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
PAC (qualified)Lobbyist/registrant PACTrade associationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: National Association of Home Builders
Political fund of National Association of Home Builders
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00000901 · files monthly
“NAHB strives to protect the American Dream of housing opportunities for all, while working to achieve professional success for its members who build communities, create jobs and strengthen our economy.”
National Association of Home Builders, the organization this committee is the political fund of, nahb.org
Quoted from the committee's site, or its sponsor's or funder's where its own says nothing. The statement is filed under topics from a fixed list, chosen by AI models when two of three agree; which side it takes is in its own words.
14 priorities from the site of National Association of Home Builders, 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.
Tackling the affordability crisis and the key issues that must be addressed to ensure a robust housing market.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/advocacy-overview
Find out how NAHB works throughout the country to keep housing issues a priority with local regulators and policymakers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/advocacy-overview
NAHB is urging policymakers to help resolve supply chain issues that are hindering housing affordability and the broader economy.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/appraisals/understanding-appraisal-approaches
A chronic labor shortage in the housing industry is resulting in higher construction costs, increased home prices and lower economic growth.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities
On a broader scale, the rising cost of building materials directly impacts the affordability of new housing.
Higher construction costs get passed on to home buyers in the form of higher prices, making it increasingly difficult for people to afford new homes.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/building-materials-trade-policy/material-costs
Uncertainty about the housing finance system stymies investment and slows the housing market.
Long-term authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program is key to ensuring that it remains available and affordable.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities
Resolved that National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) urge Congress and the Executive Branch to reaffirm support for housing as a national priority in fulfillment of the mandate of the Housing Act of 1949.
Resolution originally adopted 2025.2, Resolution No.1
Committees with primary jurisdiction: Housing Finance Committee
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies/housing-finance/housing-finance-reform
Long-term authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program is key to ensuring that it remains available and affordable.
Building codes ensure safe homes.
But many codes proposed today are done so without regard to cost to home buyers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities
Building codes ensure safe homes.
But many codes proposed today are done so without regard to cost to home buyers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities
But many codes proposed today are done so without regard to the cost to home buyers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis
Building codes can have a profound impact on the comfort and safety of residents as well as the cost of construction and the cost of operating the home.
Learn about NFPA 70, NEC requirements for AFCIs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/building-codes
Promoting reforms in appraisal practices to ensure that appraisals accurately reflect true market values
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues
As the nation continues to grapple with the housing affordability crisis, the importance of fair and accurate appraisals remains a key concern.
In response to criticism that lax appraisals contributed to the financial crisis, tighter appraisal policies have been implemented by lenders, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/appraisals
Protecting our natural resources and promoting economic growth with regulatory certainty
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues
A number of environmental issues and federal regulations impact the housing industry.
NAHB advocates for common-sense regulations that protect our country’s natural resources and provide regulatory certainty for home builders and developers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/environment
Advocating for reform to control skyrocketing compliance costs that stifle businesses and harm consumers
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues
Excessive regulations are contributing to the housing affordability crisis.
On average, regulations imposed by government at all levels account for nearly 25% of the price of building a single-family home and more than 40% of the cost of a typical multifamily development.
NAHB believes that Congress must reassert its oversight authority over rulemaking agencies and that efforts to further regulate the housing industry must be subject to greater public scrutiny and based on sound data.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/federal-regulatory-reform
Advocating for home building incentives in the tax code, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and opportunity zones
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues
NAHB advocates for incentives in the tax code to make the American dream of homeownership a reality for more Americans across the entire income spectrum and also to promote affordable apartment homes.
Incentives include the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and opportunity zones to encourage investment and economic development in underserved communities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/tax-issues
NAHB is an active participant on Capitol Hill and in the federal regulatory process, working hard to promote housing in America.
Resolutions adopted by NAHB’s Leadership Council touch on key housing issues such as removing regulatory barriers to building affordable housing, protecting property rights, providing tax relief for small businesses, promoting smart growth, and assuring the U.S. housing finance system remains strong.
These resolutions inform staff and volunteer advocacy work, whether we’re talking to federal legislators, writing comment letters on proposed regulations, or preparing the budget for the next fiscal year.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies
The National Association of Home Builders of the United States strives to protect the American Dream of housing opportunities for all, while working to achieve professional success for its members who build communities, create jobs and strengthen our economy.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/why-nahb/about-nahb
Explore how to address the housing affordability crisis through federal, state and local advocacy to reduce building costs, increase housing supply, and provide diverse housing choices.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis
Providing a range of housing types is key to increase the supply of housing at varying home prices.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis
Rent control policies limit supply and do not address the underlying issues of housing affordability.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis
The key to an effective secondary market system for conventional mortgages is a limited federal backstop for catastrophic circumstances.
History shows the limitations of the private mortgage market.
During bad times, private mortgage credit has fled the market, leaving government-supported mortgage loans as the primary or only option for qualified buyers.
In the aftermath of the housing downturn, investors have been reluctant to invest in mortgage securities without government backing.
Previous attempts at reforming the housing finance system have failed.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/housing-finance-reform
Several reforms can fix the broken regulatory rulemaking process:
- Support legislative efforts, e.g., the REINS Act, to fix the broken regulatory rulemaking process;
- Ensure rulemaking agencies consider the disproportionate impact rules have on small businesses; and
- Reconsider the rulemaking process.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/federal-regulatory-reform
Heading as listed on nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/housing-finance-reform ↗ (opens nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/housing-finance-reform at this heading) · “Housing Finance Reform” on nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities ↗ (opens nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities at this heading)
Resolved that NAHB strongly support a comprehensive and unified approach to immigration reform that pairs investment in the safety and security of the border with effective efforts to curb illegal immigration, all while ensuring reforms meet the workforce needs of the home building industry and the broader economy,
Further resolved that NAHB urge policymakers to establish legal pathways that allow undocumented individuals to continue working in the construction industry without fear of deportation, provided they meet appropriate requirements and obligations, such as criminal background checks, fines, fees, or tax payments,
Further resolved that NAHB call upon Congress and the Administration to modernize and update immigration systems to reduce the significant backlog and minimize processing delays in order to make the system more efficient, predictable, and responsive,
Resolution update adopted: 2025.11, Resolution No.1
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies/general-government-and-economic-policy/comprehensive-immigration-reform
Resolved that NAHB urge lawmakers, regulators, and other policymakers, when considering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, to focus resources and attention on the largest emissions sources and simplest and most cost-effective reductions;
Further resolved that NAHB urge lawmakers, regulators, and other policymakers seeking to regulate or limit operational or embodied GHG emissions in residential construction to demonstrate that such policies are effective without compromising:
- The affordability, attainability, and durability of the home;
- Energy supply reliability and affordability; and
- Home design choices based on climate zone and/or market availability of building materials and fuel type;
Further resolved that NAHB urge lawmakers, regulators, and other policymakers to support energy codes, standards, and other policies that justify tradeoffs between embodied and operational GHG emissions impacts;
Resolution originally adopted: 2024.10, Resolution No. 3
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies/energy-and-green-building/greenhouse-gas-emissions
Resolved that NAHB urge lawmakers, regulators, and other policymakers to develop policies to incentivize the transformation of America’s existing housing stock through the application of the methods and materials used in modern, high-performance residential construction which presents an opportunity for a much greater cumulative reduction in energy use, peak energy demand, and greenhouse gas emissions;
Further resolved that NAHB support energy codes for existing buildings that:
- Align the required energy provisions with the scope of work for the retrofit project;
- Evaluate the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of the required provisions for the consumer;
- Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each energy measure individually and incrementally;
- Provide a performance-based path for compliance;
- Allow the flexibility in determining the feasibility of the required energy provisions based on the configuration and condition of each individual building by granting code officials the power to modify the requirements accordingly; and
- Recognize jurisdictions’ power to exempt historic buildings from compliance with provisions that would threaten, degrade, or destroy their historic form, fabric, or function;
Further resolved that NAHB support public and private programs for energy-efficient home improvements (including not only modifications to current programs but also new, innovative approaches) that offer homeowners near-term financial incentives as close to the point of sale as possible and/or incentivize community-scale investment;
Resolution originally adopted: 2024.10, Resolution No. 2
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies/energy-and-green-building/energy-efficiency-enhancements-in-existing-buildings
Resolved that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) urges lawmakers, regulators, and other policymakers to support or adopt cost-effective energy codes, standards, and legislation that contain provisions where the initial cost and annual savings to home buyers meet the following criteria:
- Consider the needs of home buyers and renters with modest incomes and limited resources for down payment;
- Are based on the final cost to the home buyer rather than the change in costs to construction trades or the builder;
- Are estimated using methods and data that are recent and verifiable via published sources;
- Are estimated to show positive life-cycle metrics; and
- Are based on incremental evaluation of individual measures;
Resolved that NAHB supports model energy codes and standards that meet the following criteria:
- Offer a comprehensive and cost-effective prescriptive compliance path for all types of residential buildings at any code-specified level of performance;
- Offer design flexibility in reaching energy performance goals and shall not impose unnecessary restrictions (including unreasonable mandatory backstops) on design choices for achieving specified levels of energy performance;
- Where energy codes pursue zero net energy goals or other high-performance goals, provide adopting jurisdictions and designers the flexibility for defining the right balance between building enclosure, heating and cooling systems, and renewable generation;
- Where code requirements are increased via additional measures with assigned credits, ensure that such provisions offer a minimum of two (2) cost-effective compliance paths per climate zone with options that can be evaluated as a package of measures that achieves the required performance level; and
- Offer alternative compliance paths via above-code programs (such as the National Green Building Standard);
Resolved that NAHB recognizes that greenhouse gas emission reductions may be a consideration when evaluating proposed changes to energy codes;
Resolved that NAHB supports studies intended to:
- Determine energy-efficient measures that are cost-effective;
- Confirm through field evaluations that the code-specified increases in energy efficiency consistently achieve the expected levels of energy savings in buildings; and
- Confirm through evaluation that increases in energy efficiency pose no unintended consequences to health, safety, and welfare;
Resolution originally adopted: 2024.6, Resolution No. 1
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nahb.org/advocacy/nahb-policies/energy-and-green-building/cost-effective-and-affordable-energy-codes-and-standards
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 | 250 | $1,645,000 | $0 | $1,645,000 | 70% |
| Democratic | 109 | $621,500 | $0 | $621,500 | 27% |
| Other or unresolved | 15 | $67,000 | $0 | $67,000 | 2.9% |
| Shown support | 374 | $2,333,500 | $0 | $2,333,500 | 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 | 109 | $621.5K · 18% |
| Republican candidates | 248 | $1.6M · 46% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 17 | $85.5K · 2.4% |
| Democratic party committees | 1 | $30K · 0.9% |
| Republican party committees | 1 | $30K · 0.9% |
| Other party committees | 4 | $210K · 6% |
| Other PACs and committees | 112 | $910K · 26% |
| All recipients | 492 | $3.5M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 40 | $251.5K |
| Texas | 39 | $181.5K |
| Florida | 21 | $112K |
| North Carolina | 13 | $102.5K |
| New York | 13 | $98K |
| Michigan | 10 |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 4,967 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.7M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 4 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports. Here they come to $12.5K, more than the $11K this committee's own reports show on the line.
Total reported receipts $3,131,210
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. 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 |
|---|---|
| 175 contributions · 8.8% | $235,485 |
| 206 contributions · 5.7% | $152,454 |
Total reported disbursements $3,728,307
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.
$3.7M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $522.1K, 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.
1998 cycleReport released Jun 26, 2000
Source: the Commission’s audit-case and administrative-fine records, joined on this committee’s FEC ID, imported Oct 26, 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.
No lobbying disclosures matched
Build PAC of the National Association of Home Builders is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names National Association of Home Builders 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.
Build PAC of the National Association of Home Builders is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| Ohio | 12 | $77.5K |
|---|
| Pennsylvania | 10 | $71K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 49 states.
Bars drawn to $60K, 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 (qualified) · Connected to TAYLOR MORRISON, INC. · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION · 1 payment | $1K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $1K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $500 |
$12.5K from 4 committees, 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) · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $60K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$3.5M across 497 recipient committees, or 94% 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.
| $130,551 |
| 95 contributions · 4.5% | $120,401 |
| 254 contributions · 4% | $105,780 |
| 163 contributions · 3.8% | $102,508 |
| 169 contributions · 3.4% | $90,546 |
| 134 contributions · 3.3% | $89,278 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1,113 contributions · 5.9% of ranked | $84,661 |
| 9 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $27,500 |
| 4 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 31 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $17,103 |
| 13 contributions · 1% of ranked | $14,850 |
| 14 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $13,125 |
| 13 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $12,500 |
| 5 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $12,365 |
A further $37,906 came from donors whose answer names no employer (blank), so it is not ranked. 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 ($116,608) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1,131 contributions · 38% of ranked | $1,009,409 |
| 700 contributions · 20% of ranked | $523,458 |
| 138 contributions · 3.9% of ranked | $102,909 |
| 195 contributions · 3.9% of ranked | $102,723 |
| 219 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $70,814 |
| 118 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $65,271 |
| 59 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $43,268 |
| 74 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $43,130 |
A further $37,906 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 ($116,608) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $3,605,458
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 998 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 22 payments · 1.7% of all spending | $64,544 |
| 4 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 22 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $34,914 |
| 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 |
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.
| $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to WYDEN · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to TEAM HILL · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SMITH VICTORY · 2 payments | $10K |