On December 11, New York’s attorney general revealed new regulations that would, if adopted, require nonprofit groups doing business in New York to disclose the percentage of total spending devoted to political activities in New York. The rules also would require groups that spend more than $10,000 to identify any donor giving $100 or more.

Many “political” organizations have 501(c)(4) arms that claim to allow their donors to remain anonymous. Donors who don’t mind being disclosed often give to independent expenditure committees (“super PACs”), which publicly disclose all of their donors to state or federal officials. Those who prefer not to disclose their name, address, occupation, and employer will often

Today a D.C. federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a Federal Election Commission rule concerning when advocacy groups and others must disclose their donors, but has directed the FEC to clarify the rule or return to the courts for more litigation. The effect of the ruling is to put in limbo a key disclosure rule less

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has reportedly been investigating 501(c)(4) organizations that have been involved in political activities. According to the New York Times, his office has sent letters to nearly two dozen groups seeking information about their activities.  The exact aim of this investigation is not clear, but commentators have suggested that it

Tax-exempt groups known as 501(c)(4)’s have become a potent force in the 2012 election, eclipsing Super PACs as the vehicle of choice for many corporations and individuals because 501(c)(4)’s do not have to disclose their donors. Amid growing controversy about whether some 501(c)(4)’s are engaged in more extensive election-related activity than the law allows or

Close on the heels of a revocation we noted in a recent post comes yet another IRS ruling revoking 501(c)(4) status of a politically-active organization.  In Private Letter Ruling 201224034, the IRS concluded that the organization was primarily benefiting the personal political and policy interests of the organization’s founder.

The ruling does not directly

The IRS recently revoked the 501(c)(4) status of an organization that identifies and trains potential candidates for one of the political parties. In doing so, the IRS borrowed a restriction from the law governing 501(c)(3)s, which requires such groups to serve a public rather than a private interest. There are reasons to doubt whether this