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 PACReston, VirginiaActive
Connected organization: American College of Radiology Association
Political fund of American College of Radiology Association
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00343459 · files monthly
“ACR is the voice of our members, empowering them to serve patients and society by advancing the practice and science of radiological care. ACR empowers members, through quality and safety, advocacy and innovation, to deliver exceptional patient care. We create and convene communities of experts to serve as the voices of radiology, demonstrating value and setting standards to advance the field and practice. We improve patient care through quality and safety activities, the best available technology and ensuring a robust future for the radiologic professions.”
American College of Radiology Association, the organization this committee is the political fund of,
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.
15 priorities from the site of American College of Radiology 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.
Working with lawmakers and federal agencies to expand ACR Data Science Institute offerings and accelerate and advance safe and effective AI innovation and implementation for patients while initiating sensible payment concepts for these cutting-edge technologies.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues
Heading as listed on acr.org/Advocacy/Issues ↗ (opens acr.org/Advocacy/Issues at this heading)
ACR continues to back the "Find It Early Act" (breast cancer screening), "Increasing Access to Lung Cancer Screening Act" and other relevant efforts to ensure Americans have access to this lifesaving care.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues
Heading as listed on acr.org/Advocacy/Issues ↗ (opens acr.org/Advocacy/Issues at this heading)
ACR continues to press legislation introduced in 2025 in both the Senate and House which seeks Congressional intervention to modernize and update the Appropriate Use Criteria section of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act to improve patient care, reduce unnecessary imaging and help optimize radiologist workload.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues
Heading as listed on acr.org/Advocacy/Issues ↗ (opens acr.org/Advocacy/Issues at this heading)
Heading as listed on acr.org/Advocacy/Issues ↗ (opens acr.org/Advocacy/Issues at this heading)
ACR members thrive, improving health and leading through excellence in radiological care.
Together, we are empowering the radiologist of the future — one who will guide the delivery of the highest quality healthcare.
We are advancing radiology as essential and central to excellent patient care.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/About
Heading as listed on acr.org/About ↗ (opens acr.org/About at this heading) · “About ACR” on acr.org/About ↗ (opens acr.org/About at this heading)
The “No Surprises Act,” as passed by Congress, held patients harmless and created an equitable provider-insurer independent dispute resolution process.
But the interim final rules ignored the law’s intent that a qualified payment amount be among equally weighted factors considered in these disputes.
Efforts are ongoing to fix them.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative
The dramatic proliferation in the volume of diagnostic medical imaging services performed by physicians, including non-radiologists, has inflicted a colossal burden on the U.S. healthcare system, especially Medicare.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative
The American College of Radiology® (ACR®) supports passage of the Medicare Access to Radiology Care Act (S. 4624).
“MARCA” calls for Medicare payment directly to the radiologists for services in which radiologist assistants (RAs) participated.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative
If passed, MARCA would enable RAs to furnish services when delegated by and under the supervision of a radiologist in jurisdictions authorizing radiologist assistants to practice.
The bill also defines RA training and scope of practice.
RAs Do Not Supervise nor Interpret Exams.
RAs Are Not Independent Practitioners.
RAs Always Practice Under the Supervision of a Radiologist.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative/MARCA
The American College of Radiology® (ACR®) takes a proactive approach to legislative and regulatory trends across the country and assists chapters with state-level legislative and regulatory initiatives.
ACR staff monitors hundreds of radiology-related bills introduced in state legislatures each year.
Issues we track include scope of practice, prior authorization, workforce shortages, teleradiology licensing and practice requirements, certificate of need laws, reimbursement issues, AI in radiology and medical liability reform.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/State
Proper supervision and interpretation of imaging exams by highly-trained radiologist physicians is critical to the accurate diagnosis and treatment of disease, injury and illness.
ACR works with our state chapters to advocate at the legislative, regulatory and administrative levels for clear, sensible definition of scope for allied health professionals.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/State
ACR® advocates for proper supervision and interpretation of imaging exams by trained radiologists.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/State/Scope-of-Practice
ACR® is committed to representing and communicating radiologists’ perspectives to the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Federal regulatory and research agencies can have a profound impact on radiology practice and the future of medicine.
ACR is committed to representing and communicating radiologists’ perspectives to policymakers, regulators and other agency staff throughout the executive branch of the U.S. government.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Regulatory
As passed by Congress in 2020, the No Surprises Act (NSA) is a law that exempts patients from surprise medical bills for certain out-of-network services they received and creates an equitable independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to resolve payment disputes between healthcare providers and insurers.
The initial regulations issued by federal agencies to implement the NSA were problematic because they ignored the law’s intent in establishing the IDR process.
The process was to use a qualified payment amount (QPA) and median in-network rate determined by payers that were equally weighted.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative/Surprise-Billing
It is not limited to radiology reports.
HHS enforcement priorities will inform whether the allegation is investigated.
Additionally, data about the violation will be posted publicly online.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Regulatory/information-blocking
Bans balance billing for out-of-network emergency care until the patient can consent and safely be moved to an in-network facility.
Bans balance billing for scheduled out-of-network services at an in-network facility when the patient has not been notified or provided consent.
Prohibits insurers from assigning higher deductibles (and other cost sharing) to patients for out-of-network care than they do for in-network care without patient notification and consent.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/Legislative/Surprise-Billing
Making sure that medical imaging is supervised and interpreted by radiologists protects patients by ensuring accurate diagnoses and appropriate treatment plans.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/State/Scope-of-Practice
Radiologist physicians undergo 10 years of extensive training, including medical school, residency and fellowship, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed for accurate imaging interpretation.
There is no equivalency in education between a physician and a non-physician health professional, particularly regarding radiology practice and imaging supervision and interpretation.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · acr.org/Advocacy/Issues/State/Scope-of-Practice
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 | 68 | $401,000 | $237,192 | $638,192 | 50% |
| Democratic | 64 | $321,500 | $189,858 | $511,358 | 40% |
| Other or unresolved | 15 | $35,000 | $86,212 | $121,212 | 9.5% |
| Shown support | 147 | $757,500 | $513,263 | $1,270,763 | 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 | 65 | $329K · 26% |
| Republican candidates | 65 | $390K · 31% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 14 | $47K · 3.8% |
| Democratic party committees | 2 | $60K · 4.8% |
| Republican party committees | 2 | $45K · 3.6% |
| Other PACs and committees | 57 | $377.5K · 30% |
| All recipients | 205 | $1.2M |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| California | 16 | $70.5K |
| Florida | 11 | $66.5K |
| Louisiana | 6 | $56.5K |
| Georgia | 6 | $36K |
| Utah | 4 | $34.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 7 | $33.5K |
| North Carolina | 5 | $32K |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 3,611 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $917.8K. 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 $1,319,741
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 |
|---|---|
| 236 contributions · 13% | $117,697 |
| 227 contributions · 6.8% | $62,368 |
| 154 contributions · 6.4% |
Total reported disbursements $1,665,084
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.
These are the payments the committee itemized to vendors, staff and other committees. Its $395,319 in independent expenditures is filed separately, against the candidate each was about, so it is counted in the split above and listed by candidate below, not here.
Total itemized disbursements $1,269,724
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.
$1.7M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $221.6K, June 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.
Besides giving through its PAC, American College of Radiology 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. $873.7K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATION”, found by searching “AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY 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.
American College of Radiology Association PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission as a PAC (qualified). It is a lobbyist/registrant PAC. Its FEC record names American College of Radiology 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.
American College of Radiology Association PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
| Massachusetts |
|---|
| 4 |
| $31.5K |
The largest 8 of 38 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 (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 COLE COMBINED COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 2 payments | $30K |
| Super PAC (independent expenditure-only) · 1 payment | $25K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 1 payment | $15K |
| 1 payment | $15K |
| Senate campaign committee · Connected to ASHLEY HINSON VICTORY COMMITTEE · 4 payments | $15K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BLACKBURN · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 4 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to BICE VICTORY COMMITTEE · 2 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to SCALISE LEADERSHIP FUND · 2 payments | $10K |
$1.2M across 203 recipient committees, or 75% 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.
| $59,171 |
| 84 contributions · 6.3% | $57,658 |
| 365 contributions · 6.3% | $57,388 |
| 416 contributions · 5.3% | $48,380 |
| 535 contributions · 5.2% | $47,937 |
| 57 contributions · 4.8% | $43,862 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 172 contributions · 4.7% of ranked | $38,038 |
| 69 contributions · 4.4% of ranked | $36,120 |
| 88 contributions · 4.3% of ranked | $34,615 |
| 30 contributions · 3.7% of ranked | $30,000 |
| 32 contributions · 3.3% of ranked | $27,062 |
| 94 contributions · 3% of ranked | $24,204 |
| 85 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $19,745 |
| 35 contributions · 2.4% of ranked | $19,667 |
A further $20,350 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 ($192,473) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 2,468 contributions · 66% of ranked | $564,826 |
| 462 contributions · 15% of ranked | $130,649 |
| 110 contributions · 5.6% of ranked | $47,610 |
| 28 contributions · 2% of ranked | $17,049 |
| 21 contributions · 0.8% of ranked | $7,117 |
| 40 contributions · 0.7% of ranked | $6,375 |
| 28 contributions · 0.7% of ranked | $6,047 |
| 18 contributions · 0.6% of ranked | $5,425 |
A further $67,152 came from donors whose answer names no occupation (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 ($192,473) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Notices dated after Oct 14, 2026 are added; earlier ones are already in the regular reports.
All 382 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 1 payment · 1.5% of all spending | $25,000 |
| 21 payments · 1.3% of all spending | $21,224 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 1 payment · 0.9% of all spending | $15,000 |
| 4 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.