UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY CAPSTONE PROJECT

FUNDING PROGRESSIVE 501C4S:

STRATEGIES FOR
SUSTAINED CHANGE

MEGAN MASTERSON
MPP CANDIDATE SPRING 2023
 Table of Contents

CONTENTS
02 16-18
Glossary of Terms Methodology

03 19 - 28
Executive Summary Findings and Analysis

04 29 - 31
Introduction Recommendations

05 32 - 33
Problem Statement, Goals Conclusion and
and Research Questions Acknowledgements

06 - 15 33 - 45
Literature Review Appendixes and
References

01
 The following terms are mentioned throughout
GLOSSARY OF TERMS the report. Please note below for the context in
which they should be understood

501c3 or c3:
a type of nonprofit that is charitable in nature and partakes in limited
lobbying activities. Lobbying is legally limited to only 20% of their
annual expenditures of up to $500,000. Any donations made to these
organizations are free from any tax burden.

501c4 or c4:
a type of nonprofit where the organization’s main emphasis is still
social welfare, however, they are not limited in their lobbying efforts
so long as their lobbying is consistent with their mission. These
organizations have no tax exemption and are subject to tax laws.

Political Action Committee or PAC:

a type of organization (not a nonprofit) that fundraises for the
purpose of raising and spending money to elect or defeat certain
candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The term was created in
pursuit of campaign finance reform.

Federal Election Commission (FEC):

an independent regulatory agency of the United States whose
purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in U.S. federal elections.

Dark Money:
funds raised to influence elections by 501c4 organizations that are not
required to disclose their donors.

Conservative:
political ideology aligned with the Republican Party.

Progressive:
political ideology aligned with the Democratic Party.

02
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Project Background and Purpose
The following report outlines the capstone project Funding Progressive 501c4s: Strategies for Sustained
Change. The project aims to investigate strategies for progressive organizational funding with the goal of
strengthening the sector’s ability to withstand political transitions and funding fluctuations. The capstone’s
research and deliverables have the end goal of providing aggregate research and suggested strategies to
progressive 501c4 organizations and partners in pursuit of significant and sustained funding; as well as
providing a baseline for further research of the 501c4 space.

Overview of Methodology
I used a mixed-methods approach and incorporated three main modes of research collection: (1) a literature
review, (2) organization case studies and (3) one-on-one expert interviews. The key findings from each stage of
research provided evidence that informed my recommendations for both organizations and funders in the
progressive 501c4 space.

Summary of Findings
Structures are diverse, and they inform fundraising: there are many ways in which 501c4s come into
existence and are structured. Unique partnerships with 501c3s and PACs can dramatically shift the way
organizations fundraise.
Fundraising success depends on steady leadership, reputation, and key strategies: an organization's
leadership and reputation are critically important to success. Organizations tend to be more successful
when there is steady leadership. Organizations also tend to be more successful when they focus on
authentic messaging, neglecting to make panic or tragedy central to the story of their success.
There is a difference between conservative and progressive funding strategy: progressive funders tend to
pick and choose causes, shying away from unrestricted long-term grants and focusing on reporting and
short-term metrics. Meanwhile, conservative funders have a history of providing long-term, unrestricted
grants that focus on building collaboration, capacity building, and shifting political narratives, funding
larger overarching policy ideas.
There have been significant shifts in the 501c4 space: Historical events have dramatically shifted the roles
of 501c4s in society. There has been a significant growth of 501c4s following the landmark Supreme Court
Decision Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This goes hand in hand with a
rise in dark money.

Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations for Organizations
Organizations shouldn’t rely on panic or tragedy appeals as core fundraising strategies
501c4 organizations should have a sister, or partner, 501c3 organization if possible
There is inherent strength in progressive individual giving, organizations should continue to capitalize on
this and grow those programs
Organizations tend to weather funding instability best when they remain values-driven and focus on telling
evergreen success stories of wins their organization has been able to accomplish
Recommendations for Funders
Funders need to prioritize funding and facilitate collaboration between organizations
Funders should provide more unrestricted, multiyear, long-term funding
Funders must understand that to make a difference in 2023 and beyond, politically partisan behavior is
necessary
03
INTRODUCTION
$1,937,650,931 was raised for House of Representative candidates in 2021 leading
up to the 2022 election (OpenSecrets, 2023). That's more money in one year than
the entire estimated net worth of Kim Kardashian for the House alone.

A year before in 2020, $6.5 billion was spent on campaigns. This amount is triple
what was spent in 2000, just twenty years prior. To put these numbers in
perspective, $6 billion could fund 451 new hospitals or build 981 public elementary
schools (Roller, 2012). While of course, it’s not always as easy as simple math, one
thing is clear: a lot of money is being spent on politics. Those elected gain the
power to shape millions of lives.

This begs the question: does money fund power? Where is all this money
coming from? And the subject of this report: how do progressive nonprofits fit
into all?

This project began in October 2022 for the organization Supermajority, a

501c4 voting advocacy hub focused on protecting women’s rights and
bringing women together as a political force that transcends age, race and
background. The initial project scope (Appendix A) was drafted alongside
Supermajority’s Executive Director at the time, Amanda Brown Lierman.
Unfortunately, in January 2023, Amanda resigned from her role as Executive
Director and neglected to comment or continue the work on this project
following her departure. While I was able to gather some information from
Supermajority, the project scope dramatically shifted in February of 2023.
Rather than working with a specific client, I embarked on research that could
support the progressive 501c4 space generally. You will find the results of this
pivoted research in the following report.

The project aims to investigate strategies for progressive organizational

funding with the goal of strengthening the sector’s ability to withstand
political transitions and funding fluctuations. The capstone’s research and
deliverables have the end goal of providing aggregate research and
suggested strategies to progressive 501c4 organizations and funders; as well
as providing a baseline for further research in the 501c4 space.

04
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
This project started with a question:
How are progressive 501c4 organizations ensuring that they can build
power and capacity over time and year-round, regardless of who holds
office, building strong foundations of sustained growth?

GOALS:

GET TO KNOW PRODUCE A EXPAND THE

THE C4 SPACE REPORT RESEARCH
Research 501c4 funding, Produce a report that Expand the research on
gaining extensive outlines strategies for the 501c4 space, using this
knowledge on the sustained funding, and report as a foundation for
landscape of strengths and acts as a landscape analysis further, more in-depth,
challenges of funding for progressive published research.
progressive policy organizations to reference.
organizations; paying
special attention to the role
of partner 501c3 funding
and the long-term
practices of competing for
conservative organizations .

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

What are the key strategies for sustaining How are fundraising strategies similar and
funding for 501c4 organizations? different for progressive vs. conservative
501c4 organizations?

What is the typical relationship between Why do donors choose to give to 501c4
501c3 and sister 501c4 organizations? organizations? Are they considering a
sustainable funding strategy?

05
 Summary
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Introduction
organizations, where the organization’s main
This Literature Review acts as a foundation for
emphasis is still social welfare, however,
interviews, case studies, and ultimately the
there are no limits on lobbying so long as
project’s final recommendations. To best
their lobbying is consistent with their
understand the broad landscape of funding
mission (Kerlin and Reid, 2010). 501c4
progressive 501c4 organizations, the following
organizations, however, are not tax
research analyzes literature pertaining to c4
deductible and are subject to finance laws.
funding, progressive fundraising strategy,
Federal law determines tax exemption, while
conservative fundraising strategy, impacts of
state law defines charitable and
the Citizen’s United decision, and dark money
noncharitable organizations and regulates
fundraising. By diving into each of these
their governance (Sugin, 2016). Both c3 and
topics, the capstone project will be better
c4 organizations are considered nonprofits,
informed, organized, and legitimate. Sources
however, they operate differently and often
include peer-reviewed research, academic
in partnership.
journal articles, opinion articles, industry leader
reports, and blogs.
One study reviewed a collection of nonprofit
organizations with complex structures, or
A. 501c4 Funding
organizations that operated with varied c3,
In the United States, nonprofit organizations
c4 and political action committee (PAC)
have varying tax-exempt structures and
arms. The study concluded that the more a
funding restrictions. Both IRS and FED
nonprofit focused on advocacy in its mission,
regulations shape organizations’ structure,
the more likely they are to have the c4 as an
finances and programming, especially
anchor organization funding the c3 and PAC
organizations involved in advocacy (Kerlin and
arms because the tax entity provided greater
Reid 2010). Nonprofits that are charitable in
latitude in advocacy activities. However,
nature and partake in limited lobbying activity
there are also many cases in which a 501c3
are registered as 501c3 (c3) organizations,
serves as a coordinated fiscal sponsor for the
where lobbying is legally limited to only 20% of
501c4, facilitating access of the c4 funding to
their annual expenditures up to $500,000
the fundraising capabilities of the c3. While
(Kerlin and Reid, 2010). Most important to note,
many organizations work in uncoordinated
however, is that any donations made to 501c3
structures, with autonomous c3 and c4s, due
organizations are tax-deductible and these
to complicated legal requirements;
organizations are free from any tax burden.
coordinated structures where the tax
The trade-off then becomes limiting advocacy
exemption is combined can offer advantages
involvement in order to remain tax-deductible
to achieving the broadest range of advocacy
status, attracting donors. If organizations
at the most efficient cost. The Sierra Club is
choose to partake in substantial political
an example (Kerlin and Reid, 2010).
activity, they then register as 501c4

06
Ultimately, careful consideration must be
taken when considering structure, as it can
determine the ultimate success or failure of
organizations and their advocacy.

501c4 organizations became increasingly

popular following the Supreme Court decision,
Citizens United vs. Federal Election
Commission, which allowed corporations to
act as human actors would, giving to political
organizations without regulation (Sugin 2016).
While some organizations became concerned
about the lack of transparency in political
donations, others rushed to mobilize. More
specifically, liberals tended to shy away from
creating c4s while Republicans dove in
(Greendyk, 2013). Before the Citizens United
decision, research showed that 501c4s were
charitable donations, broadening the
most active as urban social-service nonprofits
number of tax benefits people can receive
(Leroux, 2007), encouraging political acts like
from charitable giving. Not only did this
voting as opposed to directly supporting
make public charity (c3) funding less relevant
specific political actors. This was paired with a
to fundraising, but also resulted in an
historical lack of funding, as data shows there
immediate decline in giving to public
was little support from foundations to political
charities (Pozen, 2018). His investigative
work (Krehely, 2005). The Foundation Center
journalism noted tax lawyers steering super-
reported only 1.2% of all grant dollars were
wealthy philanthropists to social welfare (c4)
allocated to social action and civil rights work
organizations. Or as Pozen put it “the 501c3
in 2002 (Krehely, 2005). While there was nearly
golden handcuffs have become a little less
1 million 501c3s registered with the IRS, there
golden” (Pozen, 2018).
were only 120,000 501c4s (Krehely, 2005). Prior
to 2010, many 501c4 organizations relied on
Overall, while there are plenty of anecdotal
funding through membership dues and
and opinion pieces that have cropped up in
individual contributions for a large part of their
the past five years, academic research has
budgets (Krehely, 2005).
been slow to follow on the landscape of
501c4s, especially following the election of
Then, everything changed with the Citizens
Donald Trump as President of the United
United Decision. Atlantic journalist David
States. A bulk of the research remains
Pozen states “nonprofit groups that used to
focused on 501c3s. Thus, I chose to look at
focus their energies on litigation and
historical trends and 501c3 funding patterns
education [pre-Trump] are increasingly
to draw comparisons and generate
structuring themselves to be political players"
important context about the fundraising
(Pozen, 2018). Pozen also points to the more
landscape.
recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a key player in
the expansion of 501c4 funding. This piece of
legislation allowed taxpayers to not itemize

07
B. 501c3 Funding and Giving Trends
Because the amount of research on c3s is so
massive, I focused my search on women and
funding specifically, as it related most directly
to my initial client, Supermajority. While these
findings don’t cover the scope of all 501c4
work, I believe they are worth noting.
As mentioned above, the Trump presidency
changed a lot, shaking the public sector and
challenging societal status-quos that had been
adopted over time. Indiana University’s
Women’s Philanthropy Institute investigated
just how much giving changed. While
charitable giving was lower than expected
immediately following the 2016 election, it was
attributed to lower giving concentrated
among men. Women men’s giving did not
experience the same election effect, in fact,
the difference between men’s and women’s
giving to progressive charities increased by
600% in the week after the election (Osili et al,
2018). Simultaneously, giving to progressive
organizations, specifically, exploded (Osili et al,
2018). The report shares that “the increase in
charitable giving to relevant progressive
charities after the 2016 election was driven
primarily by women donors” (Osili et al, 2018).
We saw this even before the election, with
individual donors contributing 71% of Hilary
Cliton’s funding and only 40% of Donald
Trump's (Osili et al, 2018). Breaking this down
further, when it came to political giving, Trump
heavily relied on white women, especially
independents, in the suburbs (Haley, 2019).
While Bernie Sanders raised the most from
women in suburban districts- Trump
campaign aides and officials argue that the
polling data does not account for suburban
women who favored Trump and donated but
did not feel comfortable publicly saying so
when information was gathered (Haley, 2019).
A September 2015 report by the Lily School of
Philanthropy studied single men and women
and found that single women are more likely
than single men to give, in both higher quality
and quantity (Mesch et al, 2015). The report
also found that as women’s incomes rise,
they become more likely to give to charity
than their male counterparts (Mesch et al,
2015).
So how can organizations use that to their
advantage? The Challenge to Act Institute
for Women’s Policy conducted over 120 in-
depth interviews with progressive activist
women from diverse backgrounds to see
how they think about giving and American
democracy. They found that seven values
motivated and inspired these women to
engage in progressive organizations:
community, family, equality, power,
compassion, balance and practice (Caiazza et
al, 2008). The study notes,
“This discussion of the values that many
progressive women activists hold is
incomplete without adding one more: the
value of practice. In their long history of
running family life, supporting the careers of
their husbands, and doing the day-to-day
work of churches, schools, and communities,
women have “practiced” or lived out their
values in many ways. Progressive women
activists live out their values as well by
promoting change in policy and practice.”
(Caiazza et al, 2008).
More broadly, Jeanne Bell and Kim Klein
produced a report on how to capitalize on
individual fundraising. They noted it is of the
utmost importance to not only have a donor
database but also to survey donors and get
feedback from fundraisers on what
messages are resonating, studying individual
fundraising campaigns and events, as moods
often shift (Bell and Klein, n.d).
While the behavior of women donors is
important, it’s equally as important to
understand how much philanthropic giving
is going to organizations that support
women and girls. Once again, the University
08
of Indiana’s Women’s Philanthropy Institute is
a leader in this realm, with comprehensive
measurements on giving to women’s and girls’
causes.
They keep a Women and Girls Index (WGI),
which is the only systematically generated,
comprehensive index of charitable
organizations dedicated to women and girls in
the U.S. (The Women and Girls Index 2021,
2022). The research shows that while women’s
and girls’ organizations are growing faster
than other charitable organizations along
financial measures (revenues, expenses, etc.),
they still remain one of the lowest-funded
subsectors with less than 1% of foundation
funding (The Women and Girls Index 2021,
2022).
While there is steady growth, which indicates
the subsector growing in the nonprofit space,
it is nowhere close to competing with
subsectors like religion and education. While
there are promising growth areas in corporate
giving, such as Goldman Sachs investing in
Black women and Bank of America’s investing
in women’s entrepreneurship, there is still a
long way to go (The Women and Girls Index
2021, 2022).
C. Progressive vs. Conservative Strategy
While keeping 501c3 and c4 trends in mind,
another main focal point of research for this
project is the comparison of Republican vs.
Democrat (conservative vs. liberal),
fundraising and growth strategies. General
political discourse has focused on how
conservative organizations have been able to
grow power over decades, while liberal
organizations seem to struggle to hone in on
sustainable growth. The following research
set out to investigate this idea, uncovering
many debates and potential solutions.
Progressive pitfalls have been heavily
debated and researched. Dana Fisher’s book,
Activism Inc. suggests the outsourcing of
grassroots campaigns by hiring young
people to canvas is “strangling progressive
politics in America” by burning out young
people from careers too fast (Fisher, 2006).
Fisher notes that most canvassers quit within
their first two months on the job due to weak
leadership and a ladder to success rooted in
popularity over skill. Author daisy rooks adds
to Fisher’s claim and suggests that it is not
just burnout that is contributing, but also the
race of who makes

Image from Women and Girls Index, 2021 09

up the membership of this outsourced focus on the big picture, act quickly, do not
activism (rooks, 2006). Oftentimes, middle- micromanage, provide significant general
class suburban white people make up the operating funds, fund for twenty or thirty
canvassers and are sent into urban areas years, support leaders and movements,
where they are tasked with recruiting and engage in policy and politics, and treat
mobilizing individuals in diverse communities. grantees as equal partners. Progressive
Rook argues that not only is this ineffective, funders – with a few exceptions –
but harmful (rooks, 2006). While people get intellectualize, are severely risk-averse, focus
involved early and with no deep commitment narrowly, fund isolated strategies and
or tie to the causes they are campaigning for, programs, avoid politics, and treat grantees
it lacks luster compared to previous like parasites and freeloaders." (Le, 2018)
progressive social movements of the 60s and
70s led by the communities that were affected. Both Le and Tapp, although opinion writers
Fisher and rooks wrote their piece in 2006, but have a point. And it’s rooted in research.
much of the debate still rings true today as Alexander Hertel-Fernandez at Harvard
progressive organizers across the country University conducted research on four
recruit and mobilize young people at higher decades of conservative institution-building
rates than conservatives. that led to conservatives “making a sound
strategic decision to prioritize activity at the
As it relates to fundraising, Anne Tapp of the state level” (Hertel-Fernandez, 2016 p. 461). It
Safehour Progressive Alliance suggests that wasn’t just a state focus that brought
fundraising skill gets lost in progressive Republicans success, it was also their
organizations during the transition from difference in structure. While liberals
grassroots “activism and mobilization” to invested in cross-state organizing that was
“pragmatism and institutionalization” (Tapp, uneven and fragmented, republicans
2006). She quotes “The same people who can organized significantly cohesive, larger
organize seemingly disinterested communities organizations that focused on creating a
in response to injustice, who are unfazed by concentrated, big reach (Hertel-Fernandez,
hostile crowds and personal attacks, who 2016). You can see the ripples of this across
commit their very breath to the struggle for policy organizations, from climate change
justice, can crumble at the thought of (Brulle et al, 2021) to tobacco legislation
fundraising" (Tapp, 2006 p. 6). Tapp claims (Fallin et al, 2014). Critics claim that liberal
progressive organizations are too focused on funders hold progressive organizations back
middle-of-the-road solutions that they with their reluctance to finance partisan
sacrifice deep collaboration and advancement policy development and lobbying. Hertel-
on broad social justice goals. Tapp ultimately Fernandez points to a backlash against the
calls for more frankness with donors and Ford Foundation in the 1960s after “advocacy
supporters regarding the tragedy of disjointed philanthropy” resulted in legal restrictions
nonprofits vying for limited funds. While Tapp that explicitly barred lobbying and political
wrote in 2016, nonprofit opinion writer Vu Le activity by private foundations (Hertel-
reiterates these same points later in 2018, Fernandez, 2016). Meanwhile, others argue
writing: that liberal organizers were too late to hop
"The problem, however, is not how on the 501c4 train post-Citizens United
philanthropy operates, but how progressive (Oklobdzia, 2019). Yet, the Republican
philanthropy operates. Conservative funders strategy to invest sizable resources to

10
infrastructure and coordinated policy goals did
not come with Citizens United, it dates back
decades. In 1997 the National Committee for
Responsive Philanthropy published a
comprehensive review of 12 of the largest
conservative foundations and the role they
played in developing and sustaining America’s
“conservative labyrinth”, a term coined by Paul
Weyrich in 1996 (Paget, 2001). The report
offered aggregate accounting and detailed
analysis which confirmed that conservative
foundations invested in an overtly ideological
agenda, granting unrestricted money to those
who focused on shared political vision and
activism; supporting market policy ideas; or
cultivated republican leadership (Covington,
1997). The analysis found that the main focus of
the conservative organization was simple: to
fund ideological agendas which in turn built
strong institutions. The stark difference

Republican 77 million
Democrat 18.6 million
between conservative and liberal strategies at
the time is made clear in the image on the
right of the last page, published in the report
(NCRIP, 1997).

While the left was debating where it was

appropriate for the foundation community to
invest, conservative foundations were
“developing and implementing a highly
effective and politically-informed approach to
public policy grant-making” (Covington, 1997).
The grants formed an impressive and
comprehensive goal, setting them up for
success in the present day where we see
conservative institutional strongholds across
American academia, Congress, the Judiciary,
major media, executive branch agencies and
philanthropy (Covington, 1997).

11
There are noteworthy things that Democrats
have succeeded in as well. For example, their
ability to mobilize grassroots donors has far
outshined Republicans, as shown in the
images below from 2014.

Most recently, liberal organizations have

shattered fundraising records in battleground
states, noting back-lash energy following
Donald Trump’s election (Mitchell and Ewall-
Wice, 2020). More recent research finds that
liberal activism is shifting to meet the tax-code
shift following the 2016 election. Before, liberal
activism revolved around labor unions and
public charities, Whereas now, we see more With all this analysis and historical data, of
progressive organizations embracing more course, come suggestions. Authors across
general 501c4 culture (Pozen, 2018). In 2017, research suggested that liberal funders
following Trump’s election, the ACLU grew its adopt the right wings approach of general
c4’s total assets by 89%; Southern Poverty Law grant-making with little restriction. They also
Center spun off a c4, SPLC Action Fund, and encourage that progressive organizations
the NAACP transformed entirely into a 501c4, fund broad, long-term causes, as opposed to
leaving its c3 status behind (Pozen, 2018). what Vu Le called “the salad bar” approach to
Meanwhile, conservative organizations, such as funding where grantees pick and choose
Concerned Women for America, a conservative which issues appeal to them in little bites
women’s organization that has been around (Le, 2018). Paget quotes “Conservative
for 40 years, has seen a steep decline in staff philanthropists operate as movement
and funding, only surviving by aligning strategists first and funders second” (Paget,
themselves with right-wing political 2001). Opinion columnists suggest that
powerbrokers (Campaign for Accountability, progressive organizations should do the
2020). same.

Republican vs. Democratic Governors Association Fundraising, Spring 2014

R D R D

Images from Bump, 2014

12
D. Citizen's United Decision and "Dark limbo opened by the 2007 Supreme Court
Money Fundraising" case Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC and
whose donors are exempt from disclosure
As mentioned throughout previous findings, (Oklobdzija, 2019 p. 2). Not only was more
the Citizens United Decision entirely changed money being introduced to politics, but
the way that actors can fundraise and engage there was also a decrease in how much the
with politics. It also brought a new term to public could learn about it. This brings
fame, “dark money fundraising.” Thus, both challenges to the landscape of research, as
became important to this research. established literature around social
influence and political participation is now
Citizens United vs. Federal Election largely hidden. Researcher Stan Oklobdzija
Commission was a January 2010 Supreme states that “It is reasonable to assume that
Court case that was ruled 5-4, allowing donors to dark money groups are more
corporations and unions to use general active and more sophisticated than the vast
treasuries to pay for “independent majority of those contributing in American
expenditures” which included political elections” (Oklobdzija, 2019 p. 2). Funders
advertisements. Following the decision, the and researchers are left to question, why are
biggest increase in political spending came they donating secretly? Who would fear
from nonparty groups making “independent discovery and why?
expenditures” (Krumholz, 2013). Over time, it
has been documented that the sector In summation, the Citizens United Decision
contributing the most money to federal has led grassroots donors and organizations
candidates is “the sector that has the most to become less and less powerful, with
money to give- Wall Street” (Krumholz, 2013). political establishment-aligned organizations
heading straight to the top of the power
The decision also resulted in the increasing pyramid (Greendyk, 2013). While the IRS is
role of nonprofit political spending through unable to detect 501c4 misuse because of
501c4s. In 2000, less than $50 million was limited capacity and resources, funding has
spent on politics and the vast majority of started to look more like the wild west
donors were disclosed. In 2012, there was (Greendyk, 2013). This topic is explored in
nearly $350 million in political spending and depth in Jane Mayer’s book, Dark Money,
most donors were not disclosed. According to which will be used in further research, given
research in the San Francisco Law Review, more time.
“emboldened by Citizens United, 2010
campaign spending by outside groups E. Policy Organizations
increased more than 400% from the 2006 mid- This capstone calls for an understanding of
term election to nearly $300 million, roughly both nonprofits and politics, which naturally
60% of the combined spending of federal lends itself to the need for a deep
parties and outside groups-the first time ever understanding of policy organizations and
that outside spending eclipsed party their function in both philanthropic and
spending." (Byrnes and Lannin, 2012, p. 483). political realms. Thus, I underwent brief
research on the impact of policy
Thus, the term dark money was introduced. organizations.
The term was coined in 2010 by Bill Allison of
the Sunlight Foundation and refers to 501c4 A study in 2002 considered the impact of
designated nonprofits that exist in a regulatory interest groups and social movement

13
organizations (SMOs) as compared to political 2010). Today, not a single campaign goes by
parties. While all three types had significant without a massive email list. Karpf gives this
impacts on policy, when political opinion was credit to MoveOn and suggests that their
considered, political organizations and parties digital membership fundraising regime
had less impact than public opinion. It was mirrors the changes witnessed in the sixties
also found that parties had a similar impact and seventies with the “interest group
overall as interest groups; and interest groups explosion.” In the same way that special
and SMOS only affected policy to the extent interest groups gained popularity and
that their activities proved relevant to election changed politics in the sixties and seventies,
campaigns (Burnstein and Linton, 2002). This the digital age has transformed politics
research, however, is limited as it was based on towards large generalist organizations that
narrowly available data and research 20 years span multiple issue spaces and rely on the
ago. internet for communicating to the masses.
With no real downside to an “expansive list”,
Other researchers considered the role of policy it becomes a must-have in the virtual world
organizations as it relates to nonprofit to have a database of names and emails
associations in advocacy and policy. In a 2009 (Karpf, 2019).
national survey of nearly 2,000 nonprofits,
roughly 75% reported that they had engaged It’s no question the internet has affected the
in at least one public policy activity (Balassiano way we communicate with each other, but
and Chandler, 2009). It is clear that nonprofits the MoveOn case study offers an interesting
are engaging as policy organizations, but look at the bigger picture as it relates to
traditionally, they shy away from using direct political movements. Karpf aptly notes “it
language such as “lobbying” and instead demonstrates why the recent explosion of
choose terms like “education” or “public internet-mediated participatory activities is
awareness” (Boris, 1998). associated with significant disadvantages for
longstanding political associations,
F. Additional Findings presaging a generation shift within the
While undergoing research, there were advocacy community that structure and
additional findings that are important to note mobilize collective action in American
but didn’t fall into the categories listed prior. politics.”

Case Study: Move On and The Digital Age Bolder Advocacy is a leader in the 501c4
Postdoctoral Research Associate, David Karpf space and has published dozens of reports
studied the role of technology in what he related to enhancing the power of a 501c4
coined “The MoveOn Effect”, studying the organization. Of the reports that I went
advocacy organization MoveOn, which was through, some of the most interesting
initially founded by a tech couple who was fed findings had to do with digital advocacy.
up with the Lewinsky and Clinton trial and Bolder Advocacy shares tips and tricks, like
wanted people to “move on” thanks to their the one below on why organizations should
web base platform. The organization had consider keeping their 501c3 and 501c4
humble beginnings but ballooned in websites separate:
popularity post-9/11 and again during Obama’s “In 2009, the IRS found a 501(c)(3)
election. Karpf argues that MoveOn was the organization had engaged in prohibited
pioneer of online activism and fundraising, all political activity when its website housed
through the “membership” email list (Karpf, pages for its related 501(c)(4) organization
14
In that situation, the 501(c)(3) organization
maintained a website with the 501(c)(4)’s
pages nested within that site…Endorsements
of political candidates appeared on the 501(c)
(4) pages. Despite the fact that the 501(c)(4)
paid a proportionate share of the website
costs under a cost-sharing agreement
between the two organizations, the IRS found
that the 501(c)(3) had engaged in political
intervention by hosting the endorsements on
the website.” (Mattison, 2022)
When 501c3s or 501c4s post on their website,
any online activity deemed political is open to
review from the IRS, as online activity related
or linking to anything political will
considered political speech, just as other
media is treated (Mattison, 2022).
Conclusion
This literature review offers a baseline for
further research as the project expands in the
future, as well as conducted interviews and
case studies. With this basic understanding of
data and historical trends, interview questions
and conversations were better informed and
fruitful.
As the aforementioned research suggests, it
will be important to hear from experts about
both long-term strategies, as well as post-
Citizens-United strategies and most recently,
post-Trump strategies. While progressive
funding ebbs and flows along trends, there is
be also a clear need for a strong baseline strategy
and comprehensive collaboration.
15
 The following describes my
METHODOLOGY research methods, which
ultimately informed my
suggestions and
recommendations. Following the
literature review, the majority of my
research was qualitative, relying on
individual research and one on one
interviews.

Data Collection Approach

The research for this project was three-

fold: literature review, case studies, and
one-on-one interviews.

16
Data Collection Approaches

A literature review was conducted first, with the goal of generating a baseline of
knowledge as it relates to 501c4 funding and the dynamics of conservative vs.
progressive fundraising. More than forty sources were reviewed in the following
Literature categories: 501c4 funding, 501c3 funding and giving trends, progressive vs.
Review conservative fundraising and advocacy strategies (of both the past and present),
policy organizations, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, “dark money
fundraising” and additional findings related to 501c4 funding of progressive and
women-benefitting organizations.

Once the landscape analysis based on literature was complete, I conducted case
studies on six organizations - three conservative and three progressive - that had
dual 501c3 and 501c4 structure to better understand how individual
organizations operationalize and gather funding. To achieve this, I investigated
the following organizations’ public financial records, annual reports, marketing
language, media and press, and public websites. In the case of Supermajority, I
had access to nonpublic financial records. Records can be seen and accessed in
Appendix B.

Progressive: Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,

Case
Supermajority
Studies
Conservative: Concerned Women for America, National Rifle Association, Liberty
Guard Inc.* (Liberty Guard was a 501C4 only, with no 501c3 partner organization
as far as I could find)

Case studies were completed alongside interviews in the spring of 2023 and
research reviewed independently. The organizations above were chosen after a
process of elimination, eliminating organizations without enough public records.
While I reached out to each organization to have a one-on-one meeting to
supplement my independent research, only one organization, Supermajority,
agreed to provide additional materials.

Lastly, a large bulk of my research is based on one-on-one interviews with

people who have worked, or are currently working, in the 501c4 space.
Interviews were around 45 minutes long and took place virtually on Zoom, in
person, or over the phone. For the sake of this research, all interviewees will be
kept anonymous, and instead be reported on in the aggregate. With that said,
Expert
ten interviews were conducted with ten different organizations or stakeholders.
Interviews
While each interviewee offered a unique perspective, trends were apparent and
were analyzed to produce this report’s final suggestions and recommendations.
All stakeholder interviews were conducted in March and April of 2023, after cold
outreach and connection emails facilitated by various parties in February of
2023.

17
METHODS CONTINUTED
Interview Questions
Access to the full interview questions can be seen in Appendix C. Once the interviews were complete, I
conducted an analysis based on the following:
What buzzwords did I hear repeatedly? (if any)
Did everyone seem to have the same perspective, or different?
How did the person’s role at the organization inform their opinion?
How did the interviews compare to the case studies? To the literature review?

Statement of Research Limitations

While I attempted to gain diverse perspectives, certain organizations were more likely to talk to me, likely given
my project scope. While an equal amount of outreach was made to both conservative and progressive
organizations, only progressive organizations agreed to speak with me. That is the first limitation.

The second limitation was simply time and capacity due to a major shift in project scope halfway through the
research period. While this project began as a specialized project for a client, Supermajority, there was an
Executive Director transition in January of 2023 and this project was dropped with the change in Executive
Director. The previous Executive Director, Amanda Brown Lierman, who had helped steer the start of this
project (and admittedly, was a catalyst for this topic) declined to stay involved or respond to inquiries post her
abrupt departure from the organization. The research would be more reliable if I had been able to research a
larger swath of organizations and stakeholders, or if the scope had remained steady throughout the year.
However, because of the need to adapt the project, I wasn’t able to conduct the number of interviews I would
have liked and my literature review was narrowly focused on women-benefit organizations and Supermajority’s
structure.

The third limitation is the lack of access to c4 records. Because 501c4 organizations are not required to report
out as much as 501c3 organizations, the gathering of financial documents and organizational information was
incredibly difficult. Not only is organizational information limited, but the academic research on this topic is also
limited. There is no public database for organizational information on 501c4s like there is for 501c3s. While I
attempted to remedy this gap of knowledge through interviews, there was certainly difficulty gathering a high
quantity of data, especially internal data sets, and financial information.

18
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Case Studies
Based on this small sample of case studies, it seems as though progressive
organizations have less fluctuation year-to-year, operating in a more
steady state than conservative organizations unplagued by scandal or
bankruptcy. However, it should be noted that due to limited 501c4 data,
the conservative organizations I’m researching have more materials
available because they have been plagued by media attention for their
mismanagement and financial woes.

Based on the literature review of the sector in general, conservative

organization funding is handled very differently than progressive funding.
While progressive funders seem to focus on direct program costs and
small, restrictive amounts, conservative donors tend to focus on large,
unrestricted, one-time payments that have long-term impact and are
focused on long-term sustainability strategies. This may explain the
massive fluctuations in funding in the case studies, and their ability to
bounce back quickly while maintaining solid reputations in their
respective political parties.

Expenses also seem to vary greatly from progressive to conservative

organizations, with progressive organizations spending more of their
money on programming, as compared to the conservative organizations I
analyzed which spend more significant amounts on publications and
mailings. The budget spent on mailing and printing took up a more
significant percentage of conservative organizations' budgets. Lastly, I saw
in the case studies the same pattern observed in the literature review in
terms of the breakdown of funds and donors, while grassroots donations
flow through to progressive organizations, they struggle to keep up with
overall funding.

19
ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES
conservative

Concerned Women for America (CWFA)

Concerned Women for America is a women’s organization dedicated to Christian values and the anti-abortion
movement operating with an affiliated 501c3 and 501c4. While their 501c3 has seen steady revenue growth,
their 501c4 has seen significant fluctuations in expenses year to year. Their 501c3 expenses are spent on
salaries, fundraising, and building expenses; whereas their 501c4 expenditures are mostly spent on salaries,
information technology, and grants. Based on 2016-2020 data, the 501c4 arm tends to spend more money on
salaries during non-election years.

An investigation on CWFA was conducted by the organization Campaign for Accountability and found that
the organization has been in steady decline as measured by donations and staffing. It also found that the
majority of its revenues were provided by two conservative advocacy organizations, the Koch Network and the
Judicial Crisis Network (Campaign for Accountability, 2020). This represents the conservative movement’s
reputation for swooping in to save failing organizations, buoying them from financial crises with large,
unrestricted grants.

National Rifle Association (NRA)

The National Rifle Association is a large conservative organization advocating for gun accessibility, operating
as a 501c4 with an associated sister 501c3 foundation. The 501c4 influences the foundations operating and
financial decisions, and has an ongoing economic interest in net assets from the foundation (Charity Watch,
2022). The foundation reimburses the c4 on legal fees, employee compensation, and more. The two entities
operated so closely that it prompted the D.C. Attorney General to open up an investigation in 2019 to see if
their relationship violated the Nonprofit Act (Charity Watch, 2022). While their revenues show steady growth,
there are clear dropping numbers in member rates, according to their annual reports and external
investigation from media outlets (ProPublica, 2023).

Because the NRA is one of the conservative movements' most well-known organizations, it garners a
significant amount of media coverage. In 2021, there was ample reporting on their financial situation as they
filed for bankruptcy to evade New York officials seeking to dissolve the organization (Mak, 2021). Once again,
despite the failing financials of the organization, conservative donors came to the rescue.

Liberty Guard, Inc.

Liberty Guard is a 501c4 organization self-proclaimed as “the fastest growing pro-liberty organization…
educating and influencing Congress’ policy on liberty issues” (libertyguard.org). The organization’s financials
are interesting, as they operate with far more expenses than income, and the majority of their expenses are
due to mailing and printing and publication.

Their organizational structure seems lean and operating in the negative with a significant amount of debt
(ProPublica). Liberty Guard was another example of a conservative organization portraying strength, while in
reality, they are operating in the red.

20
ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES
progressive

Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood is one of the nation’s largest organizations fighting for abortion rights and accessible
women’s healthcare. They have both a 501c3 and 501c4, with multiple chapter organizations throughout the
country. While their revenue seems to grow steadily in both their 501c3 and 501c4, there is significantly more
revenue going to the 501c3. About one-third of the 501c3 revenue comes from Medicaid payments for their
healthcare services.

Their funding model is unique as their 501c3 income includes a large amount of health services revenue
balanced with individual donors and contributions, whereas their c4 depends almost entirely on individual
contributions (Annual Reports). Unlike the conservative organizations studied, their financials are largely
stable and show steady growth.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has seen steady, significant growth in the past few years and operates with
a sister 501c3 organization. Their revenue is split, fairly consistently throughout the years, with around 60% of
funding coming from foundations and grants and around 40% of funding coming from individual and law
firm contributions. While their 501c4 spends no money on staff, their 501c3 spent a significant amount of their
earnings on staff. While there are slight variations from year to year, it seems less drastic than conservative
gun groups (ProPulica 2023). They have seen a steady increase in foundation support, growing revenues from
$2.5 million in 2016 to over $8 million in 2020.

Supermajority
Supermajority sees a significant flux in revenue and expenditures based on election years with their
fundraising numbers almost doubling during election years. While core staff remains steady, program
expenses and payments to contractors increase in election years as opposed to off-years. In off-years,
programming expenses become leaner. Their full-time staff are employees of their 501c3 partner,
Supermajority Education Fund, and bill hours to the 501c4. In 2022, they had contributions from over 160,000
grassroots donors; compared to gifts from less than 30 foundations and individual donors. However, while the
foundations and individual donors pale in numbers, representing less than .5% of the grassroots donors total
number (160,000+), they contributed 18 times the amount raised by grassroots donors. This mirrors the
findings in the literature review about a higher amount of donors, but a lesser total amount of funding.

21
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS One-on-one Interviews
Ten experts were interviewed for this project. While their names will
remain anonymous, interviewee an overview of demographics is shared
below.

At the completion of all the interviews, certain themes became apparent.

They are the following:
501c4 structures are diverse, and they play a large role in fundraising
An organization’s leadership and reputation are key to successful
fundraising; as well as a grassroots approach to fundraising
There is a strong distinction in the way conservative and progressive
fundraising strategy is perceived
There have been historical shifts, trends, and predictions that all
interviewees mentioned

10
interviewees
Interviewees Organization Type

175+
years combined experience
PAC that
became C4
Other (30%) (20%)
in the 501c4 space

3-60+
began as C3,
began as C4, added C4
added C3 (30%)
years old
organizations (20%)

A FEW THOUSAND-
MULTI-MILLION
dollar budgets

22
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
structures are diverse, and they inform fundraising
Throughout the interviews, it became clear that the way in which the 501c4 organizations are structured, or
how they have been historically structured, plays a significant role in their fundraising strategy. As noted
above, two organizations interviewed were initially PACs that became C4s, three organizations began as
501c3s and added a 501c4 (or had a larger 501c3 with a smaller, partner 501c4), two organizations began as
501c4s and added a 501c3 and three interviewees were not representing an organization.

When asked how organizational structure informed fundraising, each interviewee shared that however their
organization was structured tied directly to how they approach fundraising. Some had fiscal sponsors and
nearly all saw 501c4 money “more valuable” (Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023) due to lesser
legal restrictions tied to the funds. Interviewees also felt strongly about the importance of 501c4s if they
wanted to make a real impact on policy. One interviewee noted “501c4s give 501c3s teeth” (Anonymous,
personal communication, March 2023). Without the 501c3, organizations weren’t able to fundraise as much, or
retain larger donors. Thus, the partnering of both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations was cemented. In some cases,
interviewees shared they started with a 501c4 simply because the paperwork was easier and they were able to
get recognized as a 501c4 quicker than they were able to be recognized as a 501c3 organization. Many
organizations interviewed had cost-share agreements with partner 501c3s, where their employees worked for
the 501c4, but billed working hours to the 501c3. If 501c4 paid salaries from the 501c3, each month the 501c3
would reimburse the c4 for political activity.

I also interviewed organizations that began as a PAC, or that were mostly organizing shops. These 501c4s,
naturally, experienced more boom and bust in funding as it related to election years. Because of the nature of
their organizations, in off-election years, their budgets were halved, and they were forced to dramatically slim
down their programming, operating as leanly as they could without laying off full-time staff. This is all in
contrast with their programs during election years, where their budgets double or triple, and they take on
part-time staff or consultants to expand programming. When asked about the sustainability of this,
interviewees seemed largely content and quoted “it’s inevitable in this kind of work”, calling the budget
balancing and hiring “a numbers game” (Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023)that you learn to
perfect over time. While the organizations were interested in more sustainable funding, many couldn’t even
imagine a world in which there was no boom and bust. The nature of politics was so strong, that it was an
inherent part of their funding structures, expectations, and plans. When discussing this boom and bust with
funders, and asking if funders saw an issue in this, they offered that they gave money where it was needed
when it was needed; and while they see the value in long-term gifts, there are certain donors and strategies
that call for one-time gifts and following the trend of the news. One funder commented on how they decide to
give during on and off election years quoting:

“In off years, it’s a lot more legislation, and it’s dictated by need. For example, in 2022 we didn’t need to be
talking about candidates in 2023 [the next year], we needed to rally people against trans bans which is 501c3
permissible and can be funded by 501c3 dollars…the short answer [on is there boom and bust] is yes, but it's
more nuanced than that, it's not like we are just changing because of the election cycle, we respond to the
environment…not the cycle”
(Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023)

23
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
structures are diverse, and they inform fundraising

When reflecting on funders, one interviewee noted “There are donors who want to win and there are donors
who realize its a long fight. Political donors pop in and out and we want to either avoid that or convince these
people that our elections are important every year.” (Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023)
Interviewees seemed to agree that fundraising became harder when their party had political wins. This was
articulated by an interviewee who said
“When we win, fundraising becomes harder…none of this is new…raising in 2009 was difficult, in 2011 and 2013
it was really hard…it was only after rage giving and concern [after Trump’s election’ that led to higher
fundraising in 2016. 2021 was a really hard year, money wasn’t moving after Biden won…but in 2017 [after
Trump’s election] it was like a water spigot running.”
(Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023)

The frantic donations after a political loss were felt by many, one interviewee even joked that three days out
from an election, they would be at brunch receiving calls from donors requesting they move six-figure
donations to candidates because they get nervous and want to act quickly out of fear and panic.

The topic of fiscal sponsors was also discussed in regard to organizational structure, which is a system in which
a large foundation or organization will act as what one interviewee called a “babysitter” where they will take
and process gifts on behalf of the 501c4 as a 501c3. Thus, donors are able to give tax-deductible gifts. The fiscal
sponsors then re-grant gift donations to the 501c4, deducting 4-5%. When discussing fiscal sponsorship, one
interviewee noted “It’s a system that works out for everybody, except democracy…for organizations it’s worth
the 4-5% you pay.”(Anonymous, personal communication, April 2023) The role of fiscal sponsors fuels the
processing of dark money, which was explored in the literature review. With fiscal sponsors regranting funds,
it disallows money tracking and muddies the water of where organizations are getting money or where
donors' money actually ends up. While there is a moral debate over this sort of funding, it is incredibly
effective.

Closely aligned to dark money is the impact of pooled funds, which was mentioned by two interviewees. While
individual donors were great to cultivate and retain, there was “more bang for your buck” (Anonymous,
personal communication, March 2023) with pooled funds or funds that were pooled from larger organizations
and then given back out. While some interviewees aligned pooled funds with dark money and noted moral
opposition to it, others noted that this is what you needed to explore to win and “fight the good fight.” There
was mixed advice on this, and while some really dove into the importance of pooled funds, others noted that
larger dollars had too many strings attached that they weren’t comfortable with either administratively or
morally.

24
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
structures are diverse, and they inform fundraising

At the end of the day, the majority of interviewees felt that fundraising for 501c3s was easier. However, two
people strayed from the pack and felt that fundraising for 501c4s was easier. When asked why, they noted the
straightforward nature of it and that the dollars could be used for more. There was a consensus that it was
easier to get small money individual donors to donate to 501c4 work but was significantly harder to bring in
large six to seven-figure donations or foundation grants. The fundraising and development professionals I
spoke with expressed challenges balancing funding for both 501c3s and 501c4s when making decisions about
marketing, fundraising priorities, and even strategic planning for the organizations. One individual noted
“Getting 501c4 money is a lot more slapdash and either you get it from a tremendous number of individuals, or
you get it from rich people…but rich people are a pain to deal with…that’s why progressives don’t do
well.”(Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023) Another interviewee noted that 501c3 funding was
easier simply because of the culture of giving, they said “it’s less about the tax implications but more about
that…most people are used to and like being asked from 501c3s.” (Anonymous, personal communication,
March 2023) The few organizations I spoke with that were entirely 501c4s with no 501c3 had received feedback
that they were “leaving money on the table” (Anonymous, personal communication, April 2023) by not having
a 501c4. However, it should be underscored that while many interviewees expressed a need for a 501c3, 501c4
dollars were always considered more important because it was considered more flexible dollars.

fundraising success, leadership and reputatation

The second theme that arose from interviews were the recurring characteristics that interviewees noted as
cornerstones of their success. Across the board, there was an emphasis on the importance of stable
leadership, a positive reputation, and a focus on grassroots fundraising. Much of what came up in interviews
matched what was observed during the literature review and case studies.

Regardless of organization type, organizational leadership and reputation were seen as key to an
organization’s success. While younger organizations blamed their age for their lack of funding and reach; older
organizations noted their tenure as a main reason why donors were attracted to them. Organizations also
noted the less leadership change, the better, Executive Directors and Founders are critical to their
organization’s fundraising, and when leaders leave, oftentimes so do donors. When it came to fundraising-
trust was mentioned by each interviewee. One interviewee noted “There is a LOT of trust involved in
fundraising. If there’s bad blood when someone leaves, that gets around.”(Anonymous, personal
communication, March 2023) Another interviewee spoke on the importance of a charismatic leader: “You’ve
got to have that charismatic leader and you have to try to become the shiny penny… it's not necessarily about
what works and doesn’t work, it’s about getting money and we find emotion works better than
facts.”(Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023) For better or worse, interviewees told stories of
“donor darlings”, or funders who gave simply because staff reminded them of someone they knew and
admired. One interviewee noted: “whatever it is, you want to be the winning horse.”(Anonymous, personal
communication, March 2023)

25
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
fundraising success, leadership and reputation

While it was clear that reputation and leadership were important, each organization that I interviewed noted
strong leadership was white-led, meaning their Executive Directors and Founders were racially white. While
the interview sample was not large enough or deep enough to link causation to reputation, I think that is
worth noting. For better or worse, organizations must work to build a strong reputation and choosing a leader
becomes an existential question. This forced me to wonder, what are the implications of this? Especially as it
relates to diversity, equity and inclusion concerns.

While leadership and reputation reigned supreme in ushering in funding; there were other tactics that
multiple interviewees noted as major contributors to success. Interviewees who had consistently met their
fundraising goals and felt most secure in their strategy were those who stressed the importance of being
authentic in the way they spoke to donors. One interviewee noted “We are very clear with donors about who
we are...if you are an access donor and want to be invited to the white house, we are not your organization and
we will say that.”(Anonymous, personal communication, March 2023) Strong, stable relationships with funders
seemed to start with these honest and candid conversations. Other notable tactics included automatically
opting individuals into 501c4 funding online and through in-mail fundraising; buying email lists; and
approaching fundraising with an intersectional lens- appealing to as many donors as you can with a core, far-
reaching message.

While all the interviewees represented progressive organizations, they were in agreement their sector’s
strength was grassroots organizing. Training advocates and mobilizing individuals is something that all
organizations had some level of focus on. They noted this was not only their own organization’s strength, but
also the Democratic party’s as a whole. Phrases like “values-based”, “values-aligned” and “community-centric”
were all noted alongside grassroots efforts and spoke to the values of the organizations themselves. Mobilizing
individuals was a clear strength, and also aligns well with the assumption and feeling noted by interviewees
that individuals are more likely to give to 501c4 organizations than larger foundations or major gift donors.

26
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
conservative vs. progressive strategy

In many of my interviews, progressive vs. conservative strategy came up in one way or another. Whether an
interviewee spoke a little or a lot about their perception of this, each interviewee had an opinion. I’ve listed
quotes below, which I believe speak for themselves.
“on the left a lot more folks say ‘isn’t’ it undemocratic to take this [dark] money’...there are morality police
within organizations and it’s exhausting.”
People are afraid of being ‘George Soros-ed.”
“Whenever I learn about conservative movements, it’s surprising how much is Astroturf…they come, rile
people up, then leave.”
“Media is a huge difference, they have FOX News, how can we compete with that?”
“We don’t allow our c4s to fail, we are tied to costs per vote and ROI which means we aren’t iterating and
experimenting because we feel our hands are tied.”
“Conservatives have more independent wealth and have a vested interest in holding people in a particular
mindset so they can make money…it’s easier to ask for million or multimillion-dollar gifts because the
money will go back into their pockets if Republicans win.”
“There’s no comparison with conservative organizations because they don’t care about the law…they are a
top-down billionaire-directed movement.”
“Progressive funders don’t fund us to cooperate.”
(all: Anonymous, personal communication, March and April 2023)

Considering the quotes above, it is clear that a lot of what interviewees thought came down to a discussion of
both funders, but also fundamental differences in each political party’s relationship to money and media.
There was a common perception that Republican donors were willing to donate more to conservative causes
because it would benefit them in the end; this message of putting money in your own pockets seemed to
appeal to the higher class more than messages of solidarity or supporting those in lower classes. Whether or
not this is accurate, it was a common perception amongst many interviewed. There were also a few
comments about the power of media, and the power of political messaging, regardless of what is truthful or
not. Mobilizing people around ideas, regardless of how true those ideas are, was reflected as a strength of
Republican funding. This was reflected in the case study research where conservative organizations spent
significantly more on media. This paired with funders who were willing to invest huge amounts of unrestricted
cash to conservative think tanks and 501c4s was a recurring theme in interviews. Interviewees mirrored
lessons learned from the literature review, noting that they saw the “pick and choose” nature of progressive
funders as a disadvantage in their own work. One interviewee noted, "It's a completely different fundraising
mindset... progressives do a dancing between management and reports and go through changes each year;
republicans do long-term, committed funding and let the ecosystem do the work"(Anonymous, personal
communication, March 2023).

Most interesting to me was the idea of being “George Sorros-ed” which three separate interviewees talked
about, noting the fear of progressive donors that they would face physical, emotional, and other threats from
conservatives should their donating become public. George Soros is a billionaire known to fund progressive
causes, who has notoriously been the target of antisemitic and violent threats from people who disagree with
his political views. A handful of interviewees discussed a deeply rooted fear on the progressive side of being
targeted by violent right-wingers and noted George Soros by name.

27
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
trends, shifts, and predictions

With over 175 years of collective experience, interviewees spoke to trends they had experienced and observed,
as well as predictions for the future. There was a sense that over time, the richest funders had taken more and
more control and there was less diversity in the funding streams. The majority of the interviewees also noted a
slowing down of donations after the “rage giving” and “Trump bump” following the 2016 election.
Organizations that saw money pouring in in 2017, were met with far less funding in 2020. What one
interviewee described as “once a water spicket” of funding, another interviewee now called now “burnt out
and done.”(Anonymous, personal communication, March and April 2023) Two interviewees noted the power of
monthly individual donors and recurring gifts while others noted that foundations were now more open to
giving to 501c4s funds. An interviewee who was on their third 501c4 organization over the course of 40 years
said “Before the only way to get 501c4 money was from individuals, unions, and businesses. Now there is WAY
more money at the foundation level, and I suspect this will continue.” (Anonymous, personal communication,
March 2023)When looking forward to the future, the following predictions stood out:

There will continue to be more emphasis on donor-advised funds (DAF) and the growth of those funding
organizations through DAFs.
More progressive funders are starting to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) both at the
organizational and board level, as well as looking for DEI in impact and programming.
Fundraising peaks are often only experienced after a tragedy, which is not only emotionally exhausting but
will be unsustainable if it continues.

In future research, it would be interesting to see if these trends predicted and observed by interviewees are
backed by metrics, or would hold up with a larger interview pool.

28
RECOMMENDATIONS

After considering the literature

review, case studies and then one-
on-one interviews, a set of
recommendations for both
organizations and funders came
into focus.

My recommendations for funders are a

bit different and arguably more
important and impactful.

29
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR ORGANIZATIONS

01
Don't rely on "panic" or "tragedy" appeals, focus on success
stories and steadfast values
For organizations, it seems critical that in order to create more sustainable
funding structures, they must not rely on “panic” or “tragedy” appeals as key to
their fundraising strategy. While there may be one-off appeals or political realities
that they should react to, the core fundraising messaging and strategy should tell
donors stories of stability, proven success, and how that organization relates to
that stability and produces those successes. Focusing on the strength of
grassroots fundraising, and being values-driven, can truly differentiate
progressives. How are they telling their stories of impact in a way that funders
understand? Success and strengths are a steadier option than fear and effective
storytelling can play a critical role for 501c4s. The asset of progressive
organizations being values-driven shone through this research, fueling their
ultimate evergreen success, even if slower. It was also clear that for progressive
organizations, individual fundraising was by far the greatest strength. While they
may be lower-level donors, slowly leveling up individual donor programs and
relying on the inherent strength of their grassroots organizing could make a big
impact.

02 Form a sister 501c3, if you can

It also seems important that 501c4s build in a 501c3 partner or sister organization if
they don’t already have one. While 501c3 dollars are more limited, it opens the
doors to more funding options.

30
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUNDERS

01 Fund collaboration
If larger foundations or individual donors care deeply about progressive causes
and their success, they must fund collaboration. They must create pathways,
networks, and communities that cultivate collaboration rather than fuel
competition. When progressive funders embrace community over competition,
there will be a true difference made.

02 Provide long-term, unrestricted grants

In order to compete with conservative funders, progressive funders must also
consider, and ultimately provide more unrestricted and multi-year grants. Not only
does it strengthen the nonprofit, but allows for safer adjustments and more
innovative risk-taking, which leads to real impact over bandaid solutions.

03 Bipartisan efforts won't do

Lastly, to make change in 2023 and beyond, bipartisan efforts will not do. While
they are important to consider, and for some organizations bipartisanship may
truly be key. However, for the progressive movement as a whole, movements and
parties are stronger when there is a mutual understanding from funders that
partisan behavior is necessary in 2023 and the foreseeable future.

31
 There are significant differences in the way
conservative organizations and progressive
organizations fundraise and operate. Funders play a
large role in determining the success of organizations,
and in order for organizations to weather the ebbs
and flows of political fluxes and make a significant
impact funders must be willing to provide
unrestricted, long-term support. In addition,
organizations should focus their core efforts and
messaging on highlighting successes and the long-
term impact and stability of their organization.

These findings and recommendations are just the

beginning of 501c4 sector research. While I was able
to gather a solid foundation and understanding
CONCLUSION

through literature review, case studies and interviews,

the scope has the opportunity to grow significantly.
While this can act as a baseline for future research,
more perspectives must be gained to round out the
findings. I’m thrilled to report that this research will be
continuing beyond this Capstone with Dr. Angela
Bies.

IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN STAYING

INVOLVED, OR LEARNING ABOUT
THE CONTINUED RESEARCH
FINDINGS

Reach out to me!

Megan Masterson
meganmasterson7@gmail.com

32
 This project was made possible by many people who
came to the rescue when the project shifted course in
THANK YOU!

January of 2023. Thank you to Dr. Bies, my capstone

advisor for her flexibility, optimism, and
encouragement as I shifted the project scope. Other
thanks to all the interviewees who answered cold
outreach and were willing to have coffee with me or
meet with me on Zoom during their busy weeks. To
my friends and interviewees who offered connections
to more interviewees, I am so grateful. Your
willingness to advocate for this project made a big
difference. Lastly, thank you to my coworkers and
supervisor for their flexibility as I took on some of this
work as a part-time student with a full-time job. Your
support and flexibility were critical to my success.

MORE TO COME!

33
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Initial Scope of Work

University of Maryland | MPP Capstone Project

Scope of Work
2022-2023

Client Organization: Supermajority

Points of Contact:
Amanda Brown Lierman (Executive Director)
Nicole De La Loza Rivera (initial point of contact, Director of People and Equity)
Lillian Wu (Interim Development Director)

Project Name: Funding Progressive 501c4s: Strategies for Sustained Change

Estimated Project Dates: October 15, 2022 – May 1, 2023, with potential for dates to move
slightly based on client needs

1. Project Background:
Supermajority is a 501c4 voting advocacy hub focused on protecting women’s rights and
bringing women together as a political force that transcends age, race, and background.
Founded in 2017 on the heels of the Trump presidency, the organization exists to liberate all
women and people who have been marginalized because of their gender. In 2019, the
organization expanded to include the Supermajority Education Fund, a 501c3 sister
organization dedicated to supporting Supermajority’s mission through research, education,
and development programs that prepare women to lead.

2. Problem Statement:
A major concern of the organization is sustained and consistent funding, regardless of the
election cycle or partisan leadership. How can progressive organizations ensure that they can
build power and capacity over time and year-round, regardless of who holds office, avoiding
“panic donations” and building strong foundations of sustained growth?

3. Project Goals:
a. Goal 1: Research 501c4 funding, gaining extensive knowledge on the landscape
of strengths and challenges of funding progressive policy organizations; paying
special attention to the role of partner 501c3 funding and the long-term practices
of competing conservative organizations
b. Goal 2: Produce a roadmap that outlines strategies for sustained funding and a
white paper that outlines the landscape research noted above
c. Goal 3: Collaborate with Supermajority staff to ensure project deliverables and
research aligns with organizational goals and values.
4. Implementation/Project Administration
a. Extensive research will be completed to strategize steps towards sustainable
funding for progressive 501c4s, investigating the role of sister 501c3s and the
strategies of republican-led advocacy groups
b. Methodology
i. Literature Review: review of literature pertaining to c4 funding, history of
c4s, progressive fundraising, conservative fundraising, and cyclical c3
fundraising.
ii. Expert Interviews: interviews with donors, other fundraisers in the
women's advocacy space, and progressive and conservative policy leaders
to achieve a relative distribution of opinion.
iii. Secondary Data Analysis: analysis of Supermajority’s c3 and c4 funding,
other organizations’ current fundraising plan(s), W4s, 990s, annual
reports, and other relevant data.
iv. Stakeholder Interviews: interviews with key stakeholders and donors, as
identified by Supermajority (estimated ~10)

5. UMD Consultant Deliverables:

a. The following items below are what the UMD student consultants agree to
provide to Supermajority staff during this engagement:
i. White paper, which includes background information and summary of
main research findings
ii. Drafted fundraising strategy document that acts as a roadmap with
potential avenues to explore or invest in

6. Client Responsibilities
a. The timely access to appropriate data and resources is critical to the success of the
UMD student consultant in achieving the identified deliverables. Supermajority
agrees to provide access to the following information and resources:
i. Periodic meetings/communication as appropriate, anticipated as at least
once a month, more if necessary
ii. Access to necessary staff and relevant donor data that gives a picture of
funding sources
iii. List of key stakeholders that would be open and appropriate to interview
and assistance in identifying key organizations for expert interviews
iv. Access to appropriate data or other agency information that pertains to the
project, anonymous if necessary
 7. Timeline/Schedule:

a. A list of major project activities and expected dates of completion is presented in

the table below (more extensive and interactive project tracker to come):

Date Activity

October-December Extensive literature review and landscape analysis; development of

methodology, including sampling strategy and instrumentation, and
data collection approaches

December-January Various interviewees identified,

Interviews begin

February Interviews continue,

Financial document review

March Sustainability Strategy outlined,

Reviewed by professors and experts

April Draft white paper submitted for review

May Final project completed and presented

Supermajority and student consultant, Megan Masterson have reviewed this Scope of Work and
agree to its terms, with the understanding that this Scope was developed in good faith and with
recognition that Client and UMD Student Consultant will agree on any necessary variation from
this plan.

Client Signature & Date

UMD Student Consultant Signature & Date

Appendix B: Case Study Organization and Associated
Documents (Excel Sheet)

Independent Research, Conservative Organizations

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/953580834/0
2_2021_prefixes_95-99%2F953580834_202006_990_2021022217
990 738684
2020
(midter current
m) publications: https://concernedwomen.org/downloadable-publications/
Other [financial https://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6-30-202
audit] 2-Consolidated-Audited-Financials.pdf
Concerned https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/953580834/0
Women for 2_2019_prefixes_95-99%2F953580834_201806_990_2019020416
America C3 2018 990 060734
(off
Annual Report
ProPublica year)
Open Secrets https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/concerned-women-for-america/s
Report ummary?id=D000025077
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/953580834/0
1_2017_prefixes_95-99%2F953580834_201606_990_2017012414
2016
990 106292
(electio
n year) Annual Report

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953370744/
990 202023039349300107/full
2020
(midter Annual Report
m)
publications with https://concernedwomen.org/tag/concerned-women-for-america-leg
Concerned C4 tag islative-action-committee/
Women for https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953370744/
America 990 201813029349301111/full
2018
Legislative Action
(off Annual Report
Committee C4
year)
Fake Feminists
ProPublica for Hire https://campaignforaccountability.org/work/fake-feminists-for-hire/
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953370744/
2016 990 201632999349300913/full
(electio
Annual Report
n year)
Other
990 No data
2020
Annual Report No annual report
NRA Foundation (midter
m) https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/summary?id=
(C3)
Open Secrets D000000082
ProPublica https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521710886/
2018 990 201923189349313402/full
(off
 year) https://www.nrafoundation.org/media/2335/2018-nraf-ar-email-versi
Annual Report on.pdf
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/05/nra-member-dues-revenue-declin
Other e-houston/
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521710886/
990 201923189349313402/full
2016
(electio https://www.nrafoundation.org/media/2082/16nrafannualreportweb1
n year) Annual Report .pdf
Other
990 N/a
2020
(midter Annual Report N/a
m)
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/530116130/0
2_2020_prefixes_52-56%2F530116130_201812_990O_20200206
2018 990 17115747
NRA (C4)
(off
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/nra-2018-annual-financial
year)
ProPublica Annual Report -report/05b36d8c-cd64-4011-a685-e0a26eba9be6/
Other N/a
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530116130/
2016 990 201722619349300507/full
(electio
Annual Report N/a
n year)
Other
Limited-
2020 990 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/264202863
(midter
Annual Report N/a
m)
Other https://libertyguard.org/
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/264202863/1
2_2019_prefixes_26-27%2F264202863_201812_990O_20191206
Liberty Guard Inc 2018
990 16932029
(off
ProPublica year) Annual Report N/a
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/264202863/
2016 990 201711789349300001/full
(electio
Annual Report N/a
n year)
Other

Independent Research, Progressive Organizations

Planned Parenthood https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
Action Fund (C4) 2020 990 ons/133539048/202140679349300734/full
(midterm) https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_
ProPublica Annual Report public/16/07/16078708-0a03-4863-9f82-ceee23d3
 afdd/211214-ppaf-annualreport-20-21-c4-digital.pd
Open Secrets f
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog?blo
gCategory=&blogDate=2020-11&blogQuery=#blog
Nov 2020 blog posts
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_9
90/133539048/04_2019_prefixes_11-20%2F13353
2018 (off 990 9048_201806_990O_2019042616244889
year)
Annual Report
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
2016 990 ons/133539048/201710459349300736/full
(election
Annual Report
year)
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_9
90/131644147/04_2021_prefixes_06-13%2F1316
990 44147_202006_990_2021041417943212
2020
https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_p
(midterm)
ublic/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d3
Annual Report 70/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf
Other
Planned Parenthood
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
Federation of America
990 ons/131644147/201910569349300706/full
(C3)
2018 (off https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_
ProPublica year) public/2e/da/2eda3f50-82aa-4ddb-acce-c2854c4e
Annual Report a80b/2018-2019_annual_report.pdf
Open Secrets
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
990 ons/131644147/201700459349301040/full
2016
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_
(election
public/71/53/7153464c-8f5d-4a26-bead-2a0dfe2b
year)
Annual Report 32ec/20171229_ar16-17_p01_lowres.pdf
Other
990
2020 https://giffords.org/about/annual-reports/2020-ann
(midterm) Annual Report ual-report/
Other
Coalition to Stop Gun https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_9
Violence C4 90/521106316/02_2020_prefixes_47-52%2F52110
990 6316_201812_990O_2020020617115415
2018 (off
ProPublica
year) https://giffords.org/lawcenter/about/annual-reports/
Annual Report 2018-annual-report/
Other
2016 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_9
(election 990 90/521106316/01_2018_prefixes_52-54%2F52110
 year) 6316_201612_990O_2018011715130000
Annual Report https://giffords.org/2016-annual-report/
Other
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
990 ons/521114375
2020
general reports
(midterm)
page https://efsgv.org/reports/
Sister org: Educational
Fund to Stop Gun Violence Other https://efsgv.org/
(EFSGV) C3 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
ProPublica 990 ons/521114375/201923189349310682/full
2018 (off
year) Annual Report
NOW: John Hopkins
Center for Gun Violence Other
Solutions https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizati
2016 990 ons/521114375/201723179349303662/full
(election
Annual Report
year)
Other
990 Not public
2020
Annual Report Not public
(midterm)
Other Not public
990 Not public
Supermajority
2018 (off
Annual Report Not public
year)
ProPublica
Other Not public
990 Not public
2016
(election Annual Report Not public
year)
Other Not public
990 Not public
2020
Annual Report Not public
(midterm)
Other Not public
Supermajority Education 990 Not public
Fund 2018 (off
Annual Report Not public
year)
ProPublica Other Not public
990 Not public
2016
(election Annual Report Not public
year)
Other Not public
Appendix C: Research Questions
Interview Questions 501c4 Staff and Leaders
1. Can you tell me a little bit about your organization and your role in said organization?
2. How does your organization’s structure inform your fundraising?
a. Do you have a partner c3? Do you operate entirely as a c4? A blend?
3. How do you navigate c3 and c4 funding in and out of election cycles?
a. What are the operations implications or fluctuating funding based on election
cycles? Is this reflected in expenditures?
b. How do you manage things during the leaner cycles? What cuts do you make, or
not?
4. Do you feel raising c4 money is harder or easier, as compared to 501c3 organizations?
a. Why or why not? Or in what ways?
5. Do you experience a boom and bust of cyclical donors? If so, how do you remedy
this?
a. What is the cycle? (within years, across years, electorally?)
b. How do you manage revenue throughout? (think: staffing, earned revenue, etc.)
6. What are your future plans and dreams for your organization in terms of funding?
7. What are the fundamental elements of your fundraising strategy?
8. How do things like your mission, leader, or reputation play into this?
9. What do you see as key corners to your success?
10. What changes have you seen in 501c4 funding? Historically, what shifts have you seen
happen in the fundraising landscape?
a. What changes do you anticipate in the future
11. Did you hit your fundraising goal this year?
Interview Questions for Consultants/Other
1. What do you perceive as the typical progressive c4 structure? How do you think that that
informs fundraising?
a. Do you see a difference in progressive vs. conservative-leaning organizations?
2. In your role, or in your work with organizations, how do you navigate c3 and c4 funding
in and out of election cycles?
a. What were the operations implications or fluctuating funding based on election
cycles? Was this reflected in expenditures?
b. How do you manage things during the leaner cycles? What cuts do you make, or
not?
3. Do you find fundraising for c3s easier?
4. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest strength?
5. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest weakness?
6. Generally, what are progressive c4s’ greatest opportunities?
7. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest threats to success?
8. How do things like organizations' mission, leader, or reputation play into their
fundraising strategy?
9. Anything else you think is important to think about when considering c4 funding
sustainability?
Interview Questions for Funders
1. What do you perceive as the typical progressive c4 structure? How do you think that that informs
fundraising?
2. Do you see a difference in progressive vs. conservative-leaning organizations?
3. In your role, or in your work with organizations, how do you navigate c3 and c4 funding in and
out of election cycles?
4. How do election cycles dictate who you push money to?
5. Does your funding change during the leaner cycles? What cuts do you make, or not?
6. From your perspective, do you find fundraising for (or, giving funding to) c3s easier than c4s?
7. Thinking about a SWOT framework…
a. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest strength?
b. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest weakness?
c. Generally, what are progressive c4s’ greatest opportunities?
d. Generally, what do you see as progressive c4s’ greatest threats to success?
8. How do things like organizations' mission, leader, or reputation play into their fundraising
strategy? Their success to steward funders like you?
9. Anything else you think is important to think about when considering c4 funding sustainability?
 References
Alliance for Justice. (2016). 501C4 Strategy and Discussion Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 30, 2022, from
https://search.issuelab.org/resource/501c4-strategy-and-discussion-guide.html

Balassiano, K., & Chandler, S. M. (2010a). The Emerging Role of Nonprofit Associations
in Advocacy and Public Policy: Trends, Issues, and Prospects. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 946–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009338963

Bell, J., & Klein, K. (n.d.). FUNDRAISING BRIGHT SPOTS: 35.

https://www.haasjr.org/sites/default/files/perspectives/Haas_BrightSpots_F2.pdf

Boris, E., & Mosher-Williams, R. (1998). Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Assessing the
Definitions, Classifications, and Data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4),
488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764098274006

Brulle, R. J., Hall, G., Loy, L., & Schell-Smith, K. (2021). Obstructing action: Foundation
funding and US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 166(1),
17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03117-w

Bump, P. (July 2016). The massive difference in how Democrats and Republicans raise
money—The Washington Post. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/16/the-massive-difference-in-ho
w-democrats-and-republicans-raise-money/

Burstein, P., & Linton, A. (2002). The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and
Social Movement Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical
Concerns. Social Forces 81(2), 381-408. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0004.

Byrnes, A. C., & Lannin, C. H. (2011). I Went Down to the Crossroads: Lifting the
Blindfold about the Origin of 501(c)(4) Political Advertisements Symposium: Democracy,
Inc: Citizens United, Corporate Expenditures, and the Future of Campaign Finance Law.
University of San Francisco Law Review, 46(2), 481–524.

Caiazza, A., Ph.D, C. H., Clevenger, C., Carlberg, A., & Carlberg, A. C., Cynthia Hess, Ph
D. ,. Casey Clevenger and Angela. (2008, September 30). The Challenge to Act: How
Progressive Women Activists Reframe American Democracy. IWPR.
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-general/the-challenge-to-act-how-progressive-women-activists-refram
e-american-democracy/
Charitable Giving Around the 2016 Election. (n.d.). 20.

Covington, S. (1997, July 23). Moving A Public Policy Agenda. National Committee For
Responsive Philanthropy. https://www.ncrp.org/publication/moving-public-policy-agenda

Elections overview. OpenSecrets. (2022). https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview

Fake Feminists for Hire. (n.d.). Campaign for Accountability. Retrieved October 12, 2022,
from https://campaignforaccountability.org/work/fake-feminists-for-hire/

Fallin, A., Grana, R., & Glantz, S. A. (2014). ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party
efforts’: The tobacco industry and the Tea Party. Tobacco Control, 23(4), 322–331.
https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815

Fisher, D. R. (2022). Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is

Strangling Progressive Politics in America. In Activism, Inc. Stanford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804767781

Greendyk, H. J. (n.d.). The Role of Non-Profit Organizations in the Political Process. 43.

Haley, G., & NW. (November 6, 20219). Suburban women could decide 2020: Who are they
giving to? OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/suburban-women-donors

Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2016). Explaining Liberal Policy Woes in the States: The Role of
Donors. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3), 461–465.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516000706

Karpf, D. A. (2009). The Moveon Effect: Disruptive Innovation within the Interest Group
Ecology of American Politics (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 1451465).
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1451465

Kerlin, J. A., & Reid, E. J. (2010). The Financing and Programming of Advocacy in
Complex Nonprofit Structures. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 802–824.

Krehely, Jeff (January 2005). 501(c)(4) Organizations: Maximizing Nonprofit Voices &
Mobilizing the Public. National Committee For Responsive Philanthropy. Retrieved
November 30, 2022, from
https://www.ncrp.org/publication/501c4-organizations-maximizing-nonprofit-voices-mobili
zing-public

Krumholz, S. (2013). Campaign Cash and Corruption: Money in Politics, Post-Citizens

United. Social Research, 80(4), 1119–1134.

Le, V. (2018, December.). Vu Le: 10 things progressive funders must learn from
conservative ones, or we are all screwed. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/article/1521135?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social

Leroux, K. (2007). Nonprofits as Civic Intermediaries: The Role of Community-Based

Organizations in Promoting Political Participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410–422.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406292257

Mattison, A. (2022). (rep.). Influencing Public Policy in the Digital Age. Washington, DC:
Bolder Advocacy.
Mesch et al. (2015). Women’s Philanthropy Institute research: Do Women Give More?.
(n.d.). Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from
https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/institutes/womens-philanthropy-institute/research/give-more.
html

Mitchell, L. and Ewall-Wice, S. (September 2020). Progressive groups shatter fundraising

records in battleground states. Retrieved November 30, 2022, from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/progressive-groups-break-fundraising-records-election-202
0-battleground-states/

Oklobdzija, S. (2019). Public positions, private giving: Dark money and political donors in
the Digital Age. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019832475

Osili et al. (2018). Charitable Giving Around the 2016 Election: Does Gender Matter? Lilly
Family School of Philanthropy. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from
https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/institutes/womens-philanthropy-institute/research/elections.ht
ml

Paget, K. (2001, December 19). State of the Debate: Lessons of Right-Wing Philanthropy.
The American Prospect.
https://prospect.org/api/content/23cb2883-1050-5f01-ab2c-fe6a39cea0b5/

Pozen, D. (2018, November 27). The Tax-Code Shift That’s Changing Liberal Activism. The
Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/501c3-501c4-activists-and-tax-code/576
364/

Roller, E. (2012, November 5). What else could $6 billion buy?. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/11/05/164338789/what-else-could-6-billion
-buy

rooks, daisy. (2006). YOUNG, IDEALISTIC, AND EDUCATED: Are Middle Class Youth the
Future of Progressive Politics? - ProQuest. Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.proquest.com/openview/d295796a826f479a22138ac80acd851a/1?cbl=25534&
pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=28mJbtsLUtGXvj6gy6yQhcuyRDbbn2%2F%2FUw
sb7EIoVHs%3D

Sugin, L. (2016). Politics, Disclosure, and State Law Solutions for 501(C)(4) Organizations
Nonprofit Oversight under Siege. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 91(3), 895–936.

Tapp, A. (2006, August). Reclaiming our Social Justice Organizations.

https://blueshieldcafoundation.org/sites/default/files/u11/Reclaiming_Our_Social_Justice_O
rganizations.pdf

The Women & Girls Index 2021: Measuring Giving to Women’s and Girls’ Causes. (n.d.).
26. https://wgi.communityplatform.us, 2022