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 C00082917 · files monthly
“No other organization is more effective or visible than the Associated General Contractors of America in advancing the interests of the construction industry across all commercial sectors. From Capitol Hill to federal agencies and the White House, AGC works directly with elected officials, staff, and regulators to shape policies that support a stronger, more predictable and pro-growth climate for construction. It’s why decisionmakers consistently turn to AGC first for insight on how legislation and regulations will impact the industry.”
Associated General Contractors of America 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.
15 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.
The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate work better when they include champions for construction—AGC PAC helps elect them.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org
Heading as listed on advocacy.agc.org ↗ (opens advocacy.agc.org at this heading)
Every two years, AGC of America outlines a set of federal legislative and regulatory priorities designed to strengthen and support the construction industry.
Developed in collaboration with association leaders from across the country and industry divisions, these priorities reflect the most pressing challenges and opportunities facing contractors today.
From workforce development and infrastructure investment to tax policy and regulatory reform, AGC’s 2025–2026 policy principles aim to create a stable, competitive environment where construction businesses can grow, innovate, and thrive.
Below are our top 10 policy principles:
- Increase Investment in and Incentives for Public and Private Construction to Support Jobs and Economic Growth
- Improve the Pipeline for a Safe, Trained and Diverse Construction Workforce
- Preserve the Delicate Balance in Federal Labor Policy that Permits Employees to Freely Choose to Engage in Collective Bargaining and that Allows Employers to Maintain Operations Free of Unwarranted Disruptions
- Advance Policies that Mitigate Supply Chain Challenges and Address Cost Increases and Project Delays
- Ensure that Tax and Fiscal Policies Promote Entrepreneurialism and Long-Term Economic Growth
- Support Regulations, Policies, Guidance, and Executive Orders that Are Necessary, Cost-Effective, and Practical
- Streamline The Federal Procurement Process to Save Money, Increase Competition and Improve Opportunities for Small Business
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/priorities
Below is a concise, action-focused blueprint to strengthen the Highway Trust Fund, speed up project delivery, keep workers safe, and meet growing mobility needs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
Federal funding for roads, bridges, and transit systems is derived from revenues generated by the gas tax, diesel tax, and other trucking user fees which are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).
The HTF provides states and construction companies with long-term certainty to hire and train new employees, plan big projects, and invest in new construction equipment.
Over the years the HTF has lost purchasing power due to these user fees not being increased or indexed to inflation, improved fuel efficiency, the adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles (EV), higher maintenance costs due to the increasing weight of the general fleet, and increased costs associated with constructing roads and bridges.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
As each area of our country is diverse and unique, so are the transportation needs of each community.
When standardized transportation solutions do not work in a community, too often the contractor gets blamed despite often not being involved in the selection or design of a project.
States, local governments, and transit agencies need flexibility to address and prioritize their unique needs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
The IIJA provided a historic increase in funding to help states and local governments invest in their roads and bridges.
Unfortunately, some states have struggled to provide their required non-federal match.
Innovative financing tools can play an important role in improving our roads, bridges, and transit systems by helping to attract private sector investment.
They are intended to supplement, not replace, federal funding.
Congress should: ↗ (opens advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization at this heading)
Prohibit tolling revenue from being used for non-transportation purposes
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
An AGC survey found that 63% of highway contractors reported motor vehicles crashes in their construction work zones during the past year, putting motorists, workers, and state employees at risk.
The problem appears to be getting worse, with 97% of contractors reporting that highway work zones are either as dangerous, or more dangerous, than they were a year ago.
Congress, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have taken steps to ensure the safety of drivers and pedestrians – now it is time for them to focus on the people building the roads.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
AGC members are engaged in all types of construction, including roads, bridges, transit systems, and water projects.
The construction industry is working to improve the nation’s infrastructure thanks to the funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as well as other funding measures.
Unfortunately, too often these projects get tied up in delays in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, permitting process, or litigation challenging these environmental decisions.
Unfortunately, its implementation has not led to the intended simplification.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
Technology and innovation are dramatically reshaping the movement of people and freight and creating a more efficient transportation system.
Technology is also increasing productivity and enhancing quality within the construction industry.
Contractors widely use drones, project management software, automated machine guidance, 3D modeling, and other emerging technologies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program was originally established by regulation in 1980.
It plays a pivotal role in fostering diversity and inclusion in the construction industry by ensuring that certified small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals can compete for federally funded highway, public transit, and airport projects.
In the years since it was established, Congress included provisions in certain transportation laws, including most recently the IIJA, that created goals for a certain amount of federal funding to be expended through DBEs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
In the event of a potential ruling that renders the DBE program unlawful or necessitates significant reform, AGC recommends that any replacement or revised program should incorporate key elements that support small and emerging construction firms.
Construction firms face significant challenges, and it is in the best interest of the industry to maintain a strong and competitive pool of small and emerging firms.
If the existing DBE program is altered or replaced due to legal challenges rendering the program unlawful.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
Public transit is a key component of the nation’s transportation network, particularly in urban and regional areas.
To ensure public transit systems can meet growing demand and address future challenges.
Congress should: ↗ (opens advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization at this heading)
Increase funding for FTA’s Capital Investment Grants (CIG) to support the construction of new rail and bus rapid transit systems and expand existing networks
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · advocacy.agc.org/surface-transit-reauthorization
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 | 148 | $551,000 | $0 | $551,000 | 80% |
| Democratic | 30 | $110,000 | $0 | $110,000 | 16% |
| Other or unresolved | 8 | $27,000 | $0 | $27,000 | 3.9% |
| Shown support | 186 | $688,000 | $0 | $688,000 | 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 | 30 | $110K · 11% |
| Republican candidates | 148 | $551K · 55% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 8 | $27K · 2.7% |
| Republican party committees | 2 | $60K · 5.9% |
| Other PACs and committees | 31 | $262.5K · 26% |
| All recipients | 219 | $1M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | 14 | $45K |
| Michigan | 8 | $40K |
| North Carolina | 8 | $34.5K |
| California | 11 | $33.5K |
| Texas | 10 | $32.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 6 | $30K |
| Ohio | 7 | $28K |
| Louisiana | 5 | $27K |
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, 1,381 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 2 largest committees by total given are listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports. Here they come to $12.5K, more than the $10.5K this committee's own reports show on the line.
Each as the committee named it on this line.
Total reported receipts $1,138,435
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 |
|---|---|
| 96 contributions · 11% | $107,719 |
| 62 contributions · 7.7% | $79,331 |
| 138 contributions · 7% |
Total reported disbursements $1,021,351
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 $1,005,500
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 391 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 5 payments · 4.4% of all spending | $45,000 |
| 2 payments · 2.9% of all spending |
$1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $227.5K, March 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.
Late 30G report, 2000$600 assessed
Case 264 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, Associated General Contractors 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. $440K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA”, found by searching “ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS 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.
Associated General Contractors of America PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names Associated General Contractors of America 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.
Associated General Contractors of America 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.
Bars drawn to $45K, 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 PECKHAM INDUSTRIES, INC. FEDERAL PAC · 2 payments | $7.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $5K |
$12.5K 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 |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 5 payments | $45K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 1 payment | $15K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to TEAM ROGERS · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to COLLINS VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
$1M across 223 recipient committees, or 99% 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.
| $71,598 |
| 53 contributions · 7% | $71,556 |
| 69 contributions · 5.9% | $60,644 |
| 38 contributions · 4% | $41,060 |
| 13 contributions · 3.7% | $38,000 |
| 14 contributions · 3.3% | $34,015 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 312 contributions · 5.1% of ranked | $45,535 |
| 10 contributions · 3.6% of ranked | $32,000 |
| 6 contributions · 3.4% of ranked | $29,900 |
| 149 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $28,068 |
| 5 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $22,500 |
| 8 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $19,900 |
| 13 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $19,400 |
| 6 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $17,015 |
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 ($35,622) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 192 contributions · 26% of ranked | $262,573 |
| 101 contributions · 6.7% of ranked | $68,746 |
| 33 contributions · 6% of ranked | $61,244 |
| 35 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $47,881 |
| 45 contributions · 4.4% of ranked | $45,173 |
| 40 contributions · 3.1% of ranked | $31,430 |
| 9 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $28,500 |
| 25 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $24,136 |
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 ($35,622) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| $30,000 |
| 1 payment · 1.5% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 2 payments · 1% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 1% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 1% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 1% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 1% 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.