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

executive orderAt the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year, President Trump vowed: “I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment, named after former President Lyndon Johnson, refers to language in the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) that prohibits charities, including religious organizations, from participating in campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.

The president took official action on May 4 through an Executive Order, titled “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” that exhorts federal agencies to respect and protect “religious and political speech.” However, notwithstanding the controversy surrounding the announcement, including one organization’s threat to file a lawsuit the same day, the Order will have little practical effect, and the threat of a lawsuit was withdrawn.


Continue Reading Trump Asks IRS to Keep Hands Off Religious Nonprofits: Will It Have Any Effect?

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

The question of when a politically-active, nonprofit 501(c)(4) group must publicly disclose its donors has been on the front burner in various states—most, like New York and California, have called for greater regulation, while others like Arizona have loosened the reins. At the federal level, silence has been the norm because the statute is generally read as only requiring disclosure by a 501(c)(4) (or other nonprofit such as a 501(c)(6)) if a donor contributes for the purposes of funding a particular ad. The FEC has consistently deadlocked on complaints alleging either that a donor gave for the purpose of supporting an ad or that a 501(c)(4) should be treated as a political committee and disclose all of its donors.

Last week, however, details were released from an FEC enforcement matter that met this stringent test and, as a result, the Commission levied fines totaling $233,000 against three nonprofit groups for failing to identify donors behind specific advertisements. These three settlement agreements, released as a group, provide significant guidance to nonprofit 501(c)(4)s and other actors as to what type of conduct will trigger donor disclosure at the federal level.


Continue Reading The FEC Levels Fines on Nonprofits over Donor Disclosure