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 C00144766 · files monthly
“The purpose of the National Beer Wholesalers Association is to provide leadership, which enhances the independent beer and beverage distribution industry; to advocate before government and the public; to encourage the responsible consumption of alcohol; and to provide programs and services that will benefit its members.”
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC, on its own site, nbwa.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.
NBWA educates lawmakers, agencies and regulators on the value of state-based alcohol regulation as well as the economic and regulatory issues that impact beer and beverage distributors.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/priorities
NBWA educates local and federal officials and regulators on the value of state-based alcohol regulation as well as the economic and regulatory issues that impact America’s beer distributors, who are local family-owned businesses that service every state and congressional district throughout the United States.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org ↗ (opens nbwa.org at this heading) · “Our Priorities” on nbwa.org ↗ (opens nbwa.org at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The 2025 tax bill made the 20% 199A deduction permanent, providing much-needed parity and certainty for Main Street businesses.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Tax certainty is important to multi-generational, family-owned businesses like beer and beverage distributors, the vast majority of which are organized as S-Corps.
One of the most impactful tax provisions for these local businesses: the 20% pass-through deduction of qualified business income under Section 199A.
Maintaining this deduction is essential to:
- Investing in critical new equipment and technology
- Growing employee wages and supporting community initiatives
- Competitiveness, fairness and parity with Wall Street corporations
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/maintaining-tax-certainty-for-main-street at this heading)
Investing in critical new equipment and technology
Growing employee wages and supporting community initiatives
Competitiveness, fairness and parity with Wall Street corporations
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/maintaining-tax-certainty-for-main-street
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
America’s state-based alcohol regulatory system, complemented by federal policy, has produced the world’s safest and most competitive alcohol marketplace.
Efforts to undermine this system could erode public safety and consumer choice.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Established by the 21st Amendment, America’s successful alcohol regulatory structure carefully balances control and access through a three-tier distribution system of licensed businesses (see above).
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Congress Should: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/effective-alcohol-regulation at this heading)
House Members should join the 21st Amendment Caucus
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/effective-alcohol-regulation
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Heading as listed on nbwa.org ↗ (opens nbwa.org at this heading)
Chain of custody enables product integrity
- Local authority enables communities to decide how alcohol is sold and regulated
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Local authority enables communities to decide how alcohol is sold and regulated
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/effective-alcohol-regulation
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Suppliers of all sizes — including small, local brewers — have access to the market
- The result: 9,000 breweries and unparalleled consumer choice
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
The result: 9,000 breweries and unparalleled consumer choice
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/effective-alcohol-regulation
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Efficient collection of more than $65 billion in annual tax revenue
- Over 4.2 million American jobs supported by the beer industry
Legislation to allow the USPS to ship alcohol directly to consumers would undermine this proven system by:
- Bypassing state enforcement and licensing
- Loosening underage drinking protections
- Reducing traceability — critical for recalls
In fact, it may even increase costs while adding compliance burdens.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Over 4.2 million American jobs supported by the beer industry
Bypassing state enforcement and licensing
Reducing traceability — critical for recalls
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/effective-alcohol-regulation
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
In November 2025, Congress revised the federal definition of hemp that originated in the 2018 farm bill.
Absent further action by Congress, the sale of certain intoxicating hemp-derived products is scheduled to be prohibited in November 2026.
NBWA’s Position: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
For more than 90 years, the U.S. alcohol marketplace has been governed by federal and state regulations that effectively protect consumers and oversee industry participants, making America’s alcohol system the safest in the world. Maintaining this effective system remains NBWA’s top priority.
- As some in Congress continue to debate federal policy on intoxicating hemp-derived THC beverages, NBWA remains neutral on current legislative proposals.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading) · “Policy Issues” on nbwa.org ↗ (opens nbwa.org at this heading)
NBWA opposes efforts that would harm the well-established system of federal and state alcohol regulation that has successfully balanced public safety and industry competition for nearly a century.
If federal and state policymakers allow hemp-derived THC beverages to be sold in the marketplace, these beverages should be subject to at least the same or higher standards, safeguards, oversights and regulations that govern the alcohol industry.
Responsible legislation should include, without limitation:
- Defining the product, limiting its concentration, licensing industry members, preventing vertical integration and ensuring the federal government and states have the necessary authority to effectively regulate the product and industry.
- Creating a robust regulatory structure that ensures a responsible marketplace that includes, but is not limited to, comprehensive industry regulations, appropriate product research and meaningful revenue collection in the form of excise taxes.
- This system should also allow a state to appropriately permit, restrict or prohibit how products are manufactured, distributed and sold within its borders.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Responsible legislation should include, without limitation: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/federal-hemp-policy at this heading)
Defining the product, limiting its concentration, licensing industry members, preventing vertical integration and ensuring the federal government and states have the necessary authority to effectively regulate the product and industry.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/federal-hemp-policy
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading) · “Federal Hemp Policy” on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Lack of transparency in healthcare pricing costs Americans up to $1 trillion annually.
- Patients using healthcare services
- Employers, such as beer and beverage distributors, that offer healthcare benefits to employees
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Lack of transparency in healthcare pricing makes it difficult for patients and employers to manage costs.
Beer distributors offer competitive healthcare benefits but face dramatic and unpredictable increases in healthcare-related expenses that limit their ability to make additional investments in employees and communities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/healthcare-transparency at this heading)
Ensuring transparent pricing for services
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/healthcare-transparency
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Organized cargo and retail theft has surged dramatically in recent years, posing safety risks and economic challenges to American communities.
- Consumers facing higher prices and reduced availability
- Businesses already grappling with a challenging market
- Employees at physical risk
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Sophisticated criminal enterprises are increasingly targeting cargo and retail, resulting in higher costs for both businesses and consumers, reduced product availability and heightened safety concerns.
Beer and beverage distributors are being targeted by criminal groups, harming these local businesses and putting public safety at risk.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issue/organized-cargo-theft at this heading)
Consumers facing higher prices and reduced availability
Businesses already grappling with a challenging market
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issue/organized-cargo-theft
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP) Act authorizes the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) and federal underage drinking prevention programs through FY 2027.
The ICCPUD recently went far beyond its congressional mandate to weigh in on adult alcohol consumption in an effort to influence the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans process.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Beer distributors are committed partners in preventing underage drinking and actively support the community coalitions funded under the STOP Act.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) — the current surface transportation law — is set to expire on September 30, 2026.
The next highway reauthorization bill is a critical opportunity to address the persistent shortage of Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) holders.
This shortage increases costs and creates risk throughout the supply chain.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The $400 billion American beer industry is directly affected by national trade policy, including new and expanded tariffs on aluminum, steel and imported beverages.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
America’s 3,000 independent beer distributors carry robust portfolios of both domestic and imported products.
The beer industry is also a major user of aluminum and steel, making it sensitive to input costs that can ripple throughout the supply chain and affect both consumers and local businesses.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) oversees tax collection, permitting and competition for the entire U.S. beverage alcohol marketplace.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
An under-resourced TTB creates real operational disruptions for thousands of businesses across the supply chain that depend on it to deliver consistent, effective regulation of the marketplace.
Congress Should: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Provide adequate funding for TTB in FY 2027 so the agency can effectively administer its alcohol tax and regulatory responsibilities.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Bars, restaurants and entertainment venues impacted by the pandemic continue to face challenges with lower foot traffic and higher operating costs.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Energy-efficient draft beer systems provide operational savings while encouraging on-premise spending.
Providing tax incentives for draft systems will help bolster the hospitality industry that employs over 16 million Americans.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The Issue: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
The long-term stability of multiemployer-defined benefit pension plans is uncertain.
Recent proposals from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation could increase withdrawal liability.
Why It Matters: ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Beer distributors who participate in these pension plans are committed to meeting their contribution responsibilities.
While some of the most troubled plans have been temporarily stabilized after receiving Special Financial Assistance, further action is needed to ensure long-term stability.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · nbwa.org/policy-issues
Heading as listed on nbwa.org/policy-issues ↗ (opens nbwa.org/policy-issues at this heading)
Heading as listed on nbwa.org ↗ (opens nbwa.org at this heading)
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 | 204 | $1,166,000 | $0 | $1,166,000 | 51% |
| Democratic | 187 | $1,015,500 | $0 | $1,015,500 | 44% |
| Other or unresolved | 29 | $102,500 | $0 | $102,500 | 4.5% |
| Shown support | 420 | $2,284,000 | $0 | $2,284,000 | 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 | 188 | $1M · 31% |
| Republican candidates | 203 | $1.2M · 35% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 32 | $120K · 3.7% |
| Democratic party committees | 3 | $90K · 2.7% |
| Republican party committees | 3 | $90K · 2.7% |
| Other PACs and committees | 129 | $800.5K · 24% |
| All recipients | 558 | $3.3M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 49 | $271K |
| Texas | 38 | $201.5K |
| Florida | 25 | $139.5K |
| Illinois | 17 | $103K |
| Pennsylvania | 18 | $101.5K |
| Georgia | 16 | $96K |
| Michigan | 11 | $80.5K |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 1,140 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $3.5M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The largest of the committees is listed. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total this committee reports.
Total reported receipts $3,675,693
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 |
|---|---|
| 106 contributions · 12% | $404,405 |
| 52 contributions · 5.5% | $190,490 |
Total reported disbursements $3,869,134
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.
$3.9M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $579.1K, 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.
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 12G report, 2000$5K assessed
Case 223 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, National Beer Wholesalers 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. $1.2M is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION”. 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.
National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names National Beer Wholesalers 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 Beer Wholesalers 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.
| Ohio | 16 | $75.5K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 50 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.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$10K from 1 committee, 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 COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND OUR MAJORITY · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND · 2 payments | $30K |
| House campaign committee · 5 payments | $15K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to WALKINSHAW VICTORY FUND · 4 payments | $15K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to ONE TEAM SENATE MAJORITY · 3 payments | $12.5K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$3.3M across 561 recipient committees, or 85% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $10K 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.
| $176,500 |
| 51 contributions · 4.5% | $157,250 |
| 60 contributions · 4.3% | $148,383 |
| 46 contributions · 4.2% | $147,765 |
| 40 contributions · 3.5% | $122,979 |
| 68 contributions · 3.5% | $120,280 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 17 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $71,000 |
| 13 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $56,000 |
| 13 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $49,000 |
| 11 contributions · 1.6% of ranked | $47,000 |
| 10 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $45,000 |
| 9 contributions · 1.5% of ranked | $45,000 |
| 24 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $42,030 |
| 8 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $40,000 |
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 ($12,595) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 316 contributions · 34% of ranked | $1,178,050 |
| 64 contributions · 8% of ranked | $276,500 |
| 50 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $142,450 |
| 32 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $128,000 |
| 22 contributions · 2.8% of ranked | $98,500 |
| 19 contributions · 2.6% of ranked | $90,000 |
| 33 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $82,415 |
| 16 contributions · 2% of ranked | $70,900 |
A further $6,500 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 ($12,595) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $3,274,824
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 1,291 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 5 payments · 0.4% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 4 payments · 0.4% 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.