Does the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) secretly support conservative causes unrelated to housing?
That is the question put forth in a recent New York Times article, which highlighted a relatively obscure entity created by NAR that has paid grants (totalling almost $14 million) to various non-housing advocacy groups, including some that oppose abortion rights and so-called “critical race theory,” among other conservative priorities. In a lengthy investigation, the Times also revealed connections between the organization’s purported founder, Bill Malkasian, and conservative political causes, and reported that former NAR executive Walt Witek was fired back in 2018 for opposing the creation of the group and its purpose.
NAR disputed much of the Times’ reporting and defended its political advocacy, saying in a statement provided to RISMedia that “our expenditures across the political spectrum reflect the industry’s support for organizations and policymakers who champion policies that are important to consumers and real estate practitioners.”
At the same time, though, plenty of questions remain—regarding NAR’s partisan leanings or motivations, and whether it was actually trying to hide any of the grants or activism detailed in the Times’ investigation.
The NAR-created organization in question is the American Property Owners Alliance (APOA), a nonprofit formed in 2020 that is fully funded by NAR. The Times broadly characterized the APOA or its grants as secretive and below-board, claiming very few REALTORS® know about the organization and that it was formed to essentially obscure donations to controversial causes or groups.
Although NAR recently posted an article that explicitly lays out the APOA’s history, grantees and mission, the Times claims that was only published after its reporters reached out to NAR with inquiries about the nonprofit.
While NAR did not previously extensively promote APOA or provide details of its grants, it also did not appear to be trying to hide the existence of the nonprofit or its mission. Back in 2021, NAR posted and disseminated what is essentially an “explainer” article for REALTOR® nonprofits and tax-exempt organizations, where it publicly detailed the creation of the APOA and its purpose.
The APOA’s activities, NAR wrote, “are beyond NAR’s common business interest.”
“By NAR forming related tax-exempt organizations, NAR remains focused on its tax-exempt purpose and related activities, NAR minimizes potential liability risks associated with such activities and NAR maintains some sort of control or connection to the related organization,” the article reads.
In its statement, however, NAR said that the APOA “operates independently and without oversight from NAR.”
Over the last few years, NAR touted the APOA dozens of times online and on social media—though mostly in the context of court cases related to property rights, where APOA also appeared to be active. NAR did not tout grants made to the mostly partisan political organizations (though the APOA, on its website, occasionally did).
NAR and the APOA also previously announced a series of events it was hosting with the National Black Empowerment Council, one of few organizations with an explicitly housing-focused mission that had received a grant from APOA, but did not appear to have promoted those events until days before the Times article was published.
All this would appear to countermand the Times’ claim that APOA was “quietly” created or run. In its statement, NAR noted many other times APOA operated out in public, and emphasized that most of the info used in the Times article is public through the IRS or the Federal Election Commission.
“NAR and APOA disclose all required advocacy related expenditures in full compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements—which is how the NYT has access to this data in the first place,” NAR said.
Public partisanship
While the Times article posited that APOA’s spending could invite scrutiny of its tax-exempt status, the larger question of NAR’s political leanings is tough to answer. While NAR has historically said it supports the “REALTOR® party” and works across the aisle, there have certainly been indications—and motivations—for the association to support Republicans at the federal level.
First and foremost is the still-ongoing scrutiny of NAR policies by the Department of Justice (DOJ). While that effort was launched under the Republican administration of Donald Trump, the DOJ agreed to “close” its inquiry at the end of Trump’s first term, seemingly ending an existential threat to the organization. But after the election of Democrat Joe Biden, the DOJ sought to restart its investigation, sparking a multi-year court battle.
Notably, D.C. Circuit Judge Justin Walker (a Trump appointee) speculated that NAR had explicitly been hoping for a Trump victory in 2020 to ensure the investigation remained closed, as the DOJ had offered no explicit assurances it would not reopen its inquiry at a later date (or if “personnel changed”).
Ahead of the 2024 election, NAR continued to face this threat, with the DOJ under Biden pressing forward with scrutiny of Clear Cooperation and other NAR policies. Vice President Kamala Harris was viewed by many as likely to continue Biden’s antitrust enforcement agenda, while Trump had already shown he was willing to drop the investigation.
Partisan political commentary has also seemingly been evident at NAR events in recent months, in ways that skewed from housing topics and leaned Republican, it could be argued.
Back in May, on an NAR forecast panel for commercial real estate during the annual REALTORS Legislative Meetings, NAR Chief Economist Dr. Lawrence Yun spoke about turning office space into “private learning centers,” something clearly related to housing. But from there, he deviated to wonder whether teacher unions were able to provide the best outcomes for students—potentially reflecting Republican criticism of teacher unions and public schools—and then took another jump to higher education.
“Maybe we need to try something new…say, someone who is very wealthy—why give money to the university so my students can go to a protest?” Yun asked, seemingly referring to campus protests taking place at the time over the Israel/Palestine conflict. Conservatives had pushed for donors to cut off funding to universities that allowed the protests.
On the same panel, Yun also talked about how people are “really disturbed” by “what’s happening at the southern border, because we want to know who is coming in.
“There are some people who are saying, ‘Let people in,’” he added. “It’s generally the university professors and data tanks.”
Yun sought to connect this to the unemployment rate, and how that affected housing, but, intentionally or not, the focus on illegal immigration reflected Republican talking points, and was made as both parties’ campaigns kicked into full swing.
An NAR spokesperson did not directly respond to a question about NAR employees making partisan comments or statements at events.
But NAR has also sometimes hesitated to take a position officially on social controversies outside of the housing sector—in one case, when the issue fell on the other side of the political spectrum. Last year, the LGBTQ+ Real Estate Alliance pushed NAR to stop supporting anti-LGBTQ politicians, even as some local associations decided they would consider “ethical issues” when supporting political candidates. NAR never committed to this kind of policy.
In the long-term, it will almost certainly fall to NAR members to decide what kind of political spending and advocacy they are or aren’t comfortable with. Reactions to the Times’ report initially were focused on the media rather than NAR, with pushback against Debra Kamin, the journalist who penned the initial article and has written other recent stories critical of NAR and industry practices.
NextHome CEO James Dwiggins, without addressing the substance of the Times’ piece, wrote on LinkedIn that he expected “more articles coming out from the NYT in the coming days about our industry,” specifically claiming that Kamin has “ZERO journalistic integrity” and broadly pushing back against the Times’ coverage.
In response to a commenter who asked if he had reached out to Kamin about his concerns, Dwiggins was even more critical, claiming that he “reached out to the media nonstop” but “most” are “not interested in hearing opinions that counter their agenda.”
“The news business is about headlines and clicks to…keep readers coming back, because it’s simply a matter of time before the news industry is dead,” he wrote.
