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 PACTrade associationArlington, VirginiaActive
Connected organization: National Apartment Association
Political fund of National Apartment Association
The National Apartment Association (NAA) is a non-profit trade association in the United States of apartment communities, owners and vendors. These member companies are also part of NAA with their membership at the local level. Members represent the various facets of the multifamily housing industry: apartment owners, management executives, developers, builders, investors, property managers, leasing consultants, maintenance personnel, vendors and related business professionals throughout the United States and Canada. NAA has its headquarters in Arlington, VA. Robert Pinnegar currently serves as the organization's president and chief executive officer. NAA lobbies for policies that benefit owners and operators. NAA also publishes a trade magazine, UNITS. (Linked public record: Wikipedia organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00113241 · files monthly
“As the leading voice for the apartment housing industry, NAA works to ensure that public policy does not impede but rather enhances the ability of apartment owners and operators to run their business and provide housing to one-third of Americans. Check out our 2025 Federal Priorities.”
National Apartment Association, the organization this committee is the political fund of, naahq.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.
32 priorities from the site of National Apartment 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.
A top goal of NAA’s advocacy on the “One Big Beautiful Bill” was to preserve elements of the 2017 tax law invaluable to rental housing providers.
These include reduced individual income tax rates, the 20-percent qualified business income deduction, and an increased estate-tax exemption.
All three were made permanent in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and will be invaluable to rental housing businesses.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/wins
Heading as listed on naahq.org/advocacy/wins ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/wins at this heading)
NAA's advocacy for the “One Big Beautiful Bill” included provisions to address the housing supply crisis.
The legislation made permanent an increase in Low Income Housing Tax Credits, lowered thresholds for tax-exempt bond financing, and expanded federal Opportunity Zones.
These provisions will help create thousands of new rental homes.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/wins
Heading as listed on naahq.org/advocacy/wins ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/wins at this heading)
While pressing for pro-rental housing provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” NAA also focused on preventing negative revenue proposals that could harm housing providers.
They urged lawmakers not to tax carried interest at ordinary income rates or restrict the deductibility of state and local business income and property taxes, among others.
Congress ultimately excluded these proposals from the bill.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/wins
Heading as listed on naahq.org/advocacy/wins ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/wins at this heading)
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/anti-squatting-legislation at this heading)
Squatting, or unlawfully occupying private property without a lease agreement, imposes significant costs and safety concerns on rental housing communities.
Squatting causes delayed turnover, lost rent, property damage, legal burdens and fundamentally violates the private property rights of providers.
In recent years, anti-squatter legislation has gained momentum as states respond to mounting concerns and its significant impact on housing affordability and availability.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/anti-squatting-legislation
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/artificial-intelligence at this heading)
Like virtually every industry, rental housing providers use emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), to enhance business operations, improve housing affordability and provide countless benefits to millions of American renters.
Today, seamless connectivity has allowed for AI and related technologies in rental housing to have significant gains in meeting resident expectations and demand through virtual touring, more transparent and timely resident screening, leasing and communication, home automation, preventative maintenance, improved property level climate resilience, and more.
Industry Position ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/artificial-intelligence at this heading)
The National Apartment Association (NAA), alongside our partner the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), supports the use of AI to benefit rental housing providers and renters alike.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/artificial-intelligence
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/building-codes at this heading)
Building codes and standards establish minimum requirements for the design, construction, alteration and maintenance of apartment buildings.
The apartment industry supports the use of model codes and standards, which are developed and published by independent organizations, because they provide uniformity and relieve state and local jurisdictions from the burden of creating individual building codes.
Proposals often surface during the code development process, especially in the areas of fire safety, energy efficiency, and green building among others, that have practical impacts and impose tangible costs.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/building-codes
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/carried-interest at this heading)
Carried interest is a crucial tool for driving real estate investment and improving affordability long-term, spurring housing development, and promoting the growth of our built environment.
Many real estate professionals use this to drive innovation and commitment, due to the considerable financial risks involved in construction.
Rental housing development partnerships generally have a sponsor or general partner that is responsible for finding and negotiating opportunities, managing assets and business operations, sourcing capital, overseeing contractors and construction, and any other day-to-day needs to make the project a success.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/carried-interest
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/c-salt at this heading)
State and local property taxes represent, on average, 40 percent of the operating expenses of U.S. commercial real estate businesses.
In fact, property taxes are a greater expense than utilities, maintenance, and insurance costs combined – all of which have experienced significant increases over the past few years.
Such taxes paid by businesses are fundamentally different from state and local individual income taxes.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/c-salt
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/disparate-impact at this heading)
Disparate impact liability occurs when a business practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional.
Industry Position ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/disparate-impact at this heading)
The apartment industry is committed to equal housing opportunity for all without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, familial status or disability.
However, more clarity is needed on the applicability of disparate impact liability, as it could be used to undermine apartment providers' otherwise valid policies to ensure safe and decent housing for residents.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/disparate-impact
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/eviction-respect-state-housing-laws-act at this heading)
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act established a temporary 120-day moratorium on evictions due to nonpayment of rent, applicable to federally-backed and federally-assisted housing.
The law also required housing providers to notify covered residents 30 days before filing for eviction once the moratorium ended on July 24, 2020.
The Respect State Housing Laws Act, introduced as S. 470 and HR 1078 by Sens.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/eviction-respect-state-housing-laws-act
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/fire-safety at this heading)
Fire codes are an integral part of protecting human life and property through fire prevention and mitigation.
In support of this goal, the National Apartment Association (NAA) is committed to promoting fire safety in apartments across the nation, such as through dedicated fire safety education in our Certificate for Apartment Maintenance Technicians (CAMT) credential program.
When lawmakers look at amending or adopting fire codes, it is necessary to ensure that these regulations are practical, effective and do not result in negative unintended consequences.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/fire-safety
Overview ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/flood-insurance at this heading)
Floods are the most common natural disaster in the U.S. Authorized by Congress, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a critical tool for the rental industry to mitigate some of the financial risk posed by these tragedies.
Under existing law, rental housing in high-risk flood areas with federally regulated and insured mortgages must purchase flood insurance.
Industry Position ↗ (opens naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/flood-insurance at this heading)
Since federal law requires apartment owners with federally-backed mortgages to purchase flood insurance, the National Apartment Association (NAA), alongside our partner the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), supports the long-term reauthorization of the NFIP to prevent market disruption and support program reforms that will decrease flood risk for apartment communities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · naahq.org/advocacy/policy/issues/flood-insurance
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 | 144 | $751,500 | $0 | $751,500 | 62% |
| Democratic | 100 | $434,000 | $0 | $434,000 | 36% |
| Other or unresolved | 10 | $29,000 | $0 | $29,000 | 2.4% |
| Shown support | 254 | $1,214,500 | $0 | $1,214,500 | 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 | 101 | $445K · 22% |
| Republican candidates | 143 | $744K · 38% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 11 | $36.5K · 1.8% |
| Other party committees | 4 | $120K · 6.1% |
| Other PACs and committees | 97 | $637K · 32% |
| All recipients | 356 | $2M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Texas | 29 | $154K |
| California | 29 | $117.5K |
| New York | 18 | $89.5K |
| North Carolina | 12 | $57.5K |
| Missouri | 7 | $45.5K |
| Ohio | 11 | $42.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 9 | $40K |
| Illinois | 7 | $40K |
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, 2,183 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.5M. 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 $2,094,068
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 |
|---|---|
| 820 contributions · 40% | $576,871 |
| 136 contributions · 7% | $101,783 |
| 155 contributions · 5.2% | $75,603 |
| 116 contributions · 4.7% |
Total reported disbursements $2,094,839
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.
$2.1M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $184.9K, April 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, National Apartment 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. $866.2K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Oct 26, 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.
The National Apartment Association (NAA) is a non-profit trade association in the United States of apartment communities, owners and vendors. These member companies are also part of NAA with their membership at the local level. Members represent the various facets of the multifamily housing industry: apartment owners, management executives, developers, builders, investors, property managers, leasing consultants, maintenance personnel, vendors and related business professionals throughout the United States and Canada. NAA has its headquarters in Arlington, VA. Robert Pinnegar currently serves as the organization's president and chief executive officer. NAA lobbies for policies that benefit owners and operators. NAA also publishes a trade magazine, UNITS. Linked public record: Wikipedia organization profile.
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 Apartment 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.
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) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Hybrid PAC (nonqualified) · 3 payments | $11K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CORNYN · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 4 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to EMMER VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to CLARK · 3 payments | $10K |
From the 365 largest of 366 recipient committees: $2M, or 95% 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.
| $67,909 |
| 88 contributions · 4.6% | $67,344 |
| 78 contributions · 4.6% | $66,198 |
| 62 contributions · 3.4% | $49,360 |
| 108 contributions · 3.3% | $48,306 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 11 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $30,000 |
| 57 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $20,449 |
| 7 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $20,210 |
| 4 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 4 contributions · 2.1% of ranked | $20,000 |
| 48 contributions · 2% of ranked | $18,927 |
| 17 contributions · 2% of ranked | $18,887 |
| 4 contributions · 1.7% of ranked | $15,500 |
A further $8,177 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 ($239,347) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 133 contributions · 9.3% of ranked | $113,482 |
| 112 contributions · 8.8% of ranked | $106,713 |
| 71 contributions · 7.1% of ranked | $86,400 |
| 37 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $39,527 |
| 30 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $32,117 |
| 26 contributions · 2.2% of ranked | $27,179 |
| 33 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $18,925 |
| 39 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $18,903 |
A further $8,722 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (blank), so it is not ranked. 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 ($239,347) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $2,063,527
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 915 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 36 payments · 2.2% of all spending | $45,807 |
| 2 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 13 payments · 1.2% of all spending | $25,822 |
| 3 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $11,000 |
| 22 payments · 0.5% of all spending | $10,578 |
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.