Funding profile
Andy Biggs
Republican · Representative for Arizona’s 5th district
Career totals · 6 elections · 2016–2026
$7 million
raised by Biggs’s campaigns, everything from 2016 to 2026 added together.
18%
of it came from organized groups rather than from people giving on their own: at least $1.3 million from PACs, plus donations that organizations collected and directed.
$298,000
was spent about Biggs by outside groups. These are ads for or against them that their campaign cannot control, and none of it is part of the money above.
Every number on this page comes from Federal Election Commission filings, read on August 24, 2026. An election still under way keeps raising money, so its figure will have grown since. Check Biggs on FEC.gov
Where the money came from
Everything Biggs’s campaigns have reported raising, split by who gave it.
- Individual donorsMoney given by people, in their own name.77%$5.4 million
- Political action committeesOrganized groups: company-run committees, unions, trade associations.15%$1.1 million
- Other sourcesParty transfers, the candidate's own money, loans and smaller categories.8%$553,000
Money bundled through organizations
Not every “individual” donation arrives on its own. An organization can collect checks from its members, already earmarked for Biggs, and deliver them in a bundle. The law counts that as individual money, but the organization still chose where it went.
$178,000
reached Biggs this way, 3% of everything they raised from individuals. Each donation came from a real person. The organization picked who got it.
- Senate Conservatives FundA PAC founded by former senator Jim DeMint that bundles donations for conservative Senate candidates, often in Republican primaries.$177,000
- AIPACThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee's political arm. It backs candidates of both parties it considers strong supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship.$1,550
We can only count the organizations we have measured, so the real figure could be higher than this, never lower. Bundling is legal and widely used, and appearing here is not evidence of wrongdoing.
Who gave the most
Committee contributions from the 2024 and 2026 election periods, grouped by how the FEC classifies each giver. This covers a slice of the career total, and giving to a campaign is legal and ordinary.
- Corporation5%$4,000
- Trade association16%$14,000
- Labor union1%$1,000
- Membership organization12%$10,000
- Unclassified66%$55,000
Which industries
- Real estate & construction68% · $8,500
- Retail & consumer16% · $2,000
- Other16% · $2,000
The FEC records that a committee is a corporation; it does not record its industry. Those labels are ours, kept in a published list anyone can check. Where we have not labeled a giver we say “Other” rather than guessing.
Largest committee givers
- 1Freedom Caucus Fund$19,000
- 2Buckeye Victory Fund$9,000
- 3National Association of Realtors$6,000
- 4Patriot Freedom PAC Inc$5,000
- 5National Association of Home BuildersThe trade association for the homebuilding industry.$5,000
Show all 10 giversShow fewer
- 6Huck PAC for America$5,000
- 7We the People Leadership PAC$3,500
- 8Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Political Action Committee (Abc PAC)$3,500
- 9Friends of Matt Gaetz$3,485
- 10One Generation$3,000
“Unclassified” means the FEC records no organization type for that committee, which usually means a leadership PAC. We show it as unclassified rather than guessing which industry it belongs to.
Money spent about this member
Outside groups, usually super PACs, may spend without limit on ads for or against a candidate, as long as they do not coordinate with the campaign. Biggs has no legal control over any of it.
This is not a donation. Nobody gave this money to Biggs. It was spent on advertising about Biggs, and money spent against a candidate is plainly not funding them. So it never gets added to the figures above.
$298,000
has been spent for or against Biggs by outside groups. $283,000 supported Biggs; $15,000 opposed Biggs.
Largest outside spenders
Summed across 6 elections, using the Commission's aggregated totals so amended filings and 24-hour notices are not double-counted.
Spent supporting
$277,000Ads urging people to vote for this member. Still not their money, and they cannot direct how it is spent.
- CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTIONA conservative group focused on lower taxes and smaller government. It is known for backing primary challengers against Republicans it considers insufficiently conservative.$230,000
- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND$19,000
- HOUSE FREEDOM FUND$12,000
- ARIZONA ROCK PRODUCT ASSOCIATION$6,944
Show all 6 groupsShow fewer
- SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUNDA PAC founded by former senator Jim DeMint that bundles donations for conservative Senate candidates, often in Republican primaries.$6,238
- CLUB FOR GROWTH PACA conservative group focused on lower taxes and smaller government. It is known for backing primary challengers against Republicans it considers insufficiently conservative.$2,935
Spent opposing
$13,000Ads urging people to vote against this member. This money was spent to defeat them.
- REALLY AMERICAN PAC$8,610
- MAD DOG PAC$4,600
Election by election
The career figures above are the sum of these elections. Each row links to the Commission’s page for that election, where the numbers match line for line.
| Election | Raised | From PACs | Outside spending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026in progress | $28,000 | $7,000 25% | $181 | FEC |
| 2024 | $1.4 million | $76,000 5% | $3,406 | FEC |
| 2022 | $2.1 million | $94,000 4% | $13,000 | FEC |
| 2020 | $1.7 million | $364,000 21% | $16,000 | FEC |
| 2018 | $790,000 | $311,000 39% | $13,000 | FEC |
| 2016 | $996,000 | $227,000 23% | $251,000 | FEC |
Raised is everything the campaign took in for that election. From PACs is the slice of it given by political action committees. Outside spending is what other groups spent on ads about the race, for and against—it is not part of “Raised”. An election marked in progress is still raising money, so its figures are not final.
We never publish the names of individual donors, and anything we cannot source stays off the page. The methodology explains every such choice.