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 organizationMclean, VirginiaActive
Connected organization: Air Line Pilots Association
Political fund of Air Line Pilots Association
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00035451 · files monthly
“We are the world's largest nongovernmental aviation safety organization. Our mission is to maintain the safety and security of the skies for all who depend on them.”
Air Line Pilots Association, the organization this committee is the political fund of, www2.alpa.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.
16 priorities from the site of Air Line Pilots Association, 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.
We represent more than 80,000 pilots who uphold the highest standards.
Airline accidents in North America remain at an all-time low, making air travel the safest form of transit.
We have been advancing aviation safety since 1931.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org
Heading as listed on alpa.org ↗ (opens alpa.org at this heading)
PSA Flight 5342 exposed dangerous loopholes in the U.S. aviation safety system.
The solution is simple: Mandate ADS-B In technology.
As the House and Senate reconcile the differences between versions of the bill, we are demanding that Congress include the ADS-B In mandate from the ROTOR Act in the final aviation safety bill.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org
Heading as listed on alpa.org ↗ (opens alpa.org at this heading)
As pilots, we place the safety of our passengers and fellow crewmembers front and center every time we fly, training for life to protect the flying public and the communities under our wings.
That's our mission—one that my fellow pilots and I recommit to every day.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org
Airline pilots shouldn't have to choose between seeking the help they need and the career they love.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health
Aviation safety should never be compromised.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/flight-time-and-duty-time-regulations-canada
Heading as listed on alpa.org ↗ (opens alpa.org at this heading)
Heading as listed on alpa.org ↗ (opens alpa.org at this heading)
We work closely with our pilot members, airlines, governments, and industry stakeholders to make air travel better and safer for everyone.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Cabin air contamination is a safety and health issue in today’s airline operating environment.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
The mandatory pilot retirement age should remain at 65.
Attempts to increase it threaten airline safety.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Outdated technology and aging infrastructure are putting strain on our airspace.
It's time to invest in a safer, smarter, and more efficient ATC system.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Outdated technology, aging infrastructure, and staffing shortages are putting strain on our airspace.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Outdated aeromedical rules discourage pilots from seeking care for mental health.
It's time to modernize the system.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
How We Advocate for Pilot Mental Health ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health at this heading)
Unfortunately, progress has been uneven, and more can be done:
- We urge Congress and the FAA to improve the lengthy aeromedical review process and encourage pilots to seek treatment when needed.
- We support the implementation of provisions in the 2024 FAA reauthorization bill to create an aeromedical working group and a medical portal modernization task group.
- We also support the Mental Health in Aviation Act, which would require the FAA to improve the review process and implement the consensus recommendations of the Mental Health ARC.
Pilot Mental Health FAQ ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health at this heading)
Explore answers to common questions about pilot mental health, recent legislation, and efforts to improve access to care.
Safe Skies Start with Pilots’ Mental Health ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health at this heading)
The Mental Health in Aviation Act, which is currently making its way through Congress, would remove barriers to care while keeping aviation safety first.
Seeking help isn’t a risk—it’s a responsibility.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Flight deck barriers, including a secondary barrier, are critical to security on passenger and all-cargo aircraft.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
An airliner's strongest safety asset is at least two fully qualified, highly trained, and well rested pilots on the flight deck.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Two fully qualified, highly trained, and well-rested pilots on the flight deck are an airliner’s strongest safety asset.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
There is no pilot shortage.
Airline executives cut services and compromise pilot training standards to save costs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
flights each day are managed by the United States' outdated ATC system.
Passengers, shippers, and flight crews depend on safe and efficient air traffic control (ATC)—but many components of the system that the United States relies on today have fallen behind.
A growing number of near misses, ground incidents, and other serious safety events point to a system that’s under increasing strain.
These problems didn’t appear overnight.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
We strongly support Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy’s bold new plan to modernize the ATC system.
His proposal recognizes the realities we face on the flight deck every day and outlines the kind of broad investment U.S. aviation infrastructure urgently needs.
As the professionals who operate in this system daily, we urge Congress to act now.
Hire and train the next generation of controllers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
Outdated technology and staffing shortages are putting unnecessary strain on our air traffic control system.
Tell Congress to modernize ATC now to protect the safety and efficiency of our skies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
It's time to invest in a safer, smarter, and more efficient air traffic control system.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control at this heading) · “We Advocate for Pilots” on alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/modernize-air-traffic-control at this heading)
Flight deck barriers protect airliners from security threats, yet gaps remain—passenger aircraft need secondary barriers, and cargo aircraft lack intrusion-resistant doors entirely.
Flight Deck Barriers FAQ ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/flight-deck-barriers at this heading)
Flight deck barriers provide critical protection against unauthorized access, yet gaps in current regulations leave many aircraft vulnerable.
Pilot Voices ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/flight-deck-barriers at this heading)
Ensuring that no terrorist—domestic or international—breaches another aircraft flight deck door again should be one of this nation's highest security priorities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/flight-deck-barriers
The health and wellbeing of pilots is central to aviation safety.
For too long, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) lengthy medical certification and review process has contributed to a culture of silence surrounding mental health issues.
Airline pilots undergo thorough vetting and medical exams throughout their careers, and ALPA supports these rigorous standards.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-mental-health at this heading) · “Pilot Mental Health” on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy at this heading)
Raising the pilot retirement age in the United States would create significant uncertainty for airlines and their workers—without improving pilot availability.
Pilot Retirement Age FAQ ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-retirement-age at this heading)
Raising the retirement age would complicate airline operations, disrupt pilot career progression, and increase costs—all without adding pilots to the workforce.
Pilot Voices ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-retirement-age at this heading)
Increasing the pilot retirement age will disrupt airline operations, raise ticket prices, upend collective bargaining agreements, create a cascading and costly training backlog, and put the United States out of compliance with international standards.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-retirement-age
Cutting pilot training hours or weakening qualification requirements undermines decades of progress and puts passengers and crews at risk.
Inadequate Training Incidents ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-training at this heading)
Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, N.Y., killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground.
Investigators found that inadequate pilot training contributed to the accident, leading Congress to pass the Airline Safety Act of 2010, which established the current training standards.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/pilot-training
As operations such as uncrewed aerial systems, drones, "flying taxis," and commercial space launches expand, considerations must be taken to safely integrate these users into the national airspace system.
The Growing Impact of Commercial Space on Air Travel ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/safe-integration-of-new-airspace-users at this heading)
orbital space launches occurred in the United States in 2024—up 40% from 2023.
The growth of commercial spaceflight presents new challenges for airline pilots and other users of the national airspace system (NAS).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/safe-integration-of-new-airspace-users
New entrants such as uncrewed aerial systems, drones, Advanced Air Mobility platforms like “flying taxis,” and commercial space launches are becoming increasingly common in the nation’s airspace.
It is critically important for all users to meet the high level of safety, scrutiny, and oversight that is demanded of commercial aviation.
We embrace technological advances that can improve safety and efficiency.
We are committed to working collaboratively with industry, regulators, and other stakeholders to open the national airspace to additional users, but this integration must not introduce risk that could negatively affect safety for commercial aviation and the flying public.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/safe-integration-of-new-airspace-users
The rapid growth of commercial spaceflight presents new challenges for airline pilots and air traffic controllers.
ALPA strongly advocates for the safe integration of commercial space operations into the national airspace system without compromising aviation safety.
A data-driven, risk-based approach—modeled after proven aviation safety practices—is essential to integrating commercial spaceflight while maintaining the highest safety standards for airline passengers and crews.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/safe-integration-of-new-airspace-users
TSA-trained and deputized pilots provide a critical layer of defense to the U.S. national aviation security system.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities
TSA-trained and deputized airline pilots serve as a critical layer of defense against security threats—but funding challenges limit the program’s effectiveness.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/federal-flight-deck-officer-program
Unfair business practices by foreign carriers undermine the stability of the U.S. airline industry, put aviation safety at risk, and disadvantage American workers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities
Canadian airline pilots deserve flight- and duty-time regulations that prioritize safety, prevent fatigue, and protect passengers and crew.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities
A strong Canadian airline industry depends on workers and employers negotiating in good faith—without government interference.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities
Cabin air quality is an important safety and health issue for airline crews and passengers.
Contaminated air can lead to serious in-flight medical symptoms, impair pilot performance, and compromise aviation safety.
Numerous substances can degrade cabin air quality, including pyrolyzed engine oils, hydraulic fluids, and other airborne toxins.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/cabin-air-quality
To address the risks associated with contaminated cabin air, the following actions must be taken:
- Conduct medical research to develop tests that detect toxic chemical exposure after a cabin air quality event and document the health risks of both acute and chronic exposure.
- Install smoke, fume, and fire detection systems in all current and future transport-category aircraft. Full-face oxygen masks and equipment that allow pilots to see flight instruments during smoke-filled events should also be mandatory.
- Equip aircraft with air quality sensors capable of real-time in-flight monitoring to detect contamination and improve response measures.
- Develop new engine and systems technologies to prevent oils and lubricants from entering bleed air systems and exposing crews and passengers to harmful contaminants.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/cabin-air-quality
Cabin air contamination is one of many health risks pilots face.
Stronger protections are needed to ensure safe working conditions in the flight deck and cabin.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/cabin-air-quality
The Cabin Air Safety Act takes important steps to protect flight crews and the flying public from air contaminant events, which can have serious adverse health effects.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · alpa.org/advocacy/our-priorities/cabin-air-quality
Heading as listed on alpa.org/advocacy ↗ (opens alpa.org/advocacy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 196 | $1,218,000 | $0 | $1,218,000 | 67% |
| Republican | 106 | $535,500 | $0 | $535,500 | 29% |
| Other or unresolved | 18 | $71,500 | $0 | $71,500 | 3.9% |
| Shown support | 320 | $1,825,000 | $0 | $1,825,000 | 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 | $1.2M · 21% |
| Republican candidates | 104 | $524.5K · 9.2% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 20 | $82.5K · 1.5% |
| Democratic party committees | 2 | $420K · 7.4% |
| Republican party committees | 1 | $210K · 3.7% |
| Other PACs and committees | 179 | $3.2M · 57% |
| All recipients | 503 | $5.7M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 48 | $299.5K |
| New York | 19 | $146.5K |
| Florida | 18 | $89.5K |
| Texas | 21 | $84.5K |
| Illinois | 14 | $83.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | $71.5K |
| Ohio | 11 | $68.5K |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 32,588 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.4M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Each as the committee named it on this line.
Total reported receipts $5,947,868
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 |
|---|---|
| 2,777 contributions · 8.4% | $204,721 |
| 2,739 contributions · 8.2% |
Total reported disbursements $6,092,995
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.
$6.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $888.2K, March 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.
Besides giving through its PAC, Air Line Pilots 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. $1.5M is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION”. 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.
Air Line Pilots Association PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names Air Line Pilots 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.
Air Line Pilots Association PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| North Carolina | 14 | $67K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 48 states.
Bars drawn to $500K, 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 |
|---|---|
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to MULLIN VICTORY FUND · 1 payment | $2.5K |
$2.5K 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 |
|---|---|
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · Connected to MINNESOTA SECOND DISTRICT VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $500K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to WINSENATE · 5 payments | $500K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 4 payments | $300K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 4 payments | $290K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 6 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 6 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 6 payments | $210K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to KIM VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $100K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $70K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $50K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $50K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · Connected to EMILY'S LIST · 2 payments | $50K |
$5.7M across 500 recipient committees, or 93% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $5K 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.
| $200,355 |
| 2,513 contributions · 8.1% | $197,975 |
| 2,214 contributions · 7.6% | $185,928 |
| 2,609 contributions · 7.3% | $176,411 |
| 1,578 contributions · 5.3% | $128,814 |
| 1,923 contributions · 5.3% | $128,797 |
| 1,562 contributions · 4.5% | $109,792 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 17,028 contributions · 50% of ranked | $1,214,398 |
| 8,080 contributions · 25% of ranked | $602,205 |
| 1,814 contributions · 6.8% of ranked | $164,965 |
| 2,294 contributions · 6.1% of ranked | $148,191 |
| 748 contributions · 2.9% of ranked | $69,645 |
| 813 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $69,292 |
| 647 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $42,175 |
| 327 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $29,651 |
A further $786 came from donors whose answer names no employer (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 ($3,284,255) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 32,377 contributions · 99% of ranked | $2,400,776 |
| 2 contributions · 0.2% of ranked | $3,862 |
| 7 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $3,374 |
| 18 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,970 |
| 18 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,880 |
| 18 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,880 |
| 18 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,880 |
| 18 contributions · 0.1% of ranked | $2,880 |
A further $786 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 ($3,284,255) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $5,790,465
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 1,167 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 4 payments · 8.2% of all spending | $500,000 |
| 5 payments · 8.2% of all spending | $500,000 |
| 4 payments · 4.9% of all spending | $300,000 |
| 4 payments · 4.8% of all spending | $290,000 |
| 6 payments · 3.4% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 6 payments · 3.4% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 6 payments · 3.4% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $100,000 |
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.