George E. Constantine

Subscribe to George E. Constantine's Posts

George Constantine is co-chair of Venable's Nonprofit Organizations Group and leads Venable's associations practice. George concentrates his practice on providing legal counseling to and advocacy for nonprofit organizations, including trade associations, professional societies, advocacy groups, charities, and other entities. He has extensive experience with many of the major legal issues affecting nonprofit organizations, including tax exemption, antitrust, governance, and transactional matters. He is well versed in matters related to association standard setting and enforcement, certification, accreditation, and code-of-conduct reviews.

Contact:Read more about George E. Constantine

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated case Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in favor of the nonprofit organizations that brought the suits, holding California’s donor disclosure law to be unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment protection of freedom of association. The immediate effect of the Court’s ruling is that the Court invalidated California’s rule requiring charities registered to fundraise in the state to file with the state Attorney General an unredacted copy of IRS Form 990 Schedule B, which discloses the names and addresses of their major donors.

As we previously wrote when the Court decided to hear the case and later heard oral arguments, the case focused on two main issues: (1) the standard of review that must be applied to laws involving compelled disclosure that are challenged on First Amendment grounds, and (2) whether the law should be held unconstitutional only as applied to the two nonprofits that brought the cases, or if the law should be struck down on its face.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Finds California Donor Disclosure Law Unconstitutional

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated case Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta,1 which argues that California’s donor disclosure law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it will discourage donors from contributing due to the fear that their names and addresses will be publicly disclosed. As we previously wrote, California requires nonprofit organizations registered to fundraise in the state to annually disclose to the California Attorney General’s Office their Schedule B donor information, which is typically filed on a confidential basis with the IRS as part of the otherwise public Form 990.

This is one of the rare cases where the Supreme Court has reviewed a case about charitable speech or charitable association. In the cases of Buckley v. Valeo and Doe v. Reed, the Supreme Court found that the standard of exacting scrutiny applies when assessing compelled disclosure in the electoral context. The Court’s questions to the parties during oral arguments probed whether California’s disclosure law would be properly reviewed under exacting scrutiny, how the standard of review should be applied, and whether the law can withstand such scrutiny facially (that is, as applied to everyone) or at least as applied to the two nonprofits that brought the cases. The case is considered by many to be vitally important, not only as it relates to disclosure of charitable donors, but as a potential “back door” into challenging rules requiring disclosure of donors under campaign finance laws.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on California Donor Disclosure Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review two similar constitutional challenges to California’s law requiring that charitable organizations registered to fundraise in the state disclose the names and addresses of their major donors: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra (No. 19-251) and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (No. 19-255).

Dozens of nonprofits nationwide have filed briefs opposing the California law, emphasizing concerns about the privacy of their donors and the risk of public disclosure of the organizations’ Schedule B donor information, which is typically filed on a confidential basis with the IRS as part of the otherwise public Form 990. The briefs represent diverse sectors of the nonprofit industry, such as public policy, research, and educational foundations; professional membership associations; and social welfare organizations.

The key issue in the case is whether California’s law has a chilling effect on First Amendment association rights, as donors to controversial causes may fear the fallout if their identity were to be made public. The petitioners argue that California has not shown a sufficient state interest to justify these First Amendment implications.Continue Reading Nonprofits Weigh in on California Donor Disclosure Cases Before U.S. Supreme Court

After a great deal of whipsawing as the rules flipped back and forth, politically-active nonprofits now have certainty from the IRS: section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations will not have to disclose the identity of their donors on their annual Form 990 filing with the IRS. However, some states are already beginning to require this information…

A federal judge on July 30, 2019 overturned an IRS ruling, issued almost exactly a year ago, that allowed many nonprofits to stop disclosing their donors on their annual tax returns.

In Revenue Procedure 2018-38 (July 16, 2018), the IRS allowed social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4), professional and trade associations under section 501(c)(6), and many other types of organizations required to file a Form 990 series return, to cease disclosing their large donors ($5,000 or more) on Schedule B of the Form 990. The major exceptions were section 501(c)(3) organizations and section 527 political organizations, both of which are subject to statutory requirements for donor disclosure that the IRS could not waive. Those IRS rules are described in more detail here.

Even though the names of donors disclosed on Schedule B of the Form 990 were not made available to the public, only to the IRS, many commentators viewed the new rules as facilitating “dark money” in politics. The state of Montana, joined by the state of New Jersey, brought a lawsuit alleging that the IRS could not simply waive the donor disclosure requirements, which were established by IRS regulation, without providing an opportunity for public comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.Continue Reading Donor Disclosure Rules for Nonprofit Tax Returns Overturned by Federal Court

Many issues important to public charities are addressed in the platforms adopted by the political parties. As Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties wrap up their conventions and the Green Party meets this week, charities are asking how they can talk about the issues raised in the platforms. Charities can advance their position on the issues…

tax forms and notesA substantial number of organizations exempt under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 501(c)(4), and their individual officers and directors, may be subject to financial penalties if they do not file a Form 8976, Notice of Intent to Operate Under Section 501(c)(4), with the Internal Revenue Service (Service or IRS) on or before September 6, 2016.

On July 8, 2016 the IRS released a revenue procedure for implementing new statutory requirements for certain organizations that operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This requirement comes on the heels of the December 2015 enactment of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015.

The recently released Revenue Procedure 2016-41 contains temporary regulations implementing the 501(c)(4) provisions of the PATH Act and describes the new Form 8976 and the related rules for filing it.Continue Reading New Mandatory IRS Notification Process for 501(c)(4) Nonprofit Organizations Finally Announced

On November 26, the Department of Treasury released proposed regulations billed as “more definitive rules” for when the IRS will treat certain activities by section 501(c)(4) organization as political activity. It is hard to argue that the proposal provides some clarity, but only by classifying a wide variety of activities as candidate-related and therefore not …