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 C00089136 · files monthly
“Nicotine products play an important role in the everyday lives of our adult nicotine consumers 21+. They use nicotine products to provide a break, enhance a social moment with friends, reward themselves or offer a moment of indulgence. These everyday moments are easily overlooked, but they matter, and today our nicotine businesses are elevating them by:”
Altria Group, Inc., the organization this committee is the political fund of, altria.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.
2 priorities from the site of Altria Group, 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.
We advocate for harm reduction as the best policy framework to accelerate the U.S. toward a smoke-free future.
In our view, regulation of this industry must be rooted in the settled science that smoke, not nicotine, causes almost all tobacco-related death and disease.1 Rather than limit adult consumer choice, policymakers should focus on providing adult nicotine consumers 21+2 the information, choice and support they need to either quit or move to smoke-free products proven to be less harmful.3 We believe it’s only in regulated markets – not illicit markets – that regulators can hold all industry members accountable for driving down underage use.4
A smoke-free future can be achieved if the FDA adopts harm reduction as the proper framework of regulation, which would mean:
- authorizing a legal marketplace of smoke-free products to meet adult consumer demand;
- enforcing the law on any illicit market actors defying FDA authority;
- driving down underage use through active oversight of regulated industry;
- educating adult consumers on the benefits of FDA-authorized smoke-free products over cigarettes; and
- taking illicit markets seriously when considering any policies that limit, rather than expand, adult consumer choice.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
Here are our most important policy priorities, our rationale for engaging on these issues and specific examples of how we engaged on them in 2025.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
Harm reduction can’t succeed without building a robust marketplace of regulated smoke-free options.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
Harm reduction starts with preventing underage use of all tobacco products.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
A thriving underground market in tobacco and nicotine products is a serious threat to both effective regulation and public health.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
Along with fundamental reform of the pathways for authorized products to reach the market, we're advocating for the Food Drug and Administration (FDA), other federal agencies and the states to combat the illicit market through enhanced, coordinated, and sustained efforts and enforcement of existing laws.
Altria has led the industry for decades in advocating for strong enforcement tools to prevent the growth of illicit markets, including our active support for the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act and the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act, as well as for extensive licensing and other requirements that are now well-embedded at the state and local levels.
In response, in 2025 Altria:
- Communicated extensively with the FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other members of the federal multi-agency ENDS Enforcement Task Force on the need for a comprehensive enforcement plan focused on using the agency’s most powerful enforcement tools against the marketplace actors most responsible for building the illicit market.1
- Engaged with Congress on the urgent need for effective enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act, including support for legislative solutions to improve enforcement.
- Advocated for closing other major loopholes in the regulatory system, including the lack of any registration requirement for foreign manufacturers and methods of evading import review, and advocated for FDA to regulate nicotine analog products.
- Supported enactment of state legislation requiring all e-vapor manufacturers to verify compliance with the Tobacco Control Act enabling states to publish directories of products for legal sale, and numerous states have enacted laws along these lines. Five states enacted legislation to address this issue in 2025, bringing the total number to seventeen.2
- Successfully concluded litigation in California by NJOY that was brought against Chinese manufacturers and domestic distributors of illicit e-vapor products. Under the terms of the settlement, the manufacturers and distributors will cease sale of flavored disposable products in California and update their website and trade agreements to clearly indicate this prohibition.3
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions/combatting-illicit-markets-through-effective-enforcement
Tax policy continues to be an active area of interest for stakeholders.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/government-affairs/public-policy-positions
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated tobacco products since 2009.
Science- and evidence-based federal regulation will help address societal concerns about tobacco products and promote and protect public health.
Regulation can also provide significant benefits to adult nicotine consumers 21+ by:
- establishing a common set of rules for all tobacco manufacturers and importers doing business in the U.S.;
- providing a way to evaluate potentially less harmful tobacco products; and
- creating guidelines for accurate and scientifically grounded communications about tobacco products to adult nicotine consumers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · altria.com/about-altria/federal-regulation-of-tobacco
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 | 134 | $622,000 | $0 | $622,000 | 75% |
| Democratic | 46 | $190,000 | $0 | $190,000 | 23% |
| Other or unresolved | 10 | $21,000 | $0 | $21,000 | 2.5% |
| Shown support | 190 | $833,000 | $0 | $833,000 | 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 | 48 | $196.5K · 13% |
| Republican candidates | 134 | $618K · 41% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 13 | $29K · 1.9% |
| Democratic party committees | 1 | $5K · 0.3% |
| Republican party committees | 1 | $5K · 0.3% |
| Other party committees | 7 | $128.5K · 8.4% |
| Other PACs and committees | 82 | $543K · 36% |
| All recipients | 286 | $1.5M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia | 8 | $56.5K |
| North Carolina | 8 | $52K |
| Texas | 12 | $50K |
| California | 15 | $46.5K |
| Florida | 15 | $45.5K |
| Ohio | 7 | $45.5K |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 9,622 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.1M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Each loan as the committee’s report through Oct 14, 2026 lists it, with what is still owed. A loan from an earlier cycle can appear here, and one repaid in full drops off the report, so the list need not add up to the row.
Total reported receipts $1,861,315
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 |
|---|---|
| 7,506 contributions · 85% | $958,996 |
| 268 contributions · 2.2% | $25,330 |
| 234 contributions · 1.3% |
Total reported disbursements $1,851,888
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.
$1.9M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $165.3K, 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.
No lobbying disclosures matched
Altria Group, Inc. PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names Altria Group, 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.
Altria Group, Inc. 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.
| Louisiana | 6 | $43.5K |
|---|
| Kentucky | 7 | $41K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 44 states.
Bars drawn to $30K, 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.
No committee-to-committee receipts were itemized this cycle.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to SANFORD BISHOP CONGRESSIONAL FUND · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to AGUILAR · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to WINNING FOR AMERICA FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CORTEZ MASTO · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$1.5M across 290 recipient committees, or 82% 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.
| $15,252 |
| 44 contributions · 1.1% | $12,530 |
| 72 contributions · 1% | $10,976 |
| 76 contributions · 0.7% | $8,417 |
| 134 contributions · 0.7% | $8,278 |
| 95 contributions · 0.7% | $7,671 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 5,085 contributions · 58% of ranked | $655,496 |
| 2,837 contributions · 20% of ranked | $221,521 |
| 185 contributions · 9.6% of ranked | $108,761 |
| 722 contributions · 6.2% of ranked | $69,823 |
| 373 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $30,302 |
| 99 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $13,404 |
| 74 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $10,567 |
| 31 contributions · 0.9% of ranked | $9,773 |
A further $336 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 ($502,317) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 8 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $40,000 |
| 172 contributions · 3.5% of ranked | $34,045 |
| 451 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $27,174 |
| 42 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $17,076 |
| 88 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $16,606 |
| 39 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $16,130 |
| 79 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $14,908 |
| 36 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $13,380 |
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 ($502,317) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $1,526,090
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 640 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.6% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.5% 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.