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 C00147173 · files monthly
“WSWA-PAC is the political arm of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America. WSWA-PAC supports federal candidates who promote the three-tier system of beverage alcohol distribution, defend states’ rights and protect American, family-owned businesses.”
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the organization this committee is the political fund of, wswa.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.
19 priorities from the site of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, 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.
As Congress seeks to make the United States Postal Service (USPS) solvent, it is imperative that individual state laws concerning the direct to consumer shipping of wine, beer and spirits are respected.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org
The 21st Amendment gives states primary authority to regulate the sale and distribution of beverage alcohol ensuring proper collection of federal and state taxes, product integrity, secure and transparent supply chain and restriction of alcohol purchases to those of legal age.
WSWA is opposed to permitting direct shipment of beverage alcohol via the USPS.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/postal-reform
Heading as listed on wswa.org ↗ (opens wswa.org at this heading)
Enforcement efforts around the country have revealed that states grapple with the harmful impacts of non-compliance in the direct-to-consumer alcohol shipping market.
While many shippers respect state laws, there are bad actors that ship alcohol illegally to consumers by taking advantage of loopholes to evade compliance, which harms law-abiding businesses, undercuts state authority, and ultimately has negative impacts on the entire marketplace and consumers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping has become increasingly common in recent years.
Increases in this marketplace highlighted the significant challenges that states face when shippers evade state law.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/state-issues/illegal-direct-consumer-shipping
Heading as listed on wswa.org ↗ (opens wswa.org at this heading)
Heading as listed on wswa.org ↗ (opens wswa.org at this heading)
WSWA's regulatory program works with state and federal regulatory agencies including the Department of the Treasury's Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and State Alcohol Control Commissions on beverage alcohol issues impacting the wine and spirits wholesale industry.
The Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair case taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court continues to make industry headlines.
WSWA believes the federal government should respect the right of states to establish a safe and well-regulated cannabis marketplace.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/legal-and-regulatory
Excise and Retail - America’s family-owned distributors play an important role in most state’s alcohol distribution system.
Beyond ensuring that Americans have access to the world’s most diverse selection of unadulterated products, they work to ensure necessary excise taxes are collected and remitted.
Additionally, retailer partners ensure that taxes are paid during the final sale of alcoholic products.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/state-issues/illegal-direct-consumer-shipping
Heading as listed on wswa.org/issues/state-issues/illegal-direct-consumer-shipping ↗ (opens wswa.org/issues/state-issues/illegal-direct-consumer-shipping at this heading) · “Illegal Direct-to-Consumer Shipping” on wswa.org ↗ (opens wswa.org at this heading)
Any tax program must be comprehensive in nature – taking into account both personal and corporate tax rates - including S Corporations, partnerships, limited liability corporations, and sole proprietorships.
Changes made to pass-through rate and correspondingly, to the individual rate, should be made permanent to allow for business certainty and overall competitiveness with corporations that received a permanent reduced rate.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/pass-through-entity-taxation
WSWA believes the time has come for Congress to comprehensively legalize and regulate adult-use cannabis at the federal level.
Cannabis legalization at the state level is here to stay, evidenced by nearly a decade of newly legalized state markets and no meaningful effort to undo them.
Rather, states that have legalized are expanding their markets and even preparing ways to begin interstate commerce of the product.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/cannabis-legalization-regulation
Congressional appropriators should fully fund the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
TTB is responsible for enforcing the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act ensuring the alcohol industry is tax and trade practice compliant.
Agency officials annually review more than 100,000 labels and thousands of formulas to protect American consumers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/ttb-funding
LIFO is a 80+ year-old GAAP-approved inventory accounting system which is used by more than a third of all U.S. companies - it was added to the U.S. tax code to address the corrosive impact of inflation on the ability of U.S. companies to maintain adequate levels of replacement inventory.
The need for LIFO has not changed.
Nearly every WSWA member company uses the LIFO method.
Under recent proposals to repeal LIFO, the tax paid by WSWA member companies would be equal to approximately $3,000+ per employee.
A repeal of LIFO and the resultant retroactive tax on the reserves would have a devastating effect on wholesaler’s ability to grow and prosper.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/lifo-preservation
WSWA remains steadfast in its commitment to fighting drunk driving.
Ignition interlocks are an important new technology that will help combat drunk driving.
WSWA supports legislation that requires an ignition interlock on any vehicle of any person convicted of a repeat DUI offense or any first time offender whose blood alcohol content (BAC) was over .15.
Interlocks need to be part of a comprehensive anti-DUI strategy.
There is no silver bullet to solving the problem of drunk driving.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/impaired-driving
WSWA is against any sanction imposed on foreign-origin wine and spirits imports.
The imposition of tariffs on imported wine and spirits only hurts American businesses and consumers.
Many foreign products are single-origin, as such they are desirable because of the unique characteristics imparted by where they are made.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/federal-issues/tariffs-imported-wine-spirits
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) members have long worked to support local and state laws designed to keep alcohol out of the hands of underage drinkers and establish strict accountability.
WSWA’s social responsibility legislative principles include working to support and pass legislation at the state and local level achieve the following objectives:
- Establish strong penalties for adults who knowingly allow minors to consume alcohol on their property;
- Establish stiff penalties for adults who knowingly provide alcohol to minors;
- Establish strong penalties for the illegal possession of alcohol by minors;
- Establish strong penalties for the manufacturing, distribution or use of a false identification card;
- Incentivize the use of ID card scanners by retail outlets.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/state-issues/access-alcohol-minors
Protection of the consumer and variety of choice via prevention of monopolies are some of the main accomplishments of the Three Tier System, and strongly supported by WSWA.
WSWA supports licensing policies that promote the independence of each tier – meaning suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers all operate as distinct entities.
Various state regulations limit or ban inter-tier ownership to ensure that the alcohol market remains free of undue influence and vertical integration.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/state-issues/market-accessprevention-monopolies
Wholesalers are the central link in the Three-Tier System, providing a clear chain of custody and traceability for all your favorite beverage alcohol products.
Since product must travel from a verified supplier or importer through a wholesaler before being sold to consumers by a retailer, regulatory oversight is simplified and consumers can enjoy their beverage knowing it is a genuine and safe-for-consumption product.
With so many checks and balances along the chain of custody, entrance of counterfeit or adulterated product into the chain is easily prevented.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · wswa.org/issues/state-issues/consumer-safetychain-custodyprevention-counterfeit-goods
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 | $606,772 | $0 | $606,772 | 60% |
| Democratic | 80 | $314,232 | $0 | $314,232 | 31% |
| Other or unresolved | 21 | $89,500 | $0 | $89,500 | 8.9% |
| Shown support | 252 | $1,010,504 | $0 | $1,010,504 | 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 | 80 | $316.4K · 21% |
| Republican candidates | 149 | $591.8K · 39% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 24 | $107.3K · 7% |
| Other party committees | 3 | $90K · 5.9% |
| Other PACs and committees | 73 | $421.7K · 28% |
| All recipients | 329 | $1.5M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Texas | 22 | $85.1K |
| California | 24 | $69.6K |
| Florida | 12 | $58K |
| Illinois | 11 | $46.7K |
| Pennsylvania | 9 | $39.3K |
| New York | 9 | $38K |
| Ohio | 7 | $37.6K |
| North Carolina | 10 | $36.5K |
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, 2,703 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.2M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
The 3 largest sources are listed. Each as the committee named it on this line, $28.9K from 3 sources in all.
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 $1,677,562
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 |
|---|---|
| 137 contributions · 16% | $186,885 |
| 341 contributions · 12% | $141,647 |
| 496 contributions · 10% | $120,312 |
Total reported disbursements $1,652,561
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.
$1.7M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $197.4K, June 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.
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 M6 report, 2002$1K assessed
Case 649 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, The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America 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. $73K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “THE WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF AMERICA”, found by searching “WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF AMERICA”. 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.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc. PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America 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.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, 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.
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) · 1 payment | $5K |
$5K 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 YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 3 payments | $45K |
| 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 1 payment | $15K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to WINNING FOR AMERICA FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to EMMER VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
| House campaign committee · Connected to HISPANIC LEADERSHIP TRUST PARTNERSHIP · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to AGUILAR · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$1.5M across 347 recipient committees, or 92% 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.
| $113,209 |
| 120 contributions · 9.6% | $112,447 |
| 87 contributions · 5.3% | $61,820 |
| 208 contributions · 5.1% | $59,829 |
| 165 contributions · 3.6% | $42,312 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 210 contributions · 18% of ranked | $196,080 |
| 146 contributions · 9.1% of ranked | $99,112 |
| 28 contributions · 6.2% of ranked | $67,250 |
| 305 contributions · 5.7% of ranked | $62,366 |
| 287 contributions · 5.3% of ranked | $57,283 |
| 174 contributions · 5% of ranked | $54,379 |
| 75 contributions · 3.4% of ranked | $37,435 |
| 205 contributions · 3.4% of ranked | $36,902 |
A further $86,400 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A, 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 ($239,266) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 48 contributions · 13% of ranked | $148,659 |
| Written instead of an occupation · 27 contributions · 9.3% of ranked | $107,500 |
| 10 contributions · 4.1% of ranked | $47,500 |
| 39 contributions · 3.9% of ranked | $44,684 |
| 30 contributions · 3.2% of ranked | $36,570 |
| 338 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $31,575 |
| 7 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $27,500 |
| 7 contributions · 2.3% of ranked | $27,000 |
A further $4,400 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 ($239,266) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total itemized disbursements $1,553,757
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 673 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 3 payments · 2.7% of all spending | $45,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 2 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 40 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $22,088 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 2 payments · 0.6% 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.