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 associationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: National Multifamily Housing Council
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00130773 · files monthly
“Based in Washington, D.C., the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) is where rental housers and suppliers come together to help meet America’s housing needs by creating inclusive and resilient communities where people build their lives. NMHC provides a forum for leadership and advocacy that promotes thriving rental housing communities for all.”
National Multifamily Housing Council & Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center PAC, on its own site, nmhc.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.
6 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.
Our nation is facing a widespread affordability challenge, and Americans are struggling with housing costs driven by a lack of supply.
Policies impacting capital access, taxes, property operations, technological innovation, and development and construction help rental housing providers deliver and maintain quality, affordable housing.
We urge Congress and the Trump Administration to ensure that apartment providers can continue this work and meet the long-term housing needs of the 40 million Americans who call an apartment home.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/advocacy/nmhc-primary-policy-priorities-and-goals
Policymakers must weigh the need for changes to federal housing policy with the costs of overregulation that inhibit supply and increase the cost of housing.
Eliminate Federal Overreach in States’ Eviction Policy: The pandemic-era CARES Act continues to create confusion in eviction courts nationwide, has led to more lost rent that housing providers may never recover and increased renters’ consumer credit risk. Policymakers must eliminate any ambiguity that the federal CARES Act notice to vacate requirement has expired.
Streamline and Reform Housing Programs and Regulations: Lawmakers and regulators should act to remove unnecessary barriers, such as those hamstringing the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program which is crucial to incentivizing provider participation and ensuring residents are efficiently served.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/advocacy/nmhc-primary-policy-priorities-and-goals
Apartments are a capital-intensive business that require a diversity of debt sources to provide mortgage financing for a wide array of properties.
Almost nothing has the ability to impact the health of the apartment industry like reliable access to credit.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/industry-topics/finance-and-capital-markets
Apartment residents increasingly want more, better, and faster telecommunications services, making reliable, competitively priced telecommunications services a priority for apartment firms.
NMHC works to keep firms informed of the latest developments and to advocate on behalf of the industry with Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/industry-topics/Technology-and-Telecommunications
Bulk billing agreements are pro-consumer arrangements between internet service providers (ISPs) and owners and operators of rental housing that leverage bulk purchasing to provide affordable, fast and reliable internet access to apartment residents.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/industry-topics/Technology-and-Telecommunications
The apartment industry is committed to providing safe, healthy housing for its 37 million residents and that includes adhering to strict environmental codes governing lead-based paint.
Given that existing regulations have successfully reduced lead exposure, the industry opposes efforts to needlessly expand regulations to all public and commercial buildings, regardless of age, when no public health reason supports it.
Read our Fact Sheet to learn more.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nmhc.org/industry-topics/indoor-environmental-issues/lead-based-paint
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 110 | $672,500 | $0 | $672,500 | 49% |
| Republican | 113 | $651,000 | $0 | $651,000 | 47% |
| Other or unresolved | 16 | $59,500 | $0 | $59,500 | 4.3% |
| Shown support | 239 | $1,383,000 | $0 | $1,383,000 | 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 | 109 | $669K · 20% |
| Republican candidates | 111 | $644K · 19% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 19 | $70K · 2.1% |
| Other party committees | 4 | $745K · 22% |
| Other PACs and committees | 157 | $1.2M · 37% |
| All recipients | 400 | $3.4M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 24 | $149K |
| New York | 17 | $109K |
| Texas | 17 | $94K |
| Ohio | 12 | $85K |
| Pennsylvania | 12 | $63K |
| Florida | 14 | $57K |
| Illinois | 7 | $52.5K |
| Michigan | 6 | $39K |
The largest 8 of 49 states.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 2,092 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $2.7M. 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 $3,078,440
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 |
|---|---|
| 301 contributions · 19% | $505,115 |
| 279 contributions · 15% | $415,189 |
| 127 contributions · 7% | $188,245 |
| 102 contributions · 6.7% | $180,450 |
Total reported disbursements $3,796,016
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.
$3.8M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $422.2K, February 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
National Multifamily Housing Council & Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names National Multifamily Housing Council 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 Multifamily Housing Council & Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
Bars drawn to $210K, 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) · 8 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 6 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 6 payments | $210K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $115K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $65K |
| PAC (nonqualified) · 3 payments | $65K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SMITH VICTORY · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · Connected to MCMORRIS RODGERS WIN THE FUTURE FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to RICKETTS · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to ROUNDS · 3 payments | $10K |
$3.4M across 405 recipient committees, or 89% 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.
| 98 contributions · 5.7% |
| $154,226 |
| 118 contributions · 5.3% | $142,250 |
| 109 contributions · 4.9% | $131,535 |
| 65 contributions · 4.4% | $119,575 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 61 contributions · 5.9% of ranked | $157,100 |
| 122 contributions · 5.3% of ranked | $142,350 |
| 109 contributions · 4.9% of ranked | $131,654 |
| 60 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $126,350 |
| 101 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $125,500 |
| 60 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $99,720 |
| 63 contributions · 3.5% of ranked | $92,250 |
| 69 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $61,500 |
A further $7,100 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 ($75,298) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 99 contributions · 8% of ranked | $181,350 |
| 117 contributions · 5.5% of ranked | $124,595 |
| 36 contributions · 5.2% of ranked | $119,500 |
| 39 contributions · 5.2% of ranked | $118,075 |
| 72 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $93,795 |
| 15 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $73,000 |
| 17 contributions · 3% of ranked | $69,500 |
| 20 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $59,600 |
A further $7,100 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 ($75,298) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $3,339,637
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 834 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 8 payments · 5.5% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 6 payments · 5.5% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 6 payments · 5.5% of all spending | $210,000 |
| 4 payments · 3% of all spending | $115,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.7% of all spending | $65,000 |
| 3 payments · 1.7% of all spending | $65,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.3% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.3% 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.