[D] Party Con.
grants to 501 (c)(4) charities
Forget super PACs, their much-hyped cousins, which can take unlimited contributions but must name their donors. More money is being spent on TV advertising in the presidential race by social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)s for their section of the tax code, than by any other type of independent group.
As of Aug. 8, they had spent more than $71 million on ads mentioning a candidate for president, according to estimates by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, or CMAG. Super PACs have spent an estimated $56 million.
Congress created the legal framework for 501(c)(4) nonprofits nearly a century ago. To receive the tax exemption, groups were supposed to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." The IRS later opened the door to some forms of political activity by interpreting the statute to mean groups had to be "primarily" engaged in enhancing social welfare. But neither the tax code nor regulators set out how this would be measured.
An investigation by ProPublica, drawing on documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission, offers the most detailed picture to date of how 501(c)(4) groups have used their tax status for purposes likely never intended.
Our examination shows that dozens of these groups do little or nothing to justify the subsidies they receive from taxpayers. Instead, they are pouring much of their resources, directly or indirectly, into political races at the local, state and federal level.
The 2010 election functioned, effectively, as a DRY RUN, providing a blueprint for what social welfare groups are doing on a larger scale today. Records on what is happening in the 2012 campaign will not be available until well after the election.
We also found that social welfare groups used a range of tactics to underreport their political activities to the IRS, a critical measure in determining whether they are entitled to remain tax-exempt.
Many groups told the IRS they spent far less on politics than they reported to federal election officials. Some classified expenditures that clearly praised or criticized candidates for office as "lobbying," "education" or "issue advocacy" on their tax returns.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare
https://www.qgiv.com/blog/asking-for-donations/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/11/03/planned-parenthood-arms-spend-over-38-million-to-elect-democrats/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democrats