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
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00038604 · files monthly
“Our mission is to promote safe, ethical lending to responsible, informed borrowers and to improve and protect consumers access to credit.
Founded in 1916, the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) is the primary trade association for the consumer credit industry, protecting access to credit and consumer choice. AFSA provides the consumer credit industry and the consumers it services with a voice in Washington, D.C., where the association is headquartered, and access to the media and investment community. It also provides policy advice and issues management at both the federal and state level.”
American Financial Services Association PAC, on its own site,
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.
2 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.
AFSA believes competition and innovation in the marketplace tend to reduce price, increase consumer choice and thus benefit consumers.
AFSA believes that regulation should be a collaborative process between regulators and the parties directly impacted by the proposed regulations.
Government, consumers and the credit industry can and should work together to promote lending that helps consumers meet their financial needs through affordable credit.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · afsaonline.org/about-afsa
Heading as listed on afsaonline.org/about-afsa ↗ (opens afsaonline.org/about-afsa at this heading)
We believe that clarity and transparency should be maximized in all credit transactions. Responsible lending is transparent lending.
Responsible underwriting procedures intended to make a reasonable assessment of the customerís ability to pay should be employed in any extension of credit.
The success of a consumer credit company should be based on the performance of its loans and the satisfaction of its customers. Responsible lenders do not look to benefit from loans that fail, nor that create a cycle of debt.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · afsaonline.org/about-afsa
Heading as listed on afsaonline.org/about-afsa ↗ (opens afsaonline.org/about-afsa at this heading)
Heading as listed on afsaonline.org/about-afsa ↗ (opens afsaonline.org/about-afsa at this heading)
July 23, 2025 The Honorable Tim Scott The Honorable Bryan Steil U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives 104 Hart Senate Office Building 1526 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515 RE: Support for Clarifying the Exemption of Business of Insurance from CFPB Regulation We, the undersigned U.S. trade associations, write to express our support for your legislation that would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to clarify the authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) with respect to the business of insurance.
Collectively, we represent a majority of the U.S companies and agents offering property-casualty, title, and life insurance and appreciate your timely introduction of this legislation.
As you are aware, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) exempted the business of insurance from the purview of the CFPB and reiterated that the regulation of insurance has been delegated to the states.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · afsaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Joint-Trades-Letter-of-Support-2025-Scott-Steil-Business-of-Insurance-Legislation.pdf
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 | 84 | $388,000 | $0 | $388,000 | 59% |
| Democratic | 54 | $239,500 | $0 | $239,500 | 36% |
| Other or unresolved | 15 | $30,000 | $0 | $30,000 | 4.6% |
| Shown support | 153 | $657,500 | $0 | $657,500 | 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 | 54 | $239.5K · 21% |
| Republican candidates | 82 | $383.5K · 34% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 17 | $34.5K · 3% |
| Democratic party committees | 1 | $1K · <0.1% |
| Republican party committees | 1 | $60K · 5.3% |
| Other party committees | 3 | $90K · 7.9% |
| Other PACs and committees | 62 | $326.5K · 29% |
| All recipients | 220 | $1.1M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 11 | $48K |
| New York | 10 | $42.5K |
| South Carolina | 7 | $42K |
| Florida | 10 | $39.5K |
| Texas | 9 | $37.5K |
| New Jersey | 5 |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 1,760 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $911.6K. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 10 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Each as the committee named it on this line.
Total reported receipts $1,154,498
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 |
|---|---|
| 172 contributions · 14% | $131,869 |
| 338 contributions · 14% | $125,332 |
| 137 contributions · 13% | $115,611 |
| 51 contributions · 9.5% | $86,929 |
| 63 contributions · 7.5% |
Total reported disbursements $1,145,778
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.
Total itemized disbursements $1,118,717
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 530 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
$1.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $206.1K, 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.
2014 cycleReport released Aug 15, 2017
Late M3 report, 2024$3.3K assessed
Case 4699 at the FEC ↗Late M9 report, 2008$162 assessed
Case 1885 at the FEC ↗Late M7 report, 2008$262 assessed
Case 1874 at the FEC ↗Late M6 report, 2008$1.2K assessed
Case 1831 at the FEC ↗Late M5 report, 2008$800 assessed
Case 1824 at the FEC ↗Late M11 report, 2007$100 assessed
Case 1766 at the FEC ↗Late YE report, 2006$170 assessed
Case 1697 at the FEC ↗Late 12G report, 2002$1K assessed
Case 808 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, American Financial Services 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. $11K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 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.
American Financial Services Association PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). Its FEC record names American Financial Services 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.
American Financial Services Association PAC 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.
| North Carolina | 8 | $25K |
|---|
| Louisiana | 5 | $24K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 42 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 FORD MOTOR COMPANY · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to JM FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC. · 4 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC. · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. · 1 payment | $2.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA INC. · 1 payment | $2.5K |
$75K from 10 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) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 4 payments | $60K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 3 payments | $45K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 3 payments | $15K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
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.
| $67,925 |
| 131 contributions · 6.7% | $61,490 |
| 236 contributions · 5.5% | $50,126 |
| 45 contributions · 3.7% | $34,005 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 745 contributions · 19% of ranked | $171,584 |
| 77 contributions · 16% of ranked | $144,270 |
| 78 contributions · 14% of ranked | $127,424 |
| 69 contributions · 4.3% of ranked | $39,135 |
| 16 contributions · 3.8% of ranked | $34,200 |
| 356 contributions · 3.5% of ranked | $31,911 |
| 16 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $21,500 |
| 110 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $20,048 |
A further $5,050 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 ($119,885) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 20 contributions · 6.1% of ranked | $54,995 |
| 13 contributions · 4.6% of ranked | $41,500 |
| 94 contributions · 4.3% of ranked | $38,953 |
| 324 contributions · 4.2% of ranked | $37,665 |
| 230 contributions · 3.5% of ranked | $31,377 |
| 122 contributions · 3% of ranked | $27,215 |
| 5 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $22,500 |
| 6 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $21,675 |
A further $5,050 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 ($119,885) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Name |
|---|
| Amount |
|---|
| 4 payments · 5.2% of all spending | $60,000 |
| 3 payments · 3.9% of all spending | $45,000 |
| 2 payments · 2.6% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 3 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $10,000 |
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 CORTEZ MASTO · 2 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
$1.1M across 228 recipient committees, or 99% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown.