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: Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc.
Political fund of Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc.
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00022343 · files monthly
“At the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”), we exist for one reason: to help independent agents thrive.”
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc., the organization this committee is the political fund of, independentagent.com
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.
6 priorities from the site of Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc., 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 Predatory Litigation Funding Act (H.R. 3512 /S.
Congress should take action to curb abusive litigation practices that drive up insurance costs or consumers and undermine the integrity of the U.S. legal system.
The rapid growth of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has created unfair tax advantages and a lack of transparency that incentivizes excessive litigation and increases the cost of insurance for policyholders.
Lawmakers should support the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act (H.R.3512/S.1821) to ensure funders pay fair, ordinary income tax rates comparable to plaintiffs and attorneys, while closing loopholes that allow foreign investors to avoid U.S. taxes entirely.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs/legislative-issues
Many factors are fueling the current property insurance crisis.
Among them is the abuse of the legal system.
This perversely incentivizes foreign investment in more U.S. litigation.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs
Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more severe, straining the property and casualty insurance markets.
Without effective disaster mitigation, insurers face rising claim costs, homeowners struggle with skyrocketing premiums or lack of coverage, and the federal government is forced to step in with costly disaster relief programs.
States are working to increase resiliency and mitigate risks associated with their unique geographies, but the federal government can and should do more to assist with those efforts.
Read About all of the issues
April 7- 9, 2027 | Washington, D.C.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs
Congress should act to provide certainty and stability in the flood insurance market by reauthorizing and modernizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) before its September 30 expiration, avoiding the repeated short-term extensions that have created disruption and left consumers vulnerable during critical periods.
A long-term reauthori-zation will ensure continued access to essential coverage for homeowners and businesses in high-risk areas that the private market will not cover.
Lawmakers should also advance the Continuous Coverage for Flood Insurance Act (H.R.6620) to encourage responsible growth in the private flood market while protecting consumers’ ability to move between private and NFIP policies without penalty.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IIABA26_Issues-Briefing.pdf
Congress should act decisively to strengthen and modernize America’s health care system by protecting employer-spon-sored coverage, advancing meaningful price transparency, and expanding access to telehealth.
Preserving the long-standing tax exclusion for employer-provided health insur-ance is essential to maintaining stable, affordable coverage for millions of working Americans.
Lawmakers should pass the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act (H.R.5582/S.2355) to ensure patients, employers, and brokers have access to clear, standardized pricing information—empowering con-sumers to make informed decisions and drive competition that lowers costs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IIABA26_Issues-Briefing.pdf
Congress should act swiftly to pass a clean, long-term exten-sion of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) to preserve market stability, protect economic security, and ensure busi-nesses have access to essential terrorism coverage.
Since its creation, TRIA has served as a vital public-private partnership that enables insurers to offer coverage for an inherently unpredictable risk.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs/legislative-issues
Federal and state advocacy to protect agent interests.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/about/our-programs
While independent agents look out for their communities, the Big “I” looks out for them—
on Capitol Hill and beyond.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs
Congress recently passed, and the President signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making permanent many tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Passage of the OBBB concludes a multiyear advocacy campaign by the Big “I” to raise awareness over important tax policy for independent agents.
Congress recently passed, and the President signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), making permanent many tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
What is written today can be erased and rewritten tomorrow.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs
Heading as listed on independentagent.com/government-affairs ↗ (opens independentagent.com/government-affairs at this heading) · “Issues Important to Independent Agents.” on independentagent.com/government-affairs ↗ (opens independentagent.com/government-affairs at this heading)
The Big “I” believes that insurance should be supervised at the state level and works to educate elected officials about the importance of the state regulatory system.
While some state regulatory environments are more challenging than others, the state system has effectively supervised insurance markets for over 150 years.
It continues to offer considerable benefits especially in the vital areas of solvency regulation and consumer protection.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs
The Big “I” has worked to reintroduce “The Main Street Tax Certainty Act,” which would make the 199A small business deduction permanent.
The deduction allows small businesses organized as pass-throughs the ability to deduct up to 20% of qualified business income.
It is currently set to expire in 2025.
The Big “I” has successfully worked to increase the number of sponsors for these two bills and there are currently 127 cosponsors in the House and 21 cosponsors in the Senate.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs/insurpac
The NFIP is set to expire on Sept. 30, 2025, which is tied to federal government spending.
The Big “I” is advocating for the NFIP to be reauthorized.
The Big “I” also opposes any policies that would harm the Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program, including WYO reimbursement reductions, and undercut the valuable and trusted role that independent agents play in the sale and servicing of flood insurance.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs/insurpac
The Farm Bill is passed by Congress every five years and includes a range of programs related to food, nutrition, and agriculture.
The 2023 Farm Bill is projected to cost approximately $1.5 trillion and crop insurance is anticipated to be the second-largest allocation of funding, trailing only the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The Big “I” is weighing in with Congress to make sure there are no cuts to the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · independentagent.com/government-affairs/insurpac
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 | 151 | $1,028,500 | $0 | $1,028,500 | 74% |
| Democratic | 73 | $297,500 | $0 | $297,500 | 21% |
| Other or unresolved | 21 | $68,500 | $0 | $68,500 | 4.9% |
| Shown support | 245 | $1,394,500 | $0 | $1,394,500 | 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 | 73 | $294K · 11% |
| Republican candidates | 169 | $1.1M · 42% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 23 | $88.5K · 3.4% |
| Other party committees | 2 | $60K · 2.3% |
| Other PACs and committees | 109 | $1.1M · 41% |
| All recipients | 376 | $2.6M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Texas | 23 | $96.5K |
| New York | 14 | $93.5K |
| California | 18 | $91K |
| Florida | 16 | $90.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 9 | $66K |
| Ohio | 13 | $58.5K |
| Iowa | 7 | $54.5K |
| Michigan | 9 | $53.5K |
The largest 8 of 46 states.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 3,555 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.8M. 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, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $2,151,317
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 |
|---|---|
| 130 contributions · 6.8% | $123,745 |
| 156 contributions · 6.7% | $120,957 |
Total reported disbursements $2,709,164
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.
$2.7M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $401.8K, February 2025.
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, 2002$3K assessed
Case 820 at the FEC ↗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.
Besides giving through its PAC, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America 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. $847.5K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA”, found by searching “INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Oct 27, 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.
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. 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.
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
Bars drawn to $205K, 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 OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY · 2 payments | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
$10K from 2 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 |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $205K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $110K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $110K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $50K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to ASHLEY HINSON VICTORY COMMITTEE · 3 payments | $15K |
| House campaign committee · 3 payments | $15K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to THE GREAT GULF OF AMERICA FUND · 3 payments | $12.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to MONTANA RED · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CLARK · 2 payments | $10K |
$2.6M across 373 recipient committees, or 95% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $11K 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.
| 112 contributions · 5.5% |
| $99,075 |
| 119 contributions · 4.6% | $82,650 |
| 229 contributions · 4.5% | $81,843 |
| 306 contributions · 4.4% | $80,161 |
| 159 contributions · 3.8% | $69,580 |
| 150 contributions · 3.1% | $56,629 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 8 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $25,350 |
| 12 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $20,500 |
| 59 contributions · 2% of ranked | $19,926 |
| 8 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $17,000 |
| 7 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $16,750 |
| 5 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $16,500 |
| 5 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $14,500 |
| 5 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $13,750 |
A further $16,750 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 ($247,216) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 3,307 contributions · 95% of ranked | $1,709,936 |
| 161 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $64,445 |
| 21 contributions · 0.5% of ranked | $9,302 |
| 2 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,500 |
| 2 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,000 |
| 7 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,000 |
| 5 contributions · <0.1% of ranked | $1,600 |
| 1 contribution · <0.1% of ranked | $1,000 |
A further $16,750 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (blank), 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 ($247,216) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $2,646,149
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 724 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 7.6% of all spending | $205,000 |
| 1 payment · 4.1% of all spending | $110,000 |
| 1 payment · 4.1% of all spending | $110,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $50,000 |
| 11 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $30,063 |
| 15 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $30,042 |
| 2 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.1% 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.