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 C00089458 · files monthly
“The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association is the leading voice and advocate for the aggregates industry. We advance public policies that protect and expand the safe, environmentally responsible use of aggregates that are essential to America’s infrastructure, energy production, manufacturing and economic prosperity.”
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the organization this committee is the political fund of, nssga.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.
20 priorities from the site of National Stone, Sand and Gravel 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.
The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association’s vision is a favorable public policy and regulatory environment that fosters business growth for the aggregates and construction materials industries.
We are committed to rebuilding the nation’s aging infrastructure, increasing domestic energy production and providing the essential materials needed to manufacture countless consumer goods to ensure America’s economic prosperity and global competitiveness in the 21st century and beyond.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/who-we-are/about-us
It is crucial for communities located near federal lands to access the resources necessary for building and maintaining roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, homes and businesses.
NSSGA has long opposed unprincipled efforts to withdraw or impede mining rights on federal lands, where aggregate and industrial sand operations responsibly supply these construction materials.
Additional legislative or regulatory hurdles, including enacting withdrawal proposals, would significantly increase the cost of public works projects by creating the need to import the stone, sand and gravel required to develop and repair infrastructure and buildings.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/access-aggregates
The nation’s supply chain and rail networks are currently failing the aggregates and industrial sand industries.
We support pragmatic, durable and commonsense solutions to resolve these issues.
We support the reforms being examined by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) that would increase competition (particularly to smaller, rural, and underserved communities) and transparency to improve rail service.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/access-aggregates
NSSGA strongly supported the inclusion of Section 11526 in IIJA, which established a working group to examine and produce policies that ensure our nation has sustainable access to quality and proximate aggregate resources.
This provision was similar to the bipartisan legislation, Rebuilding Our Communities by Keeping Aggregates Sustainable (ROCKS) Act, which was championed by Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ), Rep. Troy Balderson (OH), Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ) and Sen. Rob Portman (OH).
While states like Arizona and Minnesota have acted to institute policies that ensure proper planning to maintain sustainable aggregate supplies, the federal government must also be involved in this planning.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/access-aggregates
In the face of global economic challenges, it is critical that action be taken to support our nation’s domestic oil and gas industry and the workers and businesses that supply it.
NSSGA encourages an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that allows for greater investment in domestic production and supply of energy resources to normalize the availability and cost of energy inputs.
Aggregates and industrial sand producers face volatile, ever-changing fuel costs that hamper our ability to reliably produce materials.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/energy
NSSGA members are leaders in taking aggressive action to protect our environment and produce construction materials responsibly and sustainably.
NSSGA supports science-based federal standards that protect public health and the environment and provide economic opportunity.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/environment
Demand for aggregates and industrial sand to support renewable energy development is rapidly increasing.
Innovative infrastructure projects are essential for enhancing community resiliency.
Aggregate operations efficiently use energy, and greenhouse gas emissions at aggregates facilities are inherently low.
However, member companies continue to make improvements, such as promoting recycling and investing in fuel-efficient mobile equipment.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/environment
Permitting Reform: All infrastructure projects, from roads and bridges to energy, housing, manufacturing and water systems, rely on a reliable local aggregate supply. Yet today’s permitting system often causes long delays, duplicative reviews and ongoing legal uncertainty, driving up costs and preventing projects from moving forward, even after years of review. NSSGA supports broad, bipartisan permitting reform that includes project certainty and is project-agnostic. A core principle of reform must be to include project certainty — once a project has completed a thorough permitting process and received approval, it should proceed without indefinite delay or repeated challenges, including from presidential administrations. A second core principle must be project-agnostic support for all infrastructure types. Permitting reform is not about weakening environmental protections; it is about ensuring decisions are timely, durable and respected so that critical projects can be built. We have seen policies shift between administrations, and we urgently need Congress to step in and provide the long-term certainty businesses need.
Waters of the US (WOTUS) Definition: Producers need clean water and clear rules to provide aggregates and industrial sand in a timely and responsible manner for vital infrastructure and environmental projects. NSSGA proudly supported the proposed definition by the EPA and Army Corps in December 2025. NSSGA believes a proper balance can be struck to protect federal waters responsibly, while allowing state control of land use, as intended under the Clean Water Act.
Particulate Matter (PM) Rule: In 2024, the EPA reduced the PM (PM2.5) standard to a level that could send many locations in the U.S. into a nonattainment status. This could create problems for aggregates and industrial sand operators by imposing new requirements on existing operations and make permitting new operations difficult in these areas. NSSGA supports the Trump administration’s delay in non-attainment designation due to data uncertainty.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/environment
Those working in the aggregates and industrial sand industries take great pride in safely and efficiently supplying the nation with vital building materials.
Health and safety are industry values inherent in the daily routines at our facilities, at our customers’ sites and within our communities.
NSSGA works to ensure our products can meet varying market demands and strict specifications, as efficiently as possible, to keep costs low for customers and taxpayers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/health-safety
While IIJA took a historic step in addressing our nation’s infrastructure challenges, there are still notable areas where Congress must act to ensure America does not fall further behind.
With the surface transportation authorization set to expire in September 2026, Congress must act in the 119th Congress to build upon this key legislation in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Below are the specific issues NSSGA continues to work on within this topic.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/implementation-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act
At all stages of implementation, we encourage every federal agency to efficiently execute and deliver IIJA’s investment to project planners.
Below are the specific issues NSSGA is advocating for within this topic:
- Highway Trust Fund Solvency: While we applauded Congress for providing five more years of solvency for the Highway Trust Fund, Congress must look beyond that timeframe to ensure long-term solvency. To avoid a devastating shortfall, the next surface transportation reauthorization bill must incorporate visionary and evolutionary revenue increases. NSSGA supports sustainable revenue sources to adequately fund needed investments and create financial certainty, including vehicle-miles-traveled (VMTs), bonding measures, registration fees for electric vehicles, national registration fee and the raising and indexing of the federal gas tax, which has been unchanged for over 30 years. As discussions about the Highway Trust Fund unfold, we at NSSGA advocate for a comprehensive consideration of all potential funding methods. It’s crucial to explore sustainable and stable funding sources while explicitly avoiding reliance on yearly appropriations, which could jeopardize the consistency and effectiveness of infrastructure investments.
- Material Neutrality: NSSGA strongly believes Congress should maintain a material-neutral approach and not legislate market share. NSSGA opposes attempts by competing materials to utilize legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act, the Farm Bill and appropriations bills to promote market share by establishing material-specific deployment programs. When executing federal investments, material choice decisions should be left to engineers and construction professionals who have the expertise and local knowledge to plan and successfully execute projects.
- Buy American Exclusion Implementation: In August 2023, OMB issued final guidance and an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations implementing the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA). The OMB guidance recognizes the Section 70917(c) exemption of “cement and cementitious materials, aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel, or aggregate binding agents or additives,” as well as wet concrete and asphalt. Implementation challenges continue to persist, as State DOTs and other procurement authorities work to develop compliant procurement regimes. Reasonable guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on BABAA certification forms and processes is needed to remove certification form confusion, inconsistency and delay. Moreover, FHWA guidance is needed to clarify BABAA compliance at the APL/QPLs level. OMB’s intention to regularly convene “inter-agency workgroups” to ensure “that federal agencies implement BABAA in a consistent, uniform, efficient and transparent manner” should include participation by State DOTs to hasten consistent BABAA implementation across all states.
- Rail Service Reform: The nation’s supply chain and rail networks are currently failing the aggregates and industrial sand industries. We support pragmatic, durable and commonsense solutions to resolve these issues. We support the reforms being examined by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) that would increase competition (particularly to smaller, rural, and underserved communities) and transparency to improve rail service. We support Congressional legislative efforts to reauthorize the STB, providing the agency with the tools to level the playing field between shippers and carriers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/implementation-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act
NSSGA applauded Congress for passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in the 117th Congress.
The aggregates industry is working to deliver the billions of tons of construction materials needed to build, repair and maintain the roads, bridges, tunnels, rail, transit, ports, energy facilities (including solar and wind), water conveyance systems, broadband capacity and public works project funded through IIJA.
At all stages of implementation, we encourage every federal agency to efficiently execute and deliver IIJA’s investment to project planners.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nssga.org/industry-priorities/implementation-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act
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 | $764,500 | $0 | $764,500 | 71% |
| Democratic | 56 | $238,500 | $0 | $238,500 | 22% |
| Other or unresolved | 21 | $70,500 | $0 | $70,500 | 6.6% |
| Shown support | 228 | $1,073,500 | $0 | $1,073,500 | 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 | 55 | $237.5K · 15% |
| Republican candidates | 153 | $764K · 48% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 23 | $79K · 5% |
| Democratic party committees | 2 | $60K · 3.8% |
| Republican party committees | 3 | $90K · 5.7% |
| Other PACs and committees | 59 | $359K · 23% |
| All recipients | 295 | $1.6M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 13 | $83.5K |
| Texas | 18 | $59K |
| New York | 9 | $55.5K |
| Ohio | 9 | $52K |
| Michigan | 8 | $51K |
| Florida | 13 | $47.5K |
| North Carolina | 10 | $45.5K |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 1,980 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.5M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 7 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 $1,662,473
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 |
|---|---|
| 448 contributions · 19% | $289,452 |
| 189 contributions · 8.2% | $125,050 |
| 180 contributions · 7% | $107,270 |
Total reported disbursements $1,633,761
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 $1,609,821
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 559 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
$1.6M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $378.1K, 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.
No lobbying disclosures matched
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ROCKPAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names National Stone, Sand & Gravel 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.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ROCKPAC 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.
| Pennsylvania |
|---|
| 7 |
| $40.5K |
The largest 8 of 48 states.
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) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CALPORTLAND COMPANY · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to AMRIZE NORTH AMERICA INC. · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to PECKHAM INDUSTRIES, INC. FEDERAL PAC · 2 payments | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY · 1 payment | $5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CRH AMERICAS, INC. · 1 payment | $5K |
$55K from 7 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 · 3 payments | $45K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 1 payment | $15K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 1 payment | $15K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to ASHLEY HINSON VICTORY COMMITTEE · 3 payments | $15K |
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.
| $94,400 |
| 47 contributions · 4.7% | $72,600 |
| 64 contributions · 4.7% | $72,550 |
| 72 contributions · 4.5% | $69,100 |
| 79 contributions · 4.1% | $62,725 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1,051 contributions · 37% of ranked | $555,752 |
| 63 contributions · 5.6% of ranked | $84,525 |
| 31 contributions · 4.5% of ranked | $67,650 |
| 25 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $48,400 |
| 34 contributions · 3% of ranked | $45,200 |
| 16 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $38,500 |
| 77 contributions · 2.5% of ranked | $38,050 |
| 22 contributions · 1.8% of ranked | $27,300 |
A further $600 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 ($17,199) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 66 contributions · 12% of ranked | $150,700 |
| 203 contributions · 8.7% of ranked | $111,900 |
| 10 contributions · 3.9% of ranked | $50,000 |
| 45 contributions · 3.9% of ranked | $49,905 |
| 144 contributions · 3.8% of ranked | $48,850 |
| 13 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $35,000 |
| 13 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $33,800 |
| 13 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $32,900 |
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 ($17,199) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 3 payments · 2.8% of all spending | $45,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 8 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $21,321 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
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.
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments |
| $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BARRASSO · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BOOZMAN · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$1.6M across 297 recipient committees, or 97% 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.