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 PACLabor organizationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
UFCW has its own PAC called the Active Ballot Club (ABC). (Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00002766 · files monthly
“The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) is a labor union made up of 1.2 million hard-working men and women in the U.S. and Canada. We are a 501(c)(5) nonprofit organization that believes in the power of ordinary people coming together to improve their lives and make a lasting difference for all working people.”
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club, on its own site, ufcw.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.
7 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.
We've spent over a decade advocating for cannabis workers and fighting for labor protections that ensure that jobs are safe and equitable.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Time off for you, school, family or your community - fair scheduling makes it happen.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
No one should be injured at work, that’s why the UFCW drafts contracts that include strong, enforceable safety language that goes beyond what's required by law.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Unions are among the most powerful forces ensuring that everyone, no matter their race, gender, or sexuality, is treated fairly in the workplace.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
The UFCW supports strong pensions, expanded Social Security benefits, and fair wages so working families can build retirement savings over the course of their careers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Our advocacy extends far beyond the bargaining table.
We actively engage in shaping the broader policies that directly impact the lives of our members.
What can a union do for you?
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better
Proud. Engaged. Involved. ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights at this heading)
The UFCW’s advocacy extends far beyond the bargaining table, as we actively engage in shaping the broader policy measures that directly impact the lives and livelihoods of our diverse membership.
We recognize the pivotal role that policy plays in safeguarding the rights and futures of all workers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Opposing increased line speeds in poultry, swine, and beef processing plants
Meat and poultry processing workers are highly trained professionals who serve as an extra layer of protection for consumers when it comes to food safety.
Even at current line speeds, these workers face risks that can lead to severe injury, illness, and even death.
Protecting America’s workers by increasing oversight
Advocating for minimum staffing ratios
Calling for workplace excessive heat prevention standards
Supporting chemical worker safety training grants
Supporting laws to ban child labor
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/keeping-workers-safe
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better/keeping-workers-safe ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better/keeping-workers-safe at this heading) · “Making Workplaces Safer” on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Without a union contract, workers can be fired for almost any reason — or no reason at all.
This is known as “at-will” employment, which is standard in the United States.
Having a union means that your company cannot discharge or discipline you without a very good reason, and gives you the right to challenge the decisions your company makes about discharge and discipline.
Protecting grocery workers during ownership transitions
Creating good jobs in the food industry
Backing pre-packaged retail meat label regulations
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/real-job-security-vs-right-to-work
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better/real-job-security-vs-right-to-work ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better/real-job-security-vs-right-to-work at this heading) · “Protecting Good Jobs” on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
The UFCW supports legislation that would update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act by closing loopholes and improving its effectiveness.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would make it harder for employers to hide pay discrimination while rewarding employers with good pay practices.
It also calls for programs to train women and girls in salary negotiation strategies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/equal-rights-and-workplace-diversity
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better/equal-rights-and-workplace-diversity ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better/equal-rights-and-workplace-diversity at this heading) · “Making Workplaces More Equitable” on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
When you have a union contract, you get a say in how your workplace changes, but many workers who aren’t represented by a union don’t.
That’s why we support legislative efforts to regulate AI technology and ensure that every worker has a workplace where their privacy and safety take priority over everything else.
Surveillance pricing and electronic shelf labels
Grocery retail chains are rapidly expanding their use of Electronic Shelf Labels (ESLs), which can change prices remotely and in real time.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/technology-and-the-future-of-work
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better/technology-and-the-future-of-work ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better/technology-and-the-future-of-work at this heading) · “Keeping Jobs Safe from Automation and AI Technology” on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Our labor laws need to be strengthened to prevent irresponsible employers from intimidating workers who are fighting for a voice in their workplace.
The UFCW has long championed the passage of the PRO Act, which would strengthen workers’ bargaining power and their right to join a union, penalize predatory corporations, safeguard the right to strike, and eliminate “right-to-work” laws.
We also support any measure that would end the misclassification of workers as independent contractors, or “gig workers,” which allows companies to avoid paying fair wages and benefits.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights
Immigrants and refugees have enriched the fabric of our communities and our workforce since our nation’s founding.
Our current immigration system is broken, allowing unscrupulous companies to exploit immigrant and guest workers by paying them less than they would pay U.S.-born workers.
Undercutting wages for temporary and immigrant workers lowers wages for U.S.-born workers as well.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights
Worker misclassification is the practice of labeling a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee.
Misclassification is a growing and troubling trend for workers in every industry, including the nearly one million retail grocery workers who belong to the UFCW.
Employers use misclassification to avoid paying fair wages, payroll taxes, and benefits such as unemployment insurance.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights
The NLRB protects the rights of workers fighting for a voice on the job and works to balance the needs of employers, unions, and employees nationwide.
A fully funded DOL and NLRB are necessary to protect workers’ rights and safety, enforce employment anti-discrimination laws, and investigate labor law violations.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/better/championing-worker-rights
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/better ↗ (opens ufcw.org/better at this heading)
Council efforts build stronger communities, safer workplaces and a brighter future for workers and their families across North America.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · ufcw.org/about/our-structure
Heading as listed on ufcw.org/about/our-structure ↗ (opens ufcw.org/about/our-structure at this heading) · “Our Structure” on ufcw.org/about/our-structure ↗ (opens ufcw.org/about/our-structure 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.
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 | 178 | $973.4K · 26% |
| Republican candidates | 1 | $7.5K · 0.2% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 4 | $17.5K · 0.5% |
| Democratic party committees | 7 | $30.8K · 0.8% |
| Other party committees | 3 | $720K · 19% |
| Other PACs and committees | 60 | $2M · 53% |
| All recipients | 253 | $3.8M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 30 | $172.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | $74K |
| Texas | 11 | $72.5K |
| Arizona | 5 | $55K |
| Ohio | 10 | $54.5K |
| Minnesota | 5 | $45K |
| Washington | 6 | $42.5K |
| Massachusetts | 7 | $35K |
The largest 8 of 41 states.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 4,613 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $197.8K. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 4 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $119.8K from 4 sources in all.
Total reported receipts $16,203,927
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 |
|---|---|
| 895 contributions · 17% | $33,342 |
| 274 contributions · 7.2% | $14,221 |
| 291 contributions · 7% | $13,867 |
Total reported disbursements $15,462,843
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.
$15.5M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $2.9M, 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.
2008 cycleReport released Nov 1, 2010
1978 cycleReport released Feb 12, 1980
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
UFCW has its own PAC called the Active Ballot Club (ABC). Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the committee’s or its sponsor’s; the record marking is ours.
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club 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.
Bars drawn to $400K, 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 |
|---|---|
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to KATIE HOBBS VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $400K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND · 14 payments | $300K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to EMILY'S LIST · 4 payments | $300K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $300K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to WINSENATE · 2 payments | $250K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 6 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 6 payments | $210K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 3 payments | $200K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · Connected to MINNESOTA SECOND DISTRICT VICTORY COMMITTEE · 1 payment | $100K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to LOCAL 881 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION · 1 payment | $50K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $30K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $30K |
$3.7M across 258 recipient committees, or 24% 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.
| 62 contributions · 6.3% |
| $12,550 |
| 249 contributions · 6.3% | $12,545 |
| 70 contributions · 5% | $9,894 |
| 153 contributions · 3.9% | $7,805 |
| 48 contributions · 3.9% | $7,800 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 40 contributions · 6.3% of ranked | $12,000 |
| 237 contributions · 5.8% of ranked | $11,091 |
| 142 contributions · 4.4% of ranked | $8,428 |
| 48 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $7,800 |
| 242 contributions · 4% of ranked | $7,590 |
| 148 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $7,110 |
| 132 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $6,815 |
| 115 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $6,808 |
A further $7,118 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A), so it is not ranked. 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 ($15,827,120) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 4,220 contributions · 91% of ranked | $180,767 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 105 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $7,143 |
| 20 contributions · 0.8% of ranked | $1,511 |
| 16 contributions · 0.7% of ranked | $1,411 |
| 51 contributions · 0.6% of ranked | $1,275 |
| 11 contributions · 0.5% of ranked | $996 |
| 24 contributions · 0.3% of ranked | $635 |
| 8 contributions · 0.2% of ranked | $432 |
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 ($15,827,120) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $3,914,787
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 467 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 1 payment · 2.6% of all spending | $400,000 |
| 14 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $300,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $300,000 |
| 1 payment · 1.9% of all spending | $300,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $250,000 |
| 6 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 6 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 3 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $200,000 |
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.