Money that argues.

$27.4M from 86 PACs organized around a belief rather than an industry. It is 4% of all outside money going to Congress, a fraction of $406.9M from business sectors. While it is fewer dollars, it may be more revealing about how representatives will act: what motivates them, and how they will exercise power once they have it.

$27.4Mfrom 86 PACs, reaching 525 of 537 members
81/86give almost entirely to one party. This is two camps, not a spectrum
15×more business money than all ideological money combined

Two camps, not a spectrum

Every PAC here is sorted by how it divides its money between the parties. If ideological giving were a spectrum, these bands would fill in evenly. Instead the middle is nearly empty: 81 of 86 PACs send almost everything to one side. The 4 genuinely even-handed PACs are the exception that proves it: between them they move $9.0M, almost all of it AIPAC.

Where the two sides face off

Opposed causes are kept apart rather than netted against each other, because a single "guns" or "abortion" figure would describe neither side. Set side by side, the imbalance is the point.

Every cause

Bar length is money; the marker shows which party it goes to. Causes are assigned by matching the PAC's name, the same approach and the same limitations as the sector classifier.

Mostly DemocraticRoughly evenMostly Republican

The largest ideological PACs

Top 20 of 86, by direct contributions to sitting members across the 2024 and 2026 cycles.
PACCauseTotalMembersTo Democrats
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEPro-Israel$7.9M36338%
JSTREETPACIsrael–Palestine, dovish$1.4M14799%
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NSSF PAC)Gun rights$1.2M2370%
HUCK PAC FOR AMERICAPolitical figures' PACs$1.1M2070%
DEFEND THE VOTEDemocracy & turnout$1.1M135100%
SEAL PAC SUPPORTING ELECTING AMERICAN LEADERS PACVeterans & service$1.0M1480%
ELECT DEMOCRATIC WOMENProgressive movement$931k95100%
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUNDGun rights$859k2190%
END CITIZENS UNITEDDemocracy & turnout$855k11598%
REPUBLICAN MAINSTREET PARTNERSHIP PACConservative movement$789k930%
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN PACLGBTQ rights$763k174100%
NORPACPro-Israel$734k5242%
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ACTION FUNDEnvironment & climate$695k18699%
REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE GROUP/TUESDAY GROUP PACConservative movement$695k510%
PROGRESSIVE TURNOUT PROJECTDemocracy & turnout$643k69100%
CLUB FOR GROWTH PACFiscal conservative$595k330%
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL PAC (SCI-PAC)Gun rights$566k1012%
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC PAC, DBA PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL PACAbortion rights$457k53100%
EQUALITY PACLGBTQ rights$407k51100%
WITH HONOR PACVeterans & service$401k4048%

Who receives the most

  1. Mark B. Messmer$355k
  2. Wesley Bell$319k
  3. George Latimer$275k
  4. Tammy Baldwin$254k
  5. Kristen McDonald Rivet$238k
  6. Christopher R. Deluzio$234k
  7. Ted Cruz$229k
  8. Bernie Moreno$213k
  9. Josh Gottheimer$210k
  10. Emilia Strong Sykes$200k

Who depends on it most

Ideological money as a share of everything that member takes from outside interests.

  1. George Latimer45%
  2. Mark B. Messmer40%
  3. Wesley Bell34%
  4. Josh Hawley34%
  5. Ro Khanna33%
  6. Scott Perry29%
  7. Anna Paulina Luna28%
  8. Andy Biggs28%
  9. Elijah Crane27%
  10. Victoria Spartz26%

What this counts, and what it cannot settle

Ideological money is everything classified as organized around a belief rather than an industry.

Some of these are a judgment call. Is the PAC associated with Mike Huckabee a party PAC or an ideological one now that he's not in office? Huck PAC is a leadership PAC in form, and this site excludes leadership money as the political system funding itself. But that exclusion is about Congress funding itself, and Huckabee holds no seat: his committee raises from donors and sends $1.15M to 207 sitting members, which is an outside actor funding Congress rather than Congress funding Congress. It is counted here for that reason.

Causes are assigned by matching PAC names, which carries the same weakness as the sector classifier: it reads labels, not behavior. A PAC with an uninformative name lands in "Other single-issue" rather than its real cause, and the smaller causes here rest on a handful of committees each, so treat individual cause totals as approximate.

The head-to-head figures say which side raises and gives more through PACs. They do not say which side wins, or even which is better resourced overall. The gun-control side in particular does far more of its spending through independent expenditures and advocacy than through direct contributions to candidates, and this site counts only direct contributions. Full methodology.