When a campaign finance report showed nearly $56,000 was spent to support four City Council candidates in Portland, Maine, nothing seemed out of the ordinary until a local newspaper noted who filed the report: the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR).
The expenditure raised some eyebrows in Portland as to why a national political action committee of NAR’s size would get involved in a municipal election.
The candidates—Nancy English, Brandon Mazer, Catherine Nekoie and Jake Viola—were all listed on NAR’s campaign finance report despite having no contact with NAR or knowledge of the state association’s support, according to the Portland Press Herald, which first reported the story.
Two of the candidates, English and Viola, immediately distanced themselves from NAR’s support. Mazer and Nekoie told the Press Herald they weren’t focused on limiting outside groups’ spending as a current priority.
So why exactly is NAR supporting specific candidates in local elections when it plays on the national lobbying stage in Washington, D.C.? The answer is found in NAR’s State and Local Independent Expenditure Program.
Created in 2013, this grant program provides funding to state and local REALTOR® associations to support political candidates and initiatives that further the interests of REALTORS® and the housing industry, says Jonathan Waclawski, NAR’s vice president of political advocacy.
In 2024 alone, NAR has received over 420 applications from state and local REALTOR® associations seeking a share of the roughly $13 to $14 million available through the program, Waclawski says.
Since its inception, the program has garnered more requests year-over-year from local and state REALTOR® groups as they try to move the needle in local elections toward industry-friendly candidates and issues.
The money provided to state and local associations is generally spent on “supportive” marketing communications of the chosen candidates to bring them more visibility with local voters, Waclawski points out.
“It’s a pretty fair and equitable distribution,” Waclawski explains of the amounts allocated to state and local REALTOR® associations. The associations (not NAR) then decide which candidates to support based on whether or not they are “good for the industry, good for the association, good for membership,” he adds.
As witnessed in Portland, though, sometimes these independent expenditures in support of specific candidates can create friction with voters. That’s because voters may not understand how the spending works and assume candidates will be influenced by outside interest groups with deep pockets.
Typically, local and state REALTOR® associations support candidates who are vocal about protecting property and landlord rights, proposing creative zoning laws to increase housing supply and limiting property taxes.
“It really does run the gamut,” he says.
In most cases, the support is effective; local and state REALTOR® associations have seen a 75% to 80% win rate for the candidates they support, making a significant difference in close local elections, Waclawski says.
But the distinction between direct spending by a behemoth national organization like NAR and money directed by local interests is important, even though some might still be uncomfortable with the arrangement. Waclawski does note that NAR has to approve those expenditures, with the local association presenting its case as to why a candidate is viable and would support real estate interests.
Having candidates push back on these independent contributions is a “rare occurrence,” Waclawski says.
“I think at the end of the day, the local association made the calculation that that could potentially be a risk, but if their communications help persuade voters to learn about their pro-real estate, pro-property rights agenda, it might be worth it,” he says.
