UNITED STATES - MARCH 27: Internal Revenue Service building in Washington (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

By Frank Bass

This story was produced by MapLight in partnership with Wausau Pilot and Review

Dark money is becoming even darker.

The Treasury Department announced late Monday that it will stop requiring 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) nonprofit organizations to provide the names of their donors to the Internal Revenue Service.

The nonprofits, which are already known as “dark money” organizations because their donors’ names aren’t disclosed to the public, have become high-profile players in U.S. campaigns by virtue of their ability to funnel unlimited amounts of anonymously donated money into elections and other political contests. Before the IRS announcement, however, the nonprofits were required to disclose the names of donors to the government.

Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said the disclosure requirement “was one of the few ways that the government could identify illegal foreign money in elections. Today, that requirement is gone. Dark money just got a lot darker.”

Dark money organizations dropped more than $43 million on the 2016 presidential election; the nonprofits, also known as “social welfare organizations” or business associations, spent roughly $70 million in the top 10 Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The biggest dark money spenders included the National Rifle Association ($35.2 million); U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($29.1 million); and Americans for Prosperity ($13.3 million).

Mnuchin said nonprofits will still be required to provide public copies of a tax form known as the Schedule B, which lists the amounts contributed by individual donors. MapLight filed a formal complaint with the IRS in January after Americans for Prosperity, the flagship political organization for billionaire libertarian Charles Koch, refused to provide a redacted version of its Schedule B.

A copy of the Schedule B obtained by MapLight in April showed that the nonprofit, which bills itself as a grassroots conservative organization, received a $48.7 million gift — more than two-thirds of its total revenue during 2016 — from a single source. The donation came from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, which has been described as the Koch Brothers’ “secret bank.”

Lobbyists for Americans for Prosperity disclosed that they “discussed exempt organization filing requirements” with policymakers earlier this year, though the records do not specify whom they lobbied.

MapLight also used a Schedule B form to report that a single $28.5 million donation accounted for nearly 90 percent of the money raised by the Wellspring Committee in 2017. The dark money organization is the primary funder of the Judicial Crisis Network, which spent heavily to thwart former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court and support the Trump administration’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

“Americans shouldn’t be required to send the IRS information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the IRS simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” said Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. “It is important to emphasize that this change will in no way limit transparency.”

This story originally appeared on Maplight and is being republished by permission. Maplight is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that reveals the influence of money in politics, informs and empowers voters, and advances reforms that promote a more responsive democracy. Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Advertisements

Investigative journalist, music enthusiast, blogger, animal lover, kayaker, knitter, wife, mother.

6 replies on “IRS announces policy shift allowing dark money nonprofits to go almost pitch black”

  1. So money is free speech, people can now contribute to organizations in secret and take a tax deduction and the money is hidden from society… not how we do things in America… what is happening to transparancy?

  2. I’d love to see a list of people who donate to Maplight and what their political affiliation is. Shockingly (not), this story targets one side of the political spectrum and completely ignores the other. Yeah, there have been NO democrat affiliated 501c-3’s that have taken money from Soros, McCaulife or many other liberal donors, right?
    Whatfreakingever. What a TOTAL crap story, Shereen. Will you be publishing a follow-up story that focuses on democrat 501c-3’s and how squeaky clean and free of left wing money they are?

      1. “Campaign Legal Center, said the disclosure requirement “was one of the few ways that the government could identify illegal foreign money in elections. Today, that requirement is gone. Dark money just got a lot darker.”

        Dark money organizations dropped more than $43 million on the 2016 presidential election; the nonprofits, also known as “social welfare organizations” or business associations, spent roughly $70 million in the top 10 Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The biggest dark money spenders included the National Rifle Association ($35.2 million); U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($29.1 million); and Americans for Prosperity ($13.3 million).”

        Policies we support
        We promote policies that reduce the influence of money in politics and give more power to people like you. That includes:
        • Greater disclosure and transparency, so the public knows who’s spending to influence elections;
        • Reasonable limits on contributions to candidates, so the wealthy don’t have disproportionate voice in politics;
        • Systems for public funding of elections, so candidates can run on the strength of their ideas and not their access to wealth; and
        • Other reforms that make government more representative and responsive.”

    1. I will answer in more depth, but I’m on vacation for a few days (and holy $$$$ do I need it.).

  3. Vacation? What’s that? 😉 Enjoy some time off! No need to answer more in depth. I’ve looked at the link you provided and doing a few minutes of research on some of the entities that fund them certainly fits the tone of the story above. To be clear, I’m not saying one side is clean and one is corrupt, but this story is about as slanted as it can get.

Comments are closed.