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
Beer, wine & spiritsBrewers, winemakers, distillers and their distributors and associations.Business › Other business
PAC (qualified)Lobbyist/registrant PACTrade associationAlexandria, VirginiaActive
Connected organization: National Beer Wholesalers Association
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00144766 · files monthly
“The NBWA PAC works to support elected leaders and candidates for office who understand Main Street businesses such as beer distributors, the importance of state-based alcohol regulation and the 21st Amendment.”
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC, on its own site, nbwa.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.
2 priorities from the committee’s own site, 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 Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Lack of transparency in healthcare pricing costs Americans up to $1 trillion annually.
- Patients using healthcare services
- Employers, such as beer and beverage distributors, that offer healthcare benefits to employees
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Lack of transparency in healthcare pricing makes it difficult for patients and employers to manage costs.
Beer distributors offer competitive healthcare benefits but face dramatic and unpredictable increases in healthcare-related expenses that limit their ability to make additional investments in employees and communities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/healthcare-transparency at this heading)
Ensuring transparent pricing for services
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/healthcare-transparency
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Organized cargo and retail theft has surged dramatically in recent years, posing safety risks and economic challenges to American communities.
- Consumers facing higher prices and reduced availability
- Businesses already grappling with a challenging market
- Employees at physical risk
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Sophisticated criminal enterprises are increasingly targeting cargo and retail, resulting in higher costs for both businesses and consumers, reduced product availability and heightened safety concerns.
Beer and beverage distributors are being targeted by criminal groups, harming these local businesses and putting public safety at risk.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/organized-cargo-theft at this heading)
Consumers facing higher prices and reduced availability
Businesses already grappling with a challenging market
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/organized-cargo-theft
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 215 | $1,427,500 | $0 | $1,427,500 | 51% |
| Democratic | 195 | $1,264,500 | $0 | $1,264,500 | 45% |
| Other or unresolved | 31 | $110,000 | $0 | $110,000 | 3.9% |
| Shown support | 441 | $2,802,000 | $0 | $2,802,000 | 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 | 197 | $1.3M · 33% |
| Republican candidates | 216 | $1.4M · 37% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 34 | $127.5K · 3.3% |
| Democratic party committees | 3 | $90K · 2.3% |
| Republican party committees | 3 | $90K · 2.3% |
| Other PACs and committees | 132 | $853K · 22% |
| All recipients | 585 | $3.9M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 52 | $314K |
| Texas | 38 | $240K |
| Florida | 25 | $145.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 18 | $129.5K |
| Illinois | 21 | $117.5K |
| Ohio | 16 | $108.5K |
| North Carolina | 17 | $102.5K |
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, 1,201 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $3.6M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The largest of the committees is listed. Counted from the givers' own filings and this committee's lines for them, whichever is larger, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $3,675,693
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
14% to named individuals, 86% not itemized.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 86% | $3,160,693 |
58 smaller sources, $515K in all (14%), are not listed.
Each committee that gave is followed to where its own money came from, in proportion to what it received: a committee that got half its money from one person is counted as passing half of what it gave on to that person. Each channel shows the committee the money came through and its place in the money tree. It shows who stood behind the money, not what that money was for, and an organization that need not name its donors ends the trail. It stops at a person, an organization, a committee with nothing on file here, or 3committees deep. A person who gave by more than one route appears under each, a name filed two ways may appear twice, and a person's job and city are as they filed them. "Also behind" counts the other groups, among those that moved $100,000 or more into races, in which $100,000 or more traces to the same person, other than those this money came through or went on to.
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 |
|---|---|
| 113 contributions · 11% | $414,966 |
| 54 contributions · 5.2% | $190,551 |
Tap a row with to see who was paid.
Total reported disbursements $3,869,134
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.
$3.9M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $579.1K, 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.
Published by the Commission against this committee’s own FEC ID. An audit is a periodic examination that reports findings; an administrative fine is a penalty for filing a specific report late or not at all. They are separate instruments and are not combined into a score here.
Late 12G report, 2000$5K assessed
Case 223 at the FEC ↗Source: the Commission’s audit-case and administrative-fine records, joined on this committee’s FEC ID, imported Nov 1, 2026. Enforcement matters (MURs) are published only against respondent names, with no committee identifier, so they are not shown here rather than being matched by name.
Besides giving through its PAC, National Beer Wholesalers Association pays lobbyists to press Congress and federal agencies. Each quarter it, or a firm it hires, files a public report under the Lobbying Disclosure Act saying which topics it worked on, what it spent, and whom it contacted. This is what those reports say.
Each report files its work under official topics. The bar shows how often each topic came up across the reports; open one to read what was filed under it. Naming a bill says the organization lobbied on it, not which side it took.
The organization’s own reports give its total lobbying costs, including any firms it hired; each firm reports what this client paid it.
Reported twice a year by the lobbying filer. $1.2M is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Nov 5, 2026. Senate Office of Public Records cannot vouch for the data or analyses derived from these data after the data have been retrieved from LDA.gov.
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names National Beer Wholesalers Association 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.
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC 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.
| New York | 21 | $100.5K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 50 states.
Bars drawn to $30K, 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.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$10K from 1 committee, counting every itemized receipt this cycle.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLORADO SENATE VICTORY 2016 · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $30K |
| House campaign committee · 5 payments | $15K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to WALKINSHAW VICTORY FUND · 4 payments | $15K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to ONE TEAM SENATE MAJORITY · 3 payments | $12.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$3.9M across 581 recipient committees, or 99.7% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $10K was filed as memo entries, which FEC reports separately to avoid counting it twice.
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.
| $186,500 |
| 52 contributions · 4.3% | $158,250 |
| 62 contributions · 4.1% | $148,444 |
| 46 contributions · 4.1% | $147,765 |
| 69 contributions · 3.4% | $125,280 |
| 40 contributions · 3.4% | $122,979 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 17 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $71,000 |
| 13 contributions · 1.8% of ranked | $56,000 |
| 13 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $49,000 |
| 11 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $47,000 |
| 10 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $45,000 |
| 9 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $45,000 |
| 29 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $42,402 |
| 8 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $40,000 |
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 ($12,595) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 329 contributions · 34% of ranked | $1,225,800 |
| 68 contributions · 8.2% of ranked | $296,500 |
| 53 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $149,950 |
| 33 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $133,000 |
| 24 contributions · 2.9% of ranked | $104,500 |
| 20 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $95,000 |
| 37 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $92,915 |
| 16 contributions · 2% of ranked | $70,900 |
A further $6,500 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (blank), so it is not ranked. Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 occupation 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 ($12,595) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $3,853,920
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 1,537 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 5 payments · 0.4% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 4 payments · 0.4% of all spending | $15,000 |
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.