NAR spent more on lobbying than any other group in 2024
The association shelled out $86.3 million to influence election-year campaigns and housing-related initiatives, according to a report on political spending.
Key points:
- Nonprofit newsroom OpenSecrets reported that NAR topped the list of big spenders in D.C. and also spent significantly more on lobbying in 2024 compared to a year prior.
- NAR told Real Estate News that it backed pro-Realtor candidates in elections across the country and supported numerous state and local housing initiatives.
- Some political spending has been controversial, but NAR confirmed that its lobbying dollars don’t include money going to the American Property Owners Alliance.
Spending on lobbying efforts hit a record high last year — but no individual trade group, corporation or organization shelled out more cash to influence policies and candidates in 2024 than the National Association of Realtors.
NAR tops the list of big spenders
According to the nonprofit newsroom OpenSecrets, which covers spending on campaigns and politics, NAR spent $86.3 million in lobbying efforts in 2024, which not only surpassed any other organization, but was also significantly more than the roughly $50 million it spent the year prior.
The association wasn't alone in upping its spend — OpenSecrets found that overall spending on federal lobbying in 2024 set a new record of $4.4 billion. The finance, insurance and real estate sector accounted for more than $636 million of that figure.
NAR — and the residential real estate industry — underwent major changes last year, most notably through the trade group's landmark settlement that ushered in new rules and practices around agent commission and buyer agreements. While litigation and rule changes often made the headlines, NAR's advocacy efforts remain central to the trade group's mission. The association maintains a lengthy list of legislative priorities, including issues related to inventory, fair housing and access to homeownership.
A focus on elections, 'pro-Realtor candidates'
Notably, 2024 was an election year, and that contributed to the large increase in NAR's lobbying spending, an NAR spokesperson told Real Estate News.
"A majority of our spending for 2024 was put towards our efforts to get pro-Realtors candidates elected at every level of government in this year's election," the spokesperson said in an email.
"At a time where the housing industry is lacking both affordability and inventory for families across this country, it was imperative that we worked tirelessly to promote candidates who would both protect and promote the interests of the real estate industry."
Where the money went
A significant portion of NAR's spending went toward its Issues Mobilization Program via the Realtor Party and nonpartisan Realtor Political Action Committee. RPAC helps fund pro-housing candidates and campaigns, and it provides grants and additional support to state and local chapters for their advocacy efforts.
NAR put money behind a number of initiatives last year, including defeating a proposed real estate transfer tax in Chicago, helping pass zoning reform in Oregon, defeating a vacancy tax ballot in California, and stopping rent control efforts in Iowa and Delaware.
At the national level, NAR supported policies or reforms related to veteran housing, accessory dwelling units and mortgage costs.
Some political spending has drawn controversy
NAR came under fire in 2024 after a New York Times investigation into its affiliate nonprofit, the American Property Owners Alliance (APOA), was alleged to have spent more on conservative groups and "Republican-aligned super PACs" despite NAR's nonpartisan stance. The association refuted the claims, including references to "dark money" and bias, which it referred to as "myths."
An NAR rep confirmed to Real Estate News that money spent on lobbying in 2024 did not include spending on the APOA.
Earlier in the year, a separate investigation into NAR's spending in D.C. also suggested that some funds are quietly channeled to groups promoting GOP policies, and noted that political donors were more likely to receive lavish perks from the association.