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: American Council of Engineering Companies
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is a business association representing private engineering firms in the United States. Founded in 1905, it operates as a federation of 51 state and regional member councils, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. ACEC member firms collectively employ hundreds of thousands of engineers and design professionals and contribute to the design of a substantial portion of U.S. infrastructure, including transportation systems, water and wastewater facilities, energy infrastructure, and public buildings. ACEC represents private-sector engineering firms before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies on issues such as federal procurement, infrastructure funding, tax policy, professional liability, and workforce development. Unlike professional societies such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), which represent individual engineers, ACEC's members are engineering firms. ACEC provides educational programs and other resources related to the business operations and management needs of member firms. (Linked public record: Wikipedia organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00010868 · files monthly
“ACEC advances the business of engineering—empowering firms, protecting the profession, and uniting the federation to build a thriving, respected, and future-ready industry.”
American Council of Engineering Companies, on its own site, acec.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.
19 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.
H.R. 8870, the Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America’s 250th Act (BUILD America 250 Act) totals approximately $580 billion over five years in funding authorizations for federal surface transportation programs.
This includes $475 billion in spending out of the Highway Trust Fund for highway, transit, and safety programs – a roughly 4% increase over the IIJA – along with additional authorizations for future General Fund appropriations for rail and some transit programs.
Take Action to Support the Bill(opens in new tab)
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on acec.org/advocacy ↗ (opens acec.org/advocacy at this heading)
America’s engineering companies design modern transportation systems that play an essential role in America’s economy and quality of life.
Safe and efficient transportation networks move people and goods, provide access to work opportunities and entertainment, and spur economic activity.
Sustainable and resilient infrastructure must withstand and mitigate the impacts of a changing climate, and engineering firms are at the forefront of making those projects a reality.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/transportation
ACEC members are designing infrastructure that will underpin the future.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/tax-policy
Engineering firms need access to talented, highly skilled workers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/workforce
Promoting sustainable, growing investment in the nation’s core infrastructure – roadways, bridges, transit systems, airports, rail networks– and the user fees that provide funds to support them.
Incentives for private investment and increased access to funding through tax credits, federal loans and loan guarantees, and private activity bonds.
Contracting and procurement policies that enhance the partnership between engineering firms and Federal, state, and local agency clients.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/transportation
Balanced tax treatment for engineering firms of all business structures.
Policies that foster innovation such as the research and development (R&D) tax credit and deductibility of R&D expenses.
Tax provisions that encourage employee ownership.
The Section 127 educational expenses benefit to recruit and retain engineering talent.
Join ACEC's Tax and Regulatory Affairs Committee to stay on top of current issues.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/tax-policy
Advocate for the use of Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) at all governmental levels and push back against contracting reforms that erode the value proposition of the A/E industry in the federal marketplace.
Engage with key administration and congressional leaders on modernizing defense acquisitions as well as the government-wide review of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to push for positive reforms, a successful transition of policy changes, and protect effective, tested, procurement best practices.
Expand the A/E fee cap increase to civil works and other civilian agency funded projects.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/federal-procurement
Continued operations and funding for the Export-Import Bank and the critical role it plays in providing project financing that enables engineering firms to compete effectively for infrastructure projects around the world.
Implementation of the United States, Mexico, Canada (USMCA) trade agreement.
Full funding for international development programs such as USAID and MCC and greater efforts to engage American engineering firms to ensure project success.
Ensure the use of procurement rules internationally and that they are reliably implemented and transparently enforced.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/international
Supporting Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment (RDD&D) and innovation investment to advance materials and structural design that improves infrastructure performance.
Environmental review and permitting modernization to address infrastructure challenges swiftly, affordably, and equitably.
Risk-based decision-making, prioritization, and planning to achieve an optimal balance of adaptative, mitigative, and environmental investments.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/sustainability-resilience
Funding and incentivizing investment in energy technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment.
Supporting technology incentives for private, energy market investment through tax credits, federal loans and loan guarantees, and private activity bonds.
Supporting mitigation of future risk with data gathering, modeling, codes and standards development, resilience prioritization, systems planning, and accelerated environmental and facility permitting.
Execution of programs to enhance America’s energy infrastructure.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/energy
State and federal programs that expand STEM education and grow the engineering talent pipeline over the long term.
Federal immigration policies to attract the best and brightest talent from abroad when qualified Americans are unavailable.
Contracting policies with public agencies that give firms more flexibility to manage costs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/workforce
Professional engineers make decisions in the design of America’s infrastructure that directly impact public health, safety and welfare.
To protect the public, all 50 states and the District of Columbia maintain rigorous licensure requirements for engineers.
State licensing boards assess an individual’s education, examination, experience, and ethics in deciding whether to grant an engineering license.
This process facilitates working across state lines.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/licensure
Some engineering contracts call for an engineer or another design professional to pay a client's legal expenses even if the engineer didn’t do anything wrong.
The only way to protect all design professionals from this financially devastating risk is to do what a number of states have done already: pass a law to make the “duty to defend” contractual provision void and unenforceable.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acec.org/advocacy/advocacy-priorities/indemnification-and-duty-to-defend
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 | 179 | $1,115,225 | $0 | $1,115,225 | 56% |
| Democratic | 147 | $737,750 | $0 | $737,750 | 37% |
| Other or unresolved | 36 | $136,075 | $0 | $136,075 | 6.8% |
| Shown support | 362 | $1,989,050 | $0 | $1,989,050 | 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 | 148 | $739.8K · 28% |
| Republican candidates | 177 | $1.1M · 43% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 38 | $143.6K · 5.5% |
| Republican party committees | 3 | $135K · 5.2% |
| Other party committees | 2 | $120K · 4.6% |
| Other PACs and committees | 62 | $354.5K · 14% |
| All recipients | 430 | $2.6M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 42 | $215.3K |
| Illinois | 21 | $127K |
| Florida | 21 | $113.5K |
| New York | 18 | $108.5K |
| Texas | 28 | $101.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | $91K |
| North Carolina | 13 | $85K |
| Virginia |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 3,615 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.9M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 12 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $2,893,399
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 |
|---|---|
| 477 contributions · 10% | $193,106 |
| 163 contributions · 8.3% | $154,900 |
Total reported disbursements $3,126,152
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.
$3.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $278K, 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.
Besides giving through its PAC, American Council of Engineering Companies, Inc. 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.
Each firm reports what this client paid it.
Reported twice a year by the lobbying filer. $1.9M is political giving that also appears in FEC filings. $375 is honorary, presidential-library and event money disclosed only here.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES, INC.”, found by searching “AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Oct 26, 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.
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is a business association representing private engineering firms in the United States. Founded in 1905, it operates as a federation of 51 state and regional member councils, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. ACEC member firms collectively employ hundreds of thousands of engineers and design professionals and contribute to the design of a substantial portion of U.S. infrastructure, including transportation systems, water and wastewater facilities, energy infrastructure, and public buildings. ACEC represents private-sector engineering firms before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies on issues such as federal procurement, infrastructure funding, tax policy, professional liability, and workforce development. Unlike professional societies such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), which represent individual engineers, ACEC's members are engineering firms. ACEC provides educational programs and other resources related to the business operations and management needs of member firms. Linked public record: Wikipedia 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.
American Council of Engineering Companies 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.
| 11 |
| $67.5K |
The largest 8 of 48 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) · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to HDR, INC. · 7 payments | $9.1K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to OLSSON INC · 2 payments | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to AMERICAN CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION PAC (ACPA) · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL HOLDCO CORPORATION · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to TSVC, INC. · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $4.8K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $3K |
$88.9K from 22 committees, counting every itemized receipt this cycle. The largest 12 are shown.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 4 payments | $60K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to JOHNSON LEADERSHIP FUND · 15 payments | $43K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to MILLER VICTORY FUND · 7 payments | $15.4K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 1 payment | $15K |
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.
| 155 contributions · 6.8% | $126,279 |
| 201 contributions · 5.8% | $107,545 |
| 212 contributions · 5.7% | $107,455 |
| 281 contributions · 4.5% | $84,935 |
| 122 contributions · 4.4% | $81,600 |
| 106 contributions · 4.2% | $78,300 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 339 contributions · 15% of ranked | $210,600 |
| 28 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $39,000 |
| 14 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $34,100 |
| 20 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $32,250 |
| 36 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $23,965 |
| 89 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $22,569 |
| 18 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $21,750 |
| 24 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $21,300 |
A further $11,639 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 ($449,872) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 326 contributions · 15% of ranked | $246,501 |
| 294 contributions · 10% of ranked | $163,303 |
| 257 contributions · 8.3% of ranked | $135,500 |
| 219 contributions · 5.7% of ranked | $93,416 |
| 161 contributions · 5.6% of ranked | $91,178 |
| 65 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $76,380 |
| 130 contributions · 3% of ranked | $49,380 |
| 104 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $45,515 |
A further $14,284 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 ($449,872) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $2,627,679
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 1,125 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 4 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.9% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 15 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $42,950 |
| 50 payments · 0.7% of all spending | $23,186 |
| 7 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $15,425 |
| 1 payment · 0.5% 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.
| House campaign committee · Connected to AGUILAR LEADERSHIP FUND · 5 payments | $14.3K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to TEAM LAHOOD · 11 payments | $13.8K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to THUNE VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $13K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to GIMENEZ VICTORY COMMITTEE · 5 payments | $11.5K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to NEXT GENERATION VICTORY · 4 payments | $11K |
$2.6M across 450 recipient committees, or 83% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $15.5K was filed as memo entries, which FEC reports separately to avoid counting it twice.