayer dollars in just one year.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org
Heading as listed on carpenters.org ↗ (opens carpenters.org at this heading)
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC) encourages its more than half a million members to be active participants in the political process through voting, volunteering, and supporting candidates who fight for the goals of working people, promote needed infrastructure investments, and support fair trade.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org
Heading as listed on carpenters.org ↗ (opens carpenters.org at this heading)
Heading as listed on carpenters.org ↗ (opens carpenters.org at this heading)
The governance of U.S. and Canadian corporations is determined by a variety of state and provincial corporate laws, federal regulations, and the provisions of internal corporate governance documents that structurally allocate governance power among shareholders, directors and executives.
As pension funds seeking long-term investment returns to support long-term pension obligations, the Carpenter Pension Funds advocate for important shareholder rights and director and executive accountability mechanisms that strike a proper balance among the relative rights of the governance participants.
Whether it’s a demand for greater director independence from management, enhanced voting rights for shareholders in director elections, greater transparency in corporate disclosure documents, or heightened pay-for-performance standards in executive compensation plans, the Carpenter Funds’ advocacy is designed to fashion a governance system that supports the implementation of a business strategy to advance sustainable corporate value growth.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/key-activism-issues
A fundamental shareholder right is the right to vote in the election of directors.
In order for director elections to be meaningful director accountability events, the vote standard in the common uncontested director election (the same number of director nominees as board seats open) must provide shareholder the ability to reject the election of individual board nominees, a class of nominees, or an entire board.
The Carpenter Fund pioneering advocacy for a majority vote standard in director elections has transformed director elections from rubber-stamp affairs to important accountability mechanisms.
Read the full Majority Vote Advocacy Report here.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/key-activism-issues
The quality and independence of public accounting firms hired to audit corporate accounting systems and financial statements is critical to the effective functioning of our capital markets.
Investors must be able to rely on the accuracy of corporate financial statements to make sound investment decisions.
For the past two decades, beginning prior to the collapse of Enron and Worldcom due to accounting fraud, the Funds have undertaken important initiatives to increase auditor independence from corporate management: Establish limitations on non-audit fees paid to the consulting arms of public accounting firms by corporate clients;
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/key-activism-issues
A third important topic that Carpenter Funds have addressed in a variety of ways is executive compensation.
The Funds’ formulation for the appropriate form and level of executive compensation has evolved over the years with the submission of shareholder proposals on a variety of executive compensation issues, including the following: Option expensing (sample Option Expensing proposal); CommonSense Executive Compensation (sample CommonSense Executive Compensation proposal); Pay-for-Superior Performance (sample Pay-for-Superior Performance proposal); expanded incentive plan performance metrics disclosure (sample Incentive Plan Performance Criteria proposal), and supplemental pension plan limitations (sample SERP proposal).
Due to the complexity of the executive compensation issue, the Funds have engaged in direct non-confrontational dialogue on the issue with hundreds of US corporations using the Funds’ Executive Compensation Core Principles and Practices Evaluation Form template as a guide for those engagements.
Read the Full Issue Report on Executive Compensation Advocacy.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/key-activism-issues
We work on the things that matter to all of our members and the contractors who employ them, such as:
- Intelligent labor laws that serve honest workers and honest employers by making the construction industry safer and more honorable for all.
- Fighting employer tax fraud so law-abiding contractors can bid and win work without facing competitors who illegally lower their labor costs.
- Wage-and-hour laws, the backbone of America’s decades-long commitment to fair labor standards.
- Protections like Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage laws that keep bottom-dollar contractors from producing unsafe public buildings without producing any economic benefits.
- Unfair trade agreements that rob American workers of decent jobs and damage our long-term economic security.
- Funding for sensible programs that create decent jobs and stimulate the economy–like infrastructure, schools, and more.
- Pension reform that ensures multi-employer workers receive the full benefits they deserve.
UBC political action means supporting people and policies that support carpenter’s values.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/legislative-issues-us
Right-to-work is the misleading legislation that gave the upper hand to corporations when negotiating labor contracts, effectively lowering the earning potential of skilled carpenters and union members.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/legislative-issues-us
The Davis-Bacon prevailing wage act ensures UBC members are receiving the prevailing wage for their work, including all fringe benefits.
Find out more about the Davis-Bacon Act and why you UBC members need to pay attention to it.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/legislative-issues-us
In 1931, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage act was passed by congress.
According to the Department of Labor, “The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, apply to contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works.”
According to the Department of Labor, common problems include:
- Misclassification of laborers and mechanics.
- Failure to pay full prevailing wage, including fringe benefits, for all hours worked (including overtime hours).
- Inadequate record keeping, such as not counting all hours worked or not recording hours worked by an individual in two or more classifications during a day.
- Failure of to maintain a copy of bona fide apprenticeship program and individual registration documents for apprentices.
- Failure to submit certified payrolls weekly.
- Failure to post the Davis-Bacon poster and applicable wage determination.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/prevailing-wage
Constructing and maintaining critical infrastructure is key to economic stability and public safety.
Skilled UBC members are at the center of America’s biggest jobs—and our members know that civic and legislative action is what secures important projects for our communities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/legislative-issues-us
Not everyone realizes it, but Government at all levels combined is the largest consumer of construction services in the country.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/legislative-issues-us/carpenters-build-america
We work on things that matter to all our members and contractors who employ them, such as:
- Labour laws that serve worker and honest employers including fair wages, worker safety, taxation, pension’s reform, workers’ compensation, employment insurance, and health and welfare programs.
- Initiatives that support and promote excellence in training, secure retirement and universal access to healthcare.
- Government programs, policies and initiatives that promote and grow the middle class.
- Campaigns against the underground economy which exploits workers through substandard wage rates and no employment insurance and workers’ compensation benefits.
- Legislative measure that threatens our members and their union such as the recently repealed Bill C-377.
- Infrastructure funding that creates decent jobs, stimulates the economy and grows the middle class.
- Greater mobility for our members through the UBC Canadian Travellers Referral System and supporting a construction mobility tax credit.
- Promotion of responsible energy developments and safe pipelines.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/activism/canada-legislative-issues
The UBC promotes partnerships both on the job site and off.
Effective political action partnerships help us fight tax fraud and other employer misdeeds.
We rely on relationships to promote many other efforts to level the playing field so that honest contractors can compete—and win—in the competitive construction market.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/about-ubc/21st-century-union/focus-on-partnerships
Heading as listed on carpenters.org/about-ubc/21st-century-union/focus-on-partnerships ↗ (opens carpenters.org/about-ubc/21st-century-union/focus-on-partnerships at this heading) · “Focus on Partnership” on carpenters.org/about-ubc/21st-century-union/focus-on-partnerships ↗ (opens carpenters.org/about-ubc/21st-century-union/focus-on-partnerships at this heading)
For decades, anti-union ideological forces have led an assault against union rights in the U. S. These forces picked up the pace in recent years, and were able to pass so-called right-to-work laws in several states.
The term right-to-work is misleading and right-to-work laws certainly don’t give anyone any rights.
They are designed to weaken unions, shrink the unionized percentage of the construction market (our market share), and put downward pressure on our wages and benefits.
Ultimately, that puts downward pressure on our wages and benefits.
That fight has made us even stronger today.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · carpenters.org/right-to-work
Each part reads different filings, so counts and totals can differ.
Direct PAC contributions and independent expenditures explicitly reported as support, by the party of the candidate they went to.
| Party of the candidate | Candidates | Direct | Independent | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 190 | $1,282,500 | $0 | $1,282,500 | 83% |
| Republican | 31 | $187,500 | $0 | $187,500 | 12% |
| Other or unresolved | 11 | $55,000 | $0 | $55,000 | 3.6% |
| Independent | 2 | $15,000 | $0 | $15,000 | 1% |
| Shown support | 234 | $1,540,000 | $0 | $1,540,000 | 100% |
Contributions are reported money, not endorsements; a PAC giving to both parties is common.
Every contribution on line 23 of the committee’s own Schedule B, which is the filing its summary totals are built from. That line covers federal candidates, party committees and other political committees alike, so a super PAC funding other super PACs appears here rather than under candidate giving.
| Recipient | Count | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic candidates | 247 | $1.6M · 77% |
| Republican candidates | 32 | $192.5K · 9.4% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 14 | $90K · 4.4% |
| Democratic party committees | 1 | $5K · 0.2% |
| Other PACs and committees | 24 | $187.5K · 9.2% |
| All recipients | 318 | $2M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 48 | $305K |
| Illinois | 20 | $130K |
| New Jersey | 14 | $125K |
| New York | 17 | $120K |
| Pennsylvania | 13 | $108.5K |
Tap a row with to see who gave.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 16,951 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.4M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Total reported receipts $2,649,937
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2,815 contributions · 18% | $426,077 |
| 2,000 contributions · 12% | $294,026 |
Tap a row with to see who was paid.
Total reported disbursements $3,009,822
Every dollar this committee reported spending this cycle, split by the lines it reports against. Open a line to see who was actually paid on it. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Tap a row with to see what was paid for.
$3M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $768.9K, September 2026.
The running total of what the committee’s FEC reports say it spent, independent expenditures included, with a point at the end of each report. The line is straight between reports because a report gives one total for its whole period.
Transfers, refunds, and everything else the committee itemized outside candidate giving. 4 payments totaling $860K.
No lobbying disclosures matched
Carpenters Legislative Improvement Committee United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America as an affiliate. Official FEC summary: Federal Election Commission committee record.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the committee’s or its sponsor’s; the record marking is ours.
Carpenters Legislative Improvement Committee United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
LittleSis data is shared under CC BY-SA 4.0.
| Texas |
|---|
| 13 |
| $75K |
| Florida | 15 | $75K |
|---|
| Michigan | 13 | $70K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 43 states.
Bars drawn to $50K, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
Candidate contribution rows come from candidate committee Schedule A filings, the same rows the party chart above counts.
Money moving between this committee and other committees, matched on FEC committee ID rather than the name each filing was typed under. Both sides exclude memo entries. The figures here count each committee once, from the itemized transfers read for this section, so they will not match the payment counts under Who this PAC gave to.
Committees that reported giving to this one on their own Schedule A filings, grouped by the giver’s committee ID.
No committee-to-committee receipts were itemized this cycle.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $50K |
| House campaign committee · 1 payment | $20K |
| House campaign committee · 3 payments | $15K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to MIKE MCGUIRE VICTORY FUND · 5 payments | $15K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to SEEC VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · Connected to AMERICA WORKS FEDERAL PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to BERA VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to BOB BROOKS VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
$2M across 297 recipient committees, or 68% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown.
Built from FEC Schedule A and Schedule B filings for the selected cycle. A committee only appears here if the money was itemized under its FEC committee ID.
| $156,901 |
| 972 contributions · 5.1% | $120,515 |
| 815 contributions · 4.8% | $114,861 |
| 801 contributions · 4.7% | $111,164 |
| 804 contributions · 4.6% | $110,448 |
| 790 contributions · 4.6% | $109,710 |
By the state each contributor wrote on the filing. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line together, so one committee or organization transfer can account for a whole state. Contributors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized and cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1,315 contributions · 9.5% of ranked | $211,135 |
| 1,065 contributions · 7% of ranked | $156,751 |
| 971 contributions · 6.3% of ranked | $140,498 |
| 691 contributions · 5% of ranked | $111,195 |
| 605 contributions · 4.3% of ranked | $96,201 |
| 526 contributions · 3.3% of ranked | $72,499 |
| 528 contributions · 3.1% of ranked | $69,247 |
| 369 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $55,971 |
Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 employer spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($244,112) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 12,830 contributions · 72% of ranked | $1,706,897 |
| 1,296 contributions · 8.6% of ranked | $204,556 |
| 521 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $67,532 |
| 348 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $59,728 |
| 285 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $40,432 |
| 278 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $39,748 |
| 206 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $31,176 |
| 90 contributions · 0.8% of ranked | $19,691 |
Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($244,112) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $2,989,722
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
All 460 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1 payment · 17% of all spending | $500,000 |
| 1 payment · 8.3% of all spending | $250,000 |
| 1 payment · 3.3% of all spending | $100,000 |
| 1 payment · 1.7% of all spending | $50,000 |
| 8 payments · 1% of all spending | $31,455 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $27,217 |
| 1 payment · 0.7% of all spending | $20,000 |
| 1 payment · 0.6% of all spending | $16,635 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.