Nonprofits

Subscribe to Nonprofits

As summer draws near, the tempo of the planning and fundraising for the DNC and RNC national party presidential nominating conventions is increasing. After the challenges and disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, both parties are eager for a return to robust in-person attendance. For corporations, trade associations, and other nonprofit organizations seeking to host events or to provide support for the conventions, understanding the legal guardrails is essential.

House and Senate Gift Rules Apply to the Conventions

There is no special gift rule exception for convention events. All events to which federal legislators and congressional staff are invited must comply with House and Senate gift rules. Convention event planners and sponsors should be particularly mindful of the following events and items that the gift rules expressly allow:Continue Reading A Guide to Supporting the 2024 Presidential Nominating Conventions: From Hosting Events to Writing a Check

The Federal Election Commission has issued an advisory opinion making it much easier for federal candidates to offload their paid canvassing programs onto state PACs, nonprofits, and super PACs. While the campaign will need to pay for access to data collected, outside groups can now coordinate their canvassing activities—including the content of messages that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates—with the candidates themselves.

In the request, a state political committee proposed hiring vendors to canvass potential voters before the election and distribute literature that would expressly advocate for the election or defeat of both state and federal candidates. The committee planned to “coordinate” its canvass by collaborating with federal candidates on aspects like strategy and messaging. Was this, requestors asked, an in-kind contribution to the federal candidates that a state committee like this one is prohibited from making? To this, the Commission answered no.Continue Reading FEC Allows Nonfederal Committee to Coordinate Paid Canvassing Efforts with Federal Candidates

A flurry of recent advisory opinions from the Department of Justice’s FARA unit raise new questions about how the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) might apply to the nonprofit community. Adding to the uncertainty, these opinions arrive just as momentum is increasing for DOJ to adopt new regulations to clarify and update the pre-World War II law that has seen aggressive enforcement in the last decade.

FARA generally requires agents of foreign principals engaged in certain activities within the United States to influence domestic and foreign policy to register and publicly disclose the relationship and their activities to DOJ. In the last few years, enforcement has ramped up, with multiple indictments in the wake of investigations into foreign interference in the 2016 elections. As a result, organizations with international connections have called for greater guidance on the reach of what is a notoriously vague law. To this end, DOJ began releasing heavily redacted advisory opinions interpreting FARA and its regulations.

A common theme among opinions released in February 2022 is the scope of the so-called academic exemption, one of several exemptions to the law’s registration and reporting requirements. Under this exemption, an agent working on behalf of any kind of foreign principal need not register under FARA if the activity performed on behalf of the principal promotes bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or the fine arts. Nonprofits, including universities and other educational organizations, religious groups, and other charitable organizations, have long relied on this exemption when engaging in activities that may cause them to be considered an “agent” of a foreign entity.Continue Reading New FARA Advisory Opinions Put Nonprofits on Notice

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

Charitable and social welfare organizations that file annual financial reports with the New York Attorney General’s Charities Bureau now must file those reports—and potentially two other reports—with the New York Department of State. These requirements are a result of changes to the New York Executive Law, effective January 1, 2021. The following are key deadlines:

  • May 15: Annual financial reports (the CHAR 500) are due to the Charities Bureau and the Department of State by the fifteenth day of the fifth month after the close of the filing organization’s fiscal year. For organizations operating on a calendar year fiscal year, this means the CHAR 500 is due on May 15. Extensions are available for up to 180 days (mirroring the filing schedule for the IRS Form 990).
  • July 31 and January 31: New reports for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations related to certain advocacy activities in New York, if applicable, will be due to the Department of State before July 31 and January 31.

Continue Reading New Nonprofit Filing Requirements in New York

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…

We may still be a year out from the next general election, but until the polls close on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, politics will be inescapably in the air—and in the workplace. Employees will be talking, sometimes arguing, and sometimes participating in one campaign or another. Prudent nonprofits should take note of what they may be required to do or are prohibited from doing about their employees’ desire to participate in the electoral process.

The Workplace Is Not a “Free Country.” Let’s start with the basics: the First Amendment does not apply to the private workplace. The Constitution does not prevent private employers from restricting their employees’ political speech. Nonprofits generally can restrict employees’ speech during work time and on work equipment, especially if the organization has a legitimate, business-related reason to do so.

Your Tax-Exempt Status. Nonprofits that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) may not themselves engage in any political campaign activity (i.e., activity to support or oppose candidates for elective office). The IRS has said that individuals who work for 501(c)(3)s generally maintain their right to engage in political campaign activity, but they have to do so in a way that does not implicate their employer. For example, employees—particularly senior employees—must be careful when endorsing candidates or making other political statements so that it does not appear the organization is endorsing the candidate. The IRS has said that communications should include a clear disclaimer that “titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only” when a nonprofit leader’s name and position are included. Employees also should not make endorsements during nonprofit meetings and events.

For 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations, which are allowed to engage in some political campaign activity, what an employee does or says on his or her own time is not likely to threaten your tax-exempt status.Continue Reading Election-Year Tips for Nonprofits: Employee Participation in the Political Process

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