Any responsible business must stay within the law when conducting revenue-generating activities. For nonprofits, this means taking steps to ensure that its fundraising activities are compliant with all applicable laws and regulations. This is prudent from a business perspective, especially because charitable fundraising is the activity that most state charity regulatory agencies across the country focus their oversight efforts.

Although many of the fundraising compliance requirements arise from state charitable solicitation laws, federal tax law compliance must also be addressed, given its role in determining the tax-deductibility of donations and to ensure that nonprofits aren’t inadvertently treating revenues from commercial business activities as charitable sponsorships, and thereby improperly avoiding payment of unrelated business income tax (UBIT).

What should an organization do to assess its overall fundraising compliance? Following are ten steps nonprofit organizations can take to ensure their fundraising activities are legally compliant.

1. Review your organization’s state charitable registration compliance.

• Generally, if a charitable organization is engaged in the solicitation of funds for charitable purposes, there are state rules that require registration, reporting and disclosures by the charitable organization or someone fundraising on its behalf. Forty-four (44) states and the District of Columbia have laws that regulate fundraising activities, with the specific rules and requirements varying from state to state. Most charitable organizations must register in about thirty-eight (38) states.  Click here for a chart of states that require charitable organizations to register.
• Review and confirm that all fundraising contracts that need to be filed as part of the organization’s registration file are being submitted in the correct states. This includes contracts with professional fundraisers, fundraising counsels, and commercial co-venturers.

2. Ensure that the organization’s fundraisers are properly registered where applicable.

• About 42 states require professional fundraisers to register, post a surety bond, file contracts with their nonprofit clients, and file campaign financial reports.
• About 28 states require fundraising counsels to register and file contracts.
• Up to 8 states require commercial co-venturers to register and/or file a copy of any commercial co-venture contract and a campaign report per contract.
• Click here for a chart of states where professional fundraisers, fundraising counsels and commercial co-venturers are required to register.

3. Review your fundraising contracts to ensure they include any state-required language as well as other general protections (e.g., termination; indemnification; trademark license and approval rights).

• Click here for more information about professional fundraiser contract provisions.
• Click here for more information about fundraising counsel contract provisions.
• Click here for more information about commercial co-venturer contract provisions.

4. Review corporate sponsorship arrangements for qualification as a qualified sponsorship payment.

• Review the organization’s corporate sponsorship cultivation strategy to ensure that it takes into account potential UBIT implications.

5. Review other fundraising contract templates (e.g., corporate sponsorship agreements, pledge agreements, royalty agreements, etc.) to ensure that they take into account any legal considerations, including donor benefits and gift restrictions.

• Ensure that pledge agreements clearly outline the expectations of the parties with respect to the gift, including the scope of any gift restrictions, and whether the agreement is intended to be legally binding (including on successors and assigns or the donor’s estate).
• Ensure that passive licensing or royalty agreements are properly structured so that the income generated is not subject to UBIT.

6. Review compliance with state solicitation disclosures (in mailings, online, emails, etc.).

• Click here for a summary of state charitable solicitation disclosures for charities and professional fundraisers, and model disclosure statements.
• Click here for more information about advertising disclosure requirements in commercial co-venture promotions.

7. For 501(c)(3) organizations in particular, review donation tax receipts for compliance with federal tax law requirements.

• Make sure the organization complies with the special rules governing quid pro quo donations
• Be aware of special exceptions whereby donations given in exchange for low-cost token items or certain recurring membership benefits may be disregarded.
• Tax-exempt organizations other than 501(c)(3) organizations should ensure that solicitations and donation receipts clearly state that donations are not tax-deductible.

8. Review direct mail solicitation practices to ensure that the communications are truthful, accurate, and not misleading.

• Consider the best practices established by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance with respect to accuracy of solicitation materials, specifically Standards 15 and 19.

9. Ensure that special solicitation campaigns are reviewed for compliance (matching gift campaigns, sweepstakes, raffles, etc.).

• Click here for more information regarding legal considerations in matching gift campaigns.
• Note that state and federal laws govern the conduct of sweepstakes, and require specific disclosures to be made. Sweepstakes may also be subject to possible state registration and bonding requirements (although there may be an exclusion for charities if the sweepstakes is not undertaken in connection with the advertising, promotion or sale of consumer products or services).
• Note that charitable raffles are strictly regulated at the state and local level, and are difficult to conduct in multiple jurisdictions. Review the state and local laws of the jurisdiction where any raffle will be undertaken.

10. Ensure that solicitations associated to gifts-in-kind are communicated in a clear and transparent manner, and that the corresponding receipt, valuation and disposition of the gifts-in-kind are properly handled.

• Consider the best practices established by the Accord Network in connection with the receipt and distribution of gifts-in-kind.

A fundraising legal audit is a core component of a comprehensive legal audit for nonprofits, which reviews an organization’s compliance with legal requirements and best practices applicable to tax-exempt organizations across various operational areas. Stay tuned for another blog post coming soon, which will discuss the key components of a comprehensive legal audit!

The post Ten Key Components of a Nonprofit Fundraising Legal Audit first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Hawaii, which requires companies to file a written consent form at least ten (10) days before a charitable sales promotion begins, has recently begun to enforce its statutory late filing fee of $20 per day (up to $1,000 maximum penalty) for failure to timely file a written consent.  In order for the written consent to be timely filed, it must be “fully executed” by both parties through an electronic approval process. A delay in obtaining either party’s electronic consent can mean late fees will begin to accrue.

While not new, companies should be also be aware that South Carolina regularly imposes administrative fines of $10 per day for late filing of campaign reports, up to a maximum fine of $2,000 per report. Illinois, which requires companies to register under their charitable trust law to conduct charitable sales promotions, has been enforcing its $100 late filing fee for campaign reports.

While California 1 has the statutory right to impose a late fee of $25/month for registration statements or campaign reports, we have not observed this late fee being regularly imposed.

To avoid incurring late fees and penalties, companies should ensure that they are monitoring their filing deadlines and planning ahead in order to avoid getting hit with significant and unanticipated financial penalties.

For a general overview of the laws regulating commercial co-ventures and charitable sales promotions, please read Do Good And Sell It Well: An Overview Of Cause Marketing Regulation on Engage for Good’s website.

1 Registration in California is not required if certain contract and related compliance requirements are met, including transfers of payments every 90 days. However, note that some companies engaging in online campaigns may need to register as a charitable fundraising platform in California beginning on January 1, 2023. For more information, see the post California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms.

The post What are the Penalties for Making a Late Filing of CCV Registrations and Campaign Reports? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Within a week, the group created the ConstitutionDAO, organized its followers on Discord (a messaging and community platform), and raised roughly $47 million in virtual currency.⁴ Armed with their new war chest, the group bid on, but ultimately failed to win, the Sotheby’s auction, losing out to a hedge fund billionaire who purchased the copy of the Constitution for $43.2 million (the Constitution DAO had withheld some funds to cover costs associated with winning the auction).⁵

Following their loss, the creators of the group were faced with what to do with the virtual currency sitting in the DAO’s treasury. Many of the community members sought refunds, only to learn that the transaction costs (also known as gas fees) would eat up much of their original contribution.⁶ Ultimately, the ConstitutionDAO’s founders decided to shut it down.⁷ The token issued in connection with the project, originally intended to be used to allow holders to vote on what the DAO would do in the future, lives on, with some holders still hoping to profit.⁸

What if the ConstitutionDAO had succeeded? Who would have “owned” the copy of the Constitution the group would have purchased? In a later interview one of the founders of ConstitutionDAO, Jonah Erlich, disclosed that the group had partnered with a traditional nonprofit organization that would have had legal custody of the Constitution.⁹ The fact that this new type of organization would be reliant on a traditional nonprofit provides excellent insight into the emerging world of DAOs. It also gives us an entry point to examine this new structure.

WHAT ARE DAOS?

In a traditional corporation or limited liability company, the organization is formed by filing paperwork with a government office, typically a state’s Department of State. By creating a legal entity, the people behind the organization are protected from liability. When someone sues a corporation over a contract dispute or other liability, the directors, officers, employees, members, and volunteers are not liable individually. Rather, it’s the corporation that must answer for its liabilities.

In a DAO, however, there is no formal legal entity. Built using the same blockchain technologies that underly the virtual currency ecosystem, DAOs are organizations that are never incorporated in any state (with limited exceptions). The founders create the DAO, and it simply exists.

While DAOs actual structures vary, most DAOs issue a token that gives members of the DAO voting rights. Once tokens are issued, in order to make decisions, all token holders are allowed to vote. The idea, touted by DAO supporters, is that this new structure democratizes organizational decision-making, placing it in the hands of the members. An oversimplified comparison would be a for-profit company that has no paid executives or board of directors, making every decision by allowing all shareholders to vote.

Although the ConstitutionDAO is a well-known example, DAOs are proliferating in the nonprofit community. Here are a few interesting examples: DiatomDAO is raising support to protect the oceans;¹⁰ KlimaDAO hopes to speed up solutions for climate change by increasing the price of carbon assets;¹¹ Bloomeria is using NFTs to increase biodiversity; ¹² and The Regen Network is issuing a token as part of a group of entities to realign the agricultural economy with ecological health.¹³

While each of the foregoing organizations uses the language of the DAO and decentralization, they also demonstrate how the DAO community encompasses many different structures. For instance, the Regen Network is comprised of a traditional C-Corporation, a traditional 501(c)(3) public charity, and a decentralized DAO program.¹⁴ The DiatomDAO is purely a decentralized entity, “owned and directed” by its token holders (see more on this below). The ConstitutionDAO, while operated as a decentralized DAO, would have relied on a traditional 501(c)(3) public charity (one named EnDAOment¹⁵) had it won the Sotheby’s auction and needed a legal entity with which to hold the copy of the Constitution. As you can see, while many groups use the mantle of “DAO”, the term encompasses many different structures.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DAOS?

Now that we’ve discussed what DAOs are, and seen some examples, let’s step back to consider what DAO proponents like about the structure. In theory, a pure DAO offers each supporter the opportunity to participate in the group’s decision-making. If a member of a charitable DAO wants to make a grant, they would propose it to the rest of the DAO community. The members then hold a vote. Using this structure, a DAO represents a more direct form of organizational decision-making and, for donors, more direct-action philanthropy.

Further, by avoiding any legal structure, some DAO proponents believe this new structure will give DAOs greater flexibility. Without a state’s laws dictating how decisions have to be made or how boards have to be structured, a DAO might be nimbler. Some libertarians believe that DAOs, who have no real jurisdictional nexus to any state, might even be able to avoid generally applicable laws.¹⁶

WHAT ARE THE DRAWBACKS OF DAOS?

While there is a lot to be excited about by DAOs, they use an organizational structure in its infancy, with many more questions than answers. One critique is that the voting structure adopted by most DAOs (1 token = 1 vote) replicates existing problems with shareholder structures, namely, that the larger shareholders control organizational decision-making, alienating smaller shareholders. If one person holds 60% of the DAO’s tokens and the DAO implements a 50+1% vote threshold decision-making could be even more centralized than it would be in a traditional organization with a board and executives who can counterbalance a large shareholder’s interests. The DAO community has proposed some possible solutions to this problem, such as limiting votes to one per token holder, or creating non-transferable tokens to limit token holder hoarding. Each of these solutions have drawbacks, but they could drive decision-making closer to the idealized notion of the DAO.

Another issue is the legal uncertainty of DAOs. Assume that the libertarian notion that DAOs are legally unaccountable as organizations, since they are not organized in any state nor do they have any other jurisdictional nexus with any local, state, or federal government. That might put the DAO beyond the reach of regulators and law enforcement, but it would not exempt the individuals participating in or working for the DAO, all of whom are real people subject to normal laws. Actually, the idea of a group of people running an unincorporated organization isn’t new. In New York, for instance, such an entity would be deemed an “unincorporated association.” Under longstanding common law, an unincorporated association is not legally separate from the members who comprise it.¹⁷ That means that members of a DAO could be taking on direct legal risk from their participation in the DAO. If the DAO were to breach a contract, discriminate against an employee, or cause other real-world harm, the DAO’s members might be jointly and severally liable.

It’s also an open question whether regulators will share the libertarian view that DAOs are not subject to local, state, or federal laws. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) bring an enforcement action against a DAO, given that it has already notified the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) community that it considers many DeFI products analogous to products regulated by the Commission.¹⁸ The SEC has already brought an enforcement action against a Wyoming organization operating under the guise of a DAO, albeit only after the entity sought SEC approval to register two tokens as securities.¹⁹

Finally, DAOs in the philanthropic sector face the additional hurdle of providing tax-deductibility to donors. In general, a contribution to a non-charitable intermediary doesn’t allow a donor to take a tax-deduction. The answer to that question isn’t clear²⁰ as it depends on how the entity is treated for tax-purposes, whether its distributions would otherwise qualify for a tax-deductions, and whether it is considered an agent for the donors or beneficiary charities. A person hoping for a tax-deduction should contact a tax professional to examine the particular DAO’s structure and the taxpayer’s circumstances. To date, I’m unaware of any DAO specifically advertising the deductibility of contributions to its treasury, nor having considered tax-deductibility as part of their DAO structure (except, of course, for DAOs like Endaoment and Regen Network that operate using a traditional 501(c)(3) corporate structure).

WHAT’S NEXT FOR DAOS?

Despite the novelty of and the uncertainty surrounding DAOs, their popularity is undeniable. This was exemplified by the incredible enthusiasm around ConstitutionDAO. Taking advantage of the late 2021 surge in the value of many cryptocurrencies, DAOs provide an opportunity for the crypto community to put its assets to work in novel ways, including philanthropy. While they are evolving, DAOs will likely persevere, barring regulator intervention to shut them down.  Donors and charities looking to participate in the DAO community should do so carefully, and with the benefits of advisors familiar with the DeFi and DAO space.

1 https://www.sothebys.com/en/digital-catalogues/the-constitution-of-the-united-states

2 Id.

3 https://www.theverge.com/22820563/constitution-meme-47-million-crypto-crowdfunding-blockchain-ethereum-constitution

4 https://www.constitutiondao.com/

5 https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb8xv/hedge-fund-ceo-who-bailed-out-gamestop-short-seller-bought-the-constitution

6 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/24/22800995/constitutiondao-refund-progress-steep-gas-fees-cryptocurrency

7 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/23/22799192/constitutiondao-shutting-down-lost-auction-refunds

8 The latest price quote for the PEOPLE token can be found at  https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/constitutiondao/.

9 https://www.theverge.com/22820563/constitution-meme-47-million-crypto-crowdfunding-blockchain-ethereum-constitution.

10 https://diatom.fund/

11 https://www.klimadao.finance/

12 https://bloomeria.org/

13 https://www.regen.network/

14 https://www.regen.network/faq/organization

15 https://endaoment.org/

16 For instance, in his conversation on the Deep Background podcast, Erik Voorhees argued that a DAO could avoid the difficulties of employment law because no states employment laws would apply. https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/whats-the-deal-with-decentralized-autonomous-organizations/

17 See, generally, New York Elec. C. Assn. v. Local Union No. 3, (NY Sup. Ct. 1941), available at https://casetext.com/case/new-york-elec-c-assn-v-local-union-no-3

18 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/crenshaw-defi-20211109

19 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-231; https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/11/11/sec-stops-wyoming-based-dao-from-registering-2-digital-tokens/.

20 For an excellent discussion, see Prof. Samuel Brunson’s blog post https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2021/11/charitable-daos-revisited.html.

The post DAOs and the Nonprofit Sector – How Can they Work Together? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

The new law defines a “charitable fundraising platform” as “any person, corporation, unincorporated association or other legal entity that uses the internet to provide an internet website, service, or other platform to persons in this state, and performs, permits, or otherwise enables acts of solicitation to occur.”  The broad definition of charitable fundraising platform applies to most consumer-facing websites that facilitate the receipt of online donations, with limited exceptions.[1] It also applies to websites that run multiple promotions advertising that a portion of the purchase price from the sale of goods or services will be donated to specified charities, as well as websites or platforms that voluntarily invite customers to add a donation during the check-out process, or that encourage individuals to take certain actions to trigger donations.  According to one legislative analysis, examples of charitable fundraising platforms include Amazon, Benevity, Charity Navigator, CrowdRise, eBay, Facebook, GoFundMe, Google, GuideStar (Candid), Lyft, Overstock, and PayPal.

The bill also regulates platform charities, which are charitable organizations that facilitate acts of solicitation on a charitable fundraising platform.

Key New Requirements
The bill contains a number of new requirements applicable to charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities, including the following:

1. Registration and Reporting. Charitable fundraising platforms and platforms charities must annually register and submit financial reports to the California Attorney General’s office. Additional regulations addressing the content of the registration and annual report forms and the manner and timing of the filings will be issued by the Attorney General.[2]

2. Required Disclosures. The new law will require charitable fundraising platforms to clearly disclose certain information, including: (1) a statement about who will receive the donations; (2) if applicable, a statement that a recipient charity may not receive donations or grants of recommended donations, with an explanation identifying the circumstances under which a recipient charity may not receive the funds; (3) the length of time it takes to send the donation or a grant of the recommended donation to a recipient charity; (4) the fees or other amounts (if any) deducted from or added to the donation or a grant of the recommended donation; and (5) whether the donation is tax-deductible or not. The new law permits some, but not all, of these disclosures to be provided through a conspicuous hyperlink, so long as the disclosure is conspicuous when the hyperlink is selected.

3. Written Consent of Charity Beneficiaries (and a Limited Exception). The law generally requires that a charitable fundraising platform or platform charity obtain the written consent of any recipient charity before using its name in a solicitation, but provides that such written consent is not needed if all of the following circumstances are met: (1) the platform only includes certain information about the recipient charities on the platform, as set forth in the new law or future regulations (e.g., the recipient charities’ name, address, telephone number, internet website, EIN, registration number with the California AG’s office, NTEE Code, and publicly available information from the recipient charity’s tax or information returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service or the California AG’s office); (2) the platform conspicuously discloses before persons can complete a donation that the recipient charity has not provided consent or permission for the solicitation, and has not reviewed or approved the content generated by individuals engaging in peer-to-peer charitable fundraising, when applicable; (3) the platform promptly removes any recipient charity from its list or any solicitation regarding the recipient charity upon written request by the recipient charity; and (4) the platform or platform charity does not require that a recipient charity consent to any solicitations as a condition for accepting a donation or grant of a recommended donation.

4. Soliciting or Receiving Funds Only for Charities in Good Standing. A charitable fundraising platform or platform charity may only facilitate solicitations or the receipt of donations for the benefit of charitable organizations in good standing.  “Good standing” means the platform charity or other recipient charity’s tax-exempt status has not been revoked by the Internal Revenue Service or the California Franchise Tax Board, or is not prohibited from soliciting or operating in California by the Attorney General.

5. Segregation of Funds; Accounting of Fees. Charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities must hold charitable funds raised in a separate account or accounts from other funds belonging to the platform or platform charity, and must promptly ensure that donations and grants of recommended donations are sent to recipient charities with an accounting of any fees imposed for processing the funds.

6. Prompt Distribution of Donations/Grants. In addition to the requirement for platforms to disclose the amount of time it takes for donations to be sent to recipient charities, the Attorney General is authorized to establish regulations regarding the maximum length of time a platform or platform charity may take to send the donated funds, taking into consideration various facts and circumstances.[3] For platforms that make donations or grants based on purchases or other activity performed on the platform, the platform must send donations or grants of recommended donations to the recipient charities no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and subject to any minimum amounts, which may not exceed ten dollars ($10).  In addition, donations or grants must be sent after four consecutive quarters regardless of any established minimum amount, unless the recipient charitable organization is not eligible to receive the funds (which ineligibility must be disclosed pursuant to the statutory disclosure requirements).

Avoiding Duplicative Registration and Compliance Obligations
Recognizing that some charitable fundraising platforms could meet the definition of one or more other regulated fundraising categories — namely, commercial fundraisers (e.g., telemarketers), fundraising counsels (e.g., direct mail companies), and commercial coventurers (e.g., retail businesses advertising that the purchase or use of their goods or services will benefit a charitable organization) — the law provides the following clarifications to avoid such overlap:

1. Fundraising Counsel: If an entity meets the definition of both a fundraising counsel and a charitable fundraising platform, it will only be a charitable fundraising platform.

2. Commercial Fundraiser:
If an entity meets the definition of both a commercial fundraiser and a charitable fundraising platform, it will only be a commercial fundraiser when the entity, for compensation, performs any of the following acts of solicitation:
(i) Direct mail solicitation, excluding electronic mail or messages;
(ii) Estate gift or estate planning solicitation;
(iii) In-person solicitation through a fundraising event, door-to-door or other public spaces, or a vending machine or similar equipment that does not use a person to perform the solicitation;
(iv) Noncash solicitation;
(v) Nonincidental acts of solicitation that are not internet based, including solicitation through print, radio, or television;
(vi) Solicitation involving receiving something of value, or a chance to win something of value, in connection with a donation; or
(vii) Telephone solicitation.

3. Commercial Coventurer: An entity that meets the definition of both a commercial coventurer and a charitable fundraising platform by listing one or more recipient charities to receive donations or grants of recommended donations made by the platform based on purchases made or other activity performed by persons who use the platform will be only a commercial coventurer when the acts of solicitation through an internet website, service, or other platform to persons in the state are for six or fewer recipient charities per calendar year.[4] Entities that undertake charitable sales promotions or other activities that trigger donations on the internet for seven or more recipient charities per calendar year will be a charitable fundraising platform.

During the annual conference of the National Association of Attorney General (NAAG) and the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) held on October 13, 2021, NASCO President, Yael Fuchs, noted that while she could not advise whether any specific states were planning to introduce similar legislation to AB 488, NASCO does have a Crowdfunding Working Group that has been following the California bill closely, and that the various state agencies are watching to see whether and how California’s law enhances regulatory oversight of online fundraising activities.

The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2023.  Beginning on January 1, 2022, the Attorney General is authorized to establish rules and regulations necessary to administer the new law.

[1] Exceptions include a charity’s own website, vendors that solely provide technical or supportive services to such platforms (e.g., domain hosting services or payment processing services), and sponsoring organizations of donor-advised funds that do not list or name recipient charities for solicitation purposes on its platform to individuals other than its donor-advisors. Additional clarifications for determining when an entity is a charitable fundraising platform when it meets more than one regulated fundraiser category is discussed later in this article.

[2] The law also signals that the Attorney General may issue regulations that would increase reporting efficiency by allowing partnering charitable fundraising platforms or platform charities to submit an annual report on behalf of other charitable fundraising platforms in a consolidated fashion.

[3] The considerations affecting the maximum length of time for funds to be distributed to recipient charities include the acts of solicitation being performed, the number of donations made through the platform, who the donations are made to (e.g., the platform, platform charity, recipient charities, or peer-to-peer fundraisers), whether the recipient charity has provided consent for a solicitation, whether further verification information is requested to prevent fraud, and whether donations are sent to alternate recipient charities.

[4] California does not require commercial coventurers to register with the state if they enter into a written agreement with each beneficiary charity signed by two charity officers, distribute funds to the charity every 90 days throughout the promotion, and, and provide an accounting with each payment.

The post California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Virtual currency is gaining mainstream attention with each passing day. Nonprofits such as the American Red Cross, UNICEF, and American Cancer Society leverage platforms including The Giving Block and other services to accept a wide range of virtual currencies, as part of their overall fundraising strategies.

At our firm, we continue to work with nonprofit clients as they consider whether and how to fundraise using cryptocurrency. Here are a few questions we have been asked and other questions charities should be asking of potential fundraising platform partners.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should we accept virtual currency?

For many organizations, this is an easy answer – yes. There are few risks to accepting donations of virtual currency, especially if nonprofits immediately liquidate those donations.  Donors of virtual currency typically skew younger, possibly opening up a new demographic of supporters for the organization. The board should consider including virtual currency in its Gift Acceptance Policy, a document every organization should have to guide its board, executives, and staff in their development work.

Should we immediately liquidate donations of virtual currency, or hold onto them?

This is more difficult to answer, as it is based on how much risk the organization can tolerate. Virtual currency is highly volatile – its value can skyrocket or plummet within a matter of hours or days, making it a risky asset to hold onto. Whether to hold onto virtual currency is a decision that should be made with the input of a nonprofit’s board and executive team. If virtual currency is held as part of the organization’s investments, or if a donor asks the organization to hold the virtual currency as an endowment or long-term investment, the organization should consider how that fits within the organization’s overall investment strategy and portfolio, and the applicability of state laws governing the prudent management of institutional funds/assets.

One concern is volatility – few organizations want to see their donations halve in value. For many organizations, the potential upside isn’t worth the potential risk.

A second concern is regulatory risk. As the Chinese central bank, SEC, FINCEN, IRS, and other domestic and international regulators grapple with how to regulate virtual currency, the liquidity and accessibility of virtual currency markets is up in the air. Even major players like Coinbase and Ripple have been subject to or threatened by regulatory action.

Charities are often cautious when holding virtual currency, concerned that the regulatory environment could shift in a way that devalues or freezes their holdings. If a nonprofit is using a virtual currency account on a platform that is subject to an SEC action, for instance, the platform might be forced to freeze transactions until such time as the SEC allows it to continue operations.

Organizations that are highly diversified and have the financial cushion to absorb a zeroing out of their virtual currency donations, taking into account the diversification of risk across the organization’s entire investment portfolio,  might be comfortable with the risks of virtual currency. The potential upside of assets like Bitcoin are hard to ignore – despite volatility, Bitcoin’s value has been on a consistent march upward. Other coins, like Ethereum, have not been far behind. If your organization is willing to take the risk, and has considered the prudent investment regulatory considerations, you can create a wallet at a prominent, legally-compliant platform, and park your virtual currency there and “Hold On for Dear Life” (HODL, as some in crypto-world like to say).

Fortunately, the major virtual currency fundraising platforms allow immediate liquidation of donations. Again, this is the option chosen by most nonprofit organizations. As I mentioned above, nonprofits should include virtual currency in their Gift Acceptance Policy and Investment Policy to help guide their development professionals as they consider whether and how to accept virtual currency donations.

How do we treat virtual currency for accounting purposes?

Despite continued regulatory action in other parts of the crypto market, IRS rules around donations of virtual currency have been relatively stable. Since 2014, the IRS has been clear that virtual currency should be treated as property. A taxpayer donating virtual currency they have held for more than a year may deduct the fair market value of the currency at the time of its donation, similar to other forms of property, such as publicly-traded stocks. This provides a tax benefit to donors who invested in virtual currency in its infancy – they can support their favorite charities without being taxed on the gains they’ve enjoyed on paper.

This consistent treatment from the IRS means that charities can rest assured that they can accept virtual currency in the same way that they can accept donations of appreciated stock or other forms of property. The accounting department or external accountants should be able to handle booking donations of virtual currency without much trouble. A caveat is that, in a nonbinding FAQ, the IRS has said that nonprofits must fill out Form 8282 whenever the nonprofit sells, exchanges, or otherwise disposes of its virtual currency. This is a departure from the IRS’s treatment of virtual currency as akin to stocks, which a nonprofit can sell without filing Form 8282. While not insurmountable, nonprofits and their fundraising platforms should discuss how to operationalize capturing the information required for filing Form 8282.

Questions to Ask a Fundraising Platform

Now that we have considered some of the frequent questions nonprofits ask their advisers, let’s consider questions nonprofits should ask a prospective fundraising platform as part of their due diligence.

Are you registered as a professional fundraiser?

Fundraising is regulated in most states, with each state using its own regulatory regime. Individuals and organizations that support charities are often subject to laws regulating charitable solicitation (here’s an excellent overview from my colleague Tracy Boak). Charities are affected by these regulations and are obliged to make sure they only partner with organizations that are properly registered and licensed, if required.

Many fundraising platforms (both traditional and those dealing with virtual currency) take the position that they are not professional fundraisers, due to the way they structure their platforms and services, e.g., because they don’t affirmatively solicit donations on behalf of any charity and don’t take custody of donations. Regardless, a platform should be able to tell you why it isn’t subject to fundraising registration requirements. By asking the question, nonprofits can rest assured their fundraising platform partner is on top of its compliance obligations.

Are you registered as a Money Service Business or Money Transmitter?

Money Service Business (MSB) and Money Transmitter (MT) regulations are implemented at the federal and state levels. Their purpose is to weed out fraud and money laundering in the money transmission business. Generally speaking, MSB and MT laws create licensing structures that require licensed entities to do some due diligence on their customers, including “KYC” (know your customer) and “AML” (anti-money laundering) requirements.

Since 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has applied money transmitter regulations to some entities within the virtual currency ecosystem. According to FinCEN, if a person or organization accepts money or another instrument with monetary value from one person and transmits it to another person, that person may be classified as a money transmitter under federal regulations. (A comprehensive rundown of FinCEN’s guidance is found here). This means that any entity that accepts virtual currency from one party and transmits it to another party could be considered a money transmitter subject to the federal rules. The same rules apply if the entity accepts virtual currency, converts it to fiat currency (i.e., U.S. dollars), and transmits the fiat currency to another person or entity.

FinCEN does provide some exceptions, including those entities that only provide network access or serve as payment processors, exceptions which largely do not apply to crypto-fundraising. Whether a person or entity will be treated as a money transmitter is a facts-and-circumstances determination, but FINCEN clearly intends to define money transmission broadly and interpret its exceptions narrowly (see the discussion on pages 12-22 of the guidance linked above).

Nonprofits considering crypto-fundraising options should ask the potential partner whether it is registered as a money transmitter. If not, ask how they ensure that their services aren’t used inappropriately – do they work with a partner that is a licensed entity? Who does their KYC and AML compliance work?

Do you accept anonymous donations?

Anonymous donations are nothing new – charities have received anonymous donations large and small since long before the birth of cryptocurrency. But many charities are wary of the “dark side” of cryptocurrency and its reputation (rightly or wrongly earned) for facilitating illicit activity. Nonprofits should check with their potential fundraising platform to confirm whether they allow anonymous donations. If so, ask whether the donations are anonymous to the platform, or only to the charity. If the donation is anonymous to the platform, ask whether and how the platform ensures the anonymous donations aren’t connected with illicit activity. The answer may be that the platform does not, or cannot, do anything else to ascertain the identity of donors who wish to remain anonymous. If that is the case, the nonprofit should consider whether it is comfortable with the risks of accepting anonymous donations.

Those risks are generally the same as accepting any other high-value anonymous donation – that a donation of virtual currency could be traced back to illicit activity or a potential clawback, if the virtual currency that is donated doesn’t belong to the donor.  One difference with anonymous donations of cash or other types of property is that the virtual currency environment is highly transparent, even if it may be highly anonymized. Bitcoin transactions are viewable on the blockchain, even if the participants in the transactions may remain anonymous.

Do you issue donation receipts? Do you fill out Form 8282? Will we get a donor list?

One of the core tasks in charitable fundraising is issuing receipts to donors. Donors need to keep those receipts on file, in case they want to claim a charitable deduction. Many platforms will create automatic receipts. Nonprofits should confirm that the receipts issued by its platform partners are compliant with IRS requirements, and ask for copies for your records.

Nonprofits should also ensure that the fundraising platform will provide you with a list of your donors, to make sure you can build out your donor base.

The post What Nonprofits Should Be Asking About Virtual Currency Regulation and Fundraising first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Nonprofits and for-profits (in this article, “Brands” for easy reference) can collaborate in a number of ways to benefit both organizations. Nonprofits benefit by receiving financial support and access to a wider audience. Brands benefit from the goodwill generated by supporting a charitable cause, while simultaneously furthering their own purposes. These collaborations may take a number of forms. (For further reading, see  articles on our website , Selfish Giving, and Engage for Good’s online resource Cause Marketing and the Law).

We’ve recently seen a number of nonprofits expand their efforts to more consciously address online collaboration. In this article, I provide a refresher to clarify where the IRS draws the line on these types of partnerships. Understanding this line can help Brands to maximize their benefits and charities to avoid unwanted tax consequences.

What are Qualified Sponsorship Payments?

A typical strategy for Brands and nonprofits to collaborate is through sponsored events. While the pandemic has thrown traditional fundraising events for a loop, many nonprofits have pivoted to digital engagements or are now beginning to plan live events again as vaccination rates rise. Whether an event is digital or live, many nonprofits underwrite their events with support from Brand sponsors. In exchange for this support, Brands typically receive certain benefits. Those benefits may include a page in the event program, placement of their logo on the step-and-repeat, or a booth at the event. In the virtual context, Brands may get a shout-out or other acknowledgment during the event, in thank-you emails to attendees, or in press releases issued by the nonprofit.

If a nonprofit wants to avoid tax on the sponsorship payments that are received in exchange for certain benefits to the Brand, one strategy is to ensure that the payments qualify as “Qualified Sponsorship Payments”, the term used in Section 513(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. In order to be categorized as a Qualified Sponsorship Payment, the payment must be made without any arrangement or expectation of a “substantial return benefit.” Payments made in return for advertising or marketing services may constitute a substantial return benefit, and cause the payment to be subject to tax under the IRS’s Unrelated Business Income Tax (“UBIT”) rules.

So when does including a Brand’s logo in the nonprofit’s event, or allowing the Brand to have a booth or table at the event, constitute a “substantial return benefit”? Fortunately, the IRS has provided guidance on this question. According to the IRS, one way to avoid providing the Brand a “substantial return benefit” is for the Brand and nonprofit to avoid language that “promotes or markets any trade or business”. The IRS goes on to provide several examples of activities that are allowable under the qualified sponsorship rules, including:

• Distributing a Brand’s products to the general public at the event, either for free or purchase
• Including a Brand’s logo, slogan, address(es), telephone number, descriptions of a Brand’s product line or services, PROVIDED that all the foregoing do not include any comparative or qualitive descriptions of the Brand’s goods and services.
• Exclusive sponsorship arrangements (i.e., having a Brand be the only bakery sponsoring the event. NOTE – this is different than an exclusive provider arrangement, described below)

The IRS, in its guidance, also describes what types of messaging and activities are considered “substantial” return benefits for Brands and therefore NOT qualified sponsorship activities, including:

• Advertising for the Brand (messaging that promotes or markets a Brand, including messaging that contains comparative or qualitative descriptions of the Brand’s goods/services)
• Exclusive provider arrangements that limit the sale, distribution, availability, or use of competing products/services in connection with the nonprofit’s event/activities (i.e., having a Brand be the sole provider of cookies for an event. NOTE – this is different from the exclusive sponsorship arrangements, described above)

Social Media Considerations

Many Brands and nonprofits have begun to include social media posts as part of their messaging around events and partnerships. In addition to concerns about UBIT and qualified sponsorships, Brands and nonprofits have to be wary of rules implemented by the social media platforms (Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok, for instance) and guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission.

Nonprofits often thank their Brand sponsors for their support. It’s important that the language included in those posts is agreed upon by the Brand and nonprofit, and is vetted to make sure it doesn’t amount to an advertisement or endorsement of the Brand’s products or services. Similarly, when a Brand posts to highlights its support of the nonprofit, the parties should ensure that the post doesn’t create the implication that the nonprofit is endorsing the Brand’s products.

Brands and nonprofits also have to make sure their posts include appropriate disclosures to put their respective followers on notice that the content they are posting is part of a partnership. How those disclosures should be structured depends on the platform and the nature of the post, but has to be clear enough so that the posts comply with the platforms’ rules and the FTC’s guidelines.

If the Brand and nonprofit have brought a celebrity or influencer into the event to help raise its profile, the same general principles apply to the influencer’s posts. The Brand and nonprofit should make sure there are contractual provisions as well as practical guidelines provided that clarify what the influencer can and cannot post, how those posts should be timed and structured, and what material disclosures must be included.

Advice for Brands and Nonprofits

Brands and Nonprofits need to carefully review their contracts and social media posts to ensure they are not violating the rules regarding Qualified Sponsorships or social media platform disclosures. All posts made by the nonprofit thanking the Brand should avoid any qualitative language. Here are two sample statements to differentiate between comments that could be considered advertising vs. those that are just acknowledgments:

• Acknowledgment – NONPROFIT thanks BRAND for their steadfast support of our event. With BRAND’s support, we raised $100,000 in furtherance of our mission to end childhood hunger.
• Advertising – NONPROFIT thanks BRAND, purveyor of the best chocolate chip cookies in the NYC-area, for their support of our event. BRAND is one of the best companies and we thank them for their continued support. Find their cookies available for delivery at [WEBSITE].

In the second statement, the nonprofit used qualitative language around the Brand and its products. It also made a general comparative characterization of the Brand and linked to the Brand’s website, not for general informational purposes but to encourage viewers to order the Brand’s products. The second statement would be considered advertising, and could trigger UBIT for the nonprofit. The first statement merely identifies the Brand as a supporter of the nonprofit and its mission, and would be considered an acknowledgment.

In the contract governing the sponsorship or collaboration, the nonprofit should include restrictions on the Brand’s ability to use the nonprofit’s name and trademarks. For instance, the nonprofit should include a clause that prohibits the Brand from using pictures and videos from a nonprofit’s event in the Brand’s television, print, or social media advertising to promote its products or services. If a Brand seeks to incorporate the nonprofit’s photos and videos into content that highlights the Brand’s social mission and corporate responsibility, the nonprofit should carefully define the limits of that right to avoid an inadvertent endorsement.

The Brand and nonprofit should also consider how to enforce their contractual rights with regard to one another and any social media personalities that are part of the event. Payments can be delayed until after certain deliverables, to ensure all parties remain in sync in the run-up to the event. The parties should also consider the duration of their contractual rights –event contracts often terminate immediately upon the completion of the event, but if the parties are allowed to use each other’s names and logos even after the event is over, the contract should cover that ongoing use.

In order to manage the logistics of the event and the many deliverables that are included in sponsorship agreements, Brands and nonprofits can designate point people to review and approve deliverables. Specifying in the contract who the points-of-contact will be, as well as the required turnaround times, will help ensure the parties remain on good terms and maximize the event’s potential.

The post Qualified Sponsorship Payments, UBIT, and Social Media – A Reminder For Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

What is a Professional Fundraiser? 

A professional fundraiser (a/k/a commercial fundraiser for charitable purposes, professional solicitor or paid solicitor) is generally defined as a person or entity who, for compensation, directly solicits contributions on behalf of one or more charitable organizations.  A professional fundraiser may have temporary custody of contributions and is permitted to receive percentage-based compensation.

Examples of professional fundraising activity include telemarketing, in-person meetings with prospective major donors, vehicle donations, thrift store operations, event ticket sales, auctions at charity events (including the acquisition of auction items), and operation of certain internet fundraising platforms.

Where Does a Professional Fundraiser Need to Register?

Generally, a professional fundraiser is required to register in any state where they are directly soliciting charitable contributions on behalf of a charity.  With respect to internet solicitations, a state may impose its registration and reporting statutes only on a PFR’s activities that meet the constitutional requirement of “minimum contacts” with that particular state.

Acknowledging these jurisdictional limitations, and given the practical reality that applying (and enforcing) their registration requirements to every internet solicitation is virtually impossible, the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) issued guidelines in 2001 known as the Charleston Principles (the “Principles”).  The Principles are not binding law; however, NASCO encourages state charity regulators to use them as practical guidelines for applying their state laws to online fundraising activities.

The Principles summarize the application of state registration and reporting regimes to PFRs as follows:

1. Entities domiciled within the state.

An entity is domiciled within a particular state if its principal place of business is in the state. However, according to the Principles, a physical presence within a state, such as a branch or regional office, may also be indicative of appropriate state jurisdiction.

2. Out-of-state entities whose non-internet activities would require registration in the state (e.g., inbound telephone or face to face solicitations in the state).

3. Out-of-state entities that solicit through an interactive or non-interactive website and either (a) specifically target persons physically located in the state or (b) receive contributions from the state on a repeated and ongoing basis, or a substantial basis, through or in response to the website solicitation.

The Principles leave the definition of “repeated and ongoing” or “substantial” to the individual states.  Currently, three states, Colorado, Mississippi and Tennessee have, by regulation, formally adopted numerical thresholds.  In Colorado, an entity receives “repeated and ongoing” or “substantial” contributions if it receives at least fifty online contributions, or the lesser of $25,000 or 1% of its total contributions, in online contributions during a fiscal year, respectively.  In Mississippi, an entity receives “repeated and ongoing” or “substantial” contributions if it receives at least twenty-five contributions or $25,000 in online contributions in a year.  In Tennessee, an entity receives “repeated and ongoing” or “substantial” contributions if it receives at least one hundred contributions or $25,000 in online contributions in a year.

Professional Fundraising Contracts

In addition to the registration requirements, state charitable solicitation statutes require that contracts between a charity and a PFR be filed in the states where solicitation activity is occurring and that they include certain provisions. Common contract provisions required by state statute including the following:

• Legal name/address of the charity
• Statement of the charitable purpose for which the solicitation campaign is being conducted
• A clear statement of the fees to be paid to the professional fundraiser
• The effective/termination dates of the contract
• A statement that the charity exercises control and approval over the content, volume and/or frequency of any solicitation
• An estimate of the amount the charity is expected to receive as a result of the solicitation campaign
• California and New York require lengthy cancellation provisions designed to allow the charity to cancel the contract within 10-15 days of signing without penalty
• Several states require the contract to be signed by two authorized officials of the charity

Campaign Financial Reports

Nearly all states that regulate PFRs require them to file a report that accounts for the funds raised in the campaign.  The reports generally require disclosure of the total amount raised, the fee paid to the PFR, and certain campaign expenses.  These reports are required within a certain time period following the end of the campaign (typically ninety days) or, for ongoing campaigns, annually in connection with the anniversary date of the campaign.

Bonds

As part of the registration process, PFRs are required to obtain a surety bond.  The purpose of the bond is to guarantee against malfeasance in the conduct of charitable solicitations.  The face amount of the bonds required by the states range from $10,000 to $25,000.

Point of Solicitation Disclosures

Virtually all states require a PFR to identify its status as a professional fundraiser, and many require the PFR to disclosure that the PFR is being compensated.  If asked by the potential donor, the professional fundraiser must truthfully disclose how much of the donation will go to the charity.

In addition, a number of states require solicitation disclosure notice statements on all written materials used when soliciting contributions.  The required disclosures must include how additional information about the organization may be obtained as well as certain state regulatory agencies’ contact information where donors can obtain further information. Solicitation disclosure notice requirements apply to charitable organizations as well as professional fundraisers.

The solicitation disclosure notice is required to be included on every printed solicitation or written confirmation, receipt, and reminder of a contribution. Customary examples of printed solicitations are direct mail solicitations, fliers, or solicitations contained in a newsletter.  Often overlooked, however, are emails or the organization’s website, which, if it includes a donate button or other request for a donation (including a link to the donate button), is considered a form of written solicitation.

The services that professional fundraisers provide can be of great value to nonprofit organizations. Understanding the regulatory framework governing professional fundraisers will help avoid missteps that can lead to actions by state regulators, including fines and penalties. It is incumbent on both the professional fundraiser and its charity clients to take the steps that ensure compliance under state charitable solicitation laws.  If in doubt, it is always a good idea to seek legal counsel.

The post Are You Paid to Solicit Charitable Contributions for a Charity? You May Need to Register as a Professional Fundraiser first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Types of Campaigns

The core of a matching gift campaign is that a “match donor” offers to make a donation in connection with donations made by the public.  Generally speaking, there are three basic types of matching gift campaigns.

1. Matching Gift. The traditional matching gift campaign is where a “match donor” pledges to match public donations, dollar for dollar, often up to a specified donation cap and/or for a specified time period.  With this type of campaign, the amount of the pledge that must be paid by the “match donor” is contingent upon the total donations received from the public in response to the campaign.
2. Challenge Grant. A challenge “match donor” grant is one that is paid only if and when a charity raises a specified total dollar amount of funds, or receives funds from a specified number of individual donors.  With this type of campaign, the fulfillment of the pledge by the “match donor” is contingent upon hitting the target donation goals from the public – this structure is not a dollar-for-dollar match, but all-or-nothing.
3. Fixed Lead Contribution. A fixed lead contribution is one where a contribution that has already been made by a “match donor” is promoted with the goal of encouraging others to join in giving towards a larger specified financial goal.  This type of campaign is often used to fund a capital campaign (e.g., the construction/ expansion of a building), or to build or significantly grow an endowment.  The fulfillment of the lead contribution is not contingent upon public donations.

Key Legal Considerations

The following are key legal issues to consider when conducting matching gift campaigns.

1. Communicate clearly about the way in which the matching gift campaign works. All material information about how the campaign works must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed in solicitations seeking matching donations.  All materials terms regarding the requirements that must be met to trigger a donation match should be clear to prospective donors at the point of solicitation.  Consider the following analogous guidance from the NY Attorney General’s office on placement of materials terms for cause marketing campaigns: “Consumers should be able to easily understand before purchasing a product or using a service how doing so will benefit a charity. . . . [The] key details should be displayed together in a clear and prominent format and size, and in close proximity to, the text used in marketing the promotion.”  Below are a few questions that will help you consider what are the material terms that should be disclosed as part of your matching gift campaign solicitations:

a. Is the donation from the “match donor” a pledge that is contingent upon receiving donations from the public, or has the donation already been received?

b. Is there a match donation cap (i.e., a maximum amount that the “match donor”) will donate?

i. Recommendations provided by the NY Attorney General’s office in connection with cause marketing advertisements may provide useful guidance in how to structure matching donation campaigns to provide transparency to donors: “If there is a donation cap, “do not saturate the market with products; limit the number of units distributed to a quantity that is reasonably expected to produce the maximum donation.”

ii. The analogous principle in a matching gift campaign would be to forecast in good faith when you expect the organization will receive donations sufficient to hit the match donation cap, and plan the campaign so that the length of the campaign and match amount (e.g., dollar for dollar) vis-à-vis the number of recipients of the appeal are such that the organization will not expect to hit the match donation cap too early in the campaign, thereby negating many or most donors’ ability to have their donations matched per the campaign terms.

iii. Ideally, consider past history from similar types of fundraising campaigns (e.g., direct mail, email, social media) to forecast when you expect you would receive donations sufficient to hit the match donation cap, and plan so that the length of the campaign and match amount (e.g., dollar for dollar) are such that the donation cap will not be met too early in the campaign, thereby negating other donors’ ability to have their donations matched per the campaign terms.

c. What is the donation match period? Must donations be received by the specified date, or merely pledged or postmarked by the specified date?

d. What is the match ratio? 1:1? 2:1?

e. To trigger the match, do the donations need to be made through a specific website, or be specifically in response to a special direct mail appeal?

2. Obtain prior consent from the donor with respect to their commitment and the organization’s plans to use it in a public solicitation. Consent should be obtained for any situations that will involve communicating with the public about a donor’s potential or previous donation. This commitment should be obtained in writing prior to receiving any funds associated with the challenge.
3. Stop promoting the matching gift incentive once the match donation cap has been reached. Consider establishing a mechanism to track in real-time the status of donations received in response to the campaign.

a. If campaign donations are made through a unique website URL, consider posting a notice on the webpage once the matching donation cap has been reached stating that the match has been fulfilled, but donations will still be gratefully accepted.

b. If the campaign is promoted on social media, consider switching posts from promoting the match opportunity to communicating that the match has been fully met.

c. If the campaign is being conducted by email or direct mail, consider including a website URL or telephone number where donors can obtain campaign status updates.

4. Properly manage restricted gift solicitations. If the matching gift campaign is being used to raise funds for a specific project or purpose, make sure that the donation goal reflects a reasonable estimate of the amount needed to fund that project or purpose. Ensure that funds received are properly booked as restricted funds, and used only for that purpose.

The post Donor Match-Making – Legal Considerations for Matching Gift Campaigns first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

On February 8^th, California Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin introduced Assembly Bill 488, which would establish a new statutory framework for the ever-evolving world of online charitable fundraising platforms.[1]

The proposed  bill for “charitable fundraising platforms” and “platform charities” would require:
(1) “charitable fundraising platforms” and “platform charities” to register and provide reports to the California Attorney General’s office;
(2) conspicuous disclosures to prevent a likelihood of deception, confusion, or misunderstanding;
(3) the platform or platform charity to obtain written consent of any recipient charitable organization before using its name in a solicitation unless specific requirements are met; and
(4) the funds raised to be held in a separate bank account, and donations and grants of recommended donations to be sent promptly to recipient charities, along with an accounting of any fees imposed for processing the funds.

Key Definitions
The bill defines “charitable fundraising platform” as “any person, corporation, unincorporated association or other legal entity that uses the internet to provide an internet website, service, or other platform to persons in this state, and performs, permits, or otherwise enables acts of solicitation to occur.”  Charitable fundraising platforms would likely include companies such as GoFundMe, Facebook, Amazon, Tiltify, Pledgeling, and the many other technology platforms that enable charitable giving.

“Platform charity” is defined as a trustee or charitable corporation that facilitates acts of solicitation on a charitable fundraising platform.  Platform charities would likely include well-known organizations like PayPal Giving Fund and Network for Good, as well as the many other charities that serve as the intermediary and legal recipient of all donations raised through fundraising platforms.

Disclosure Requirements
If passed, the new law will require charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities to provide all of the following key disclosures to potential donors.

• A statement about who will receive the donations (e.g., that the recipient is the charitable fundraising platform, the platform charity, the recipient charitable organization, or the person engaging in peer-to-peer charitable fundraising).
• If applicable, a statement that a recipient charitable organization may not receive donations or grants of recommended donations, with an explanation identifying the circumstances under which a recipient charitable organization may not receive the funds. (Note: This disclosure relates to the “variance power” that is well-recognized in other contexts, such as donor-advised funds and fiscal sponsorships)
• The maximum length of time it takes to send the donation or a grant of the recommended donation to a recipient charitable organization with an explanation as to the length of time.
• The fees or other amounts (if any) deducted from or added to the donation or a grant of the recommended donation that are charged or retained by the charitable fundraising platform, platform charity, or any other partnering vendor, other than digital payment processing fees.[2]
• Whether the donation is tax-deductible or not.

Written Consent
While current California law requires that a charitable fundraising platform or platform charity obtain the written consent of any recipient charitable organization before using its name in a solicitation, the proposed law would provide that such written consent is not required if all of the following circumstances are met:

• The charitable fundraising platform or platform charity only references the recipient charitable organization’s name, address, telephone number, internet website (including through a hyperlink), employer identification number (EIN), corporation or organization number, or registration number with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, classification in the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) system, or other information set forth in rules or regulations established under Section 12599.10, if any. (Note that, as drafted, a recipient charity’s mission statement taken from its Form 990 cannot be included, unless written consent is obtained from that charity or the AG adopts rules to permit it. The inability to include a mission statement could potentially lead to unintended confusion by donors who are intending to support one charity and inadvertently designate their gift to benefit a different charity with a similar name but different mission)
• The charitable fundraising platform or platform charity conspicuously discloses before persons can complete a donation (or select or change a recipient charitable organization) that the recipient charitable organization has not provided consent or permission for the solicitation, and has not reviewed or approved the content generated by persons engaging in peer-to-peer charitable fundraising, when applicable. (Possible concerns remain about how this disclosure must be worded, and whether it could hamper giving by appearing to be like a “warning label”, notwithstanding the consent that may exist between a platform and a platform charity)
• The charitable fundraising platform or platform charity promptly removes any recipient charitable organization from its list or any solicitation regarding the recipient charitable organization upon written request by the recipient charitable organization.
• The charitable fundraising platform or platform charity does not require that a recipient charitable organization consent to any solicitations as a condition for accepting a donation or grant of a recommended donation.

Good Standing
Pursuant to the bill, a charitable fundraising platform or platform charity may only facilitate solicitations or the receipt of donations for the benefit of charitable organizations in good standing.  “Good standing” means the platform charity or other recipient charity’s tax-exempt status has not been revoked by the Internal Revenue Service, or the California Franchise Tax Board, or is not prohibited from soliciting or operating in California by the Attorney General.

Intersection with Other Fundraiser Registration Requirements
Over the last two decades, charitable fundraising platforms have been in a regulatory gray area, as the charitable solicitation laws were established decades before the Internet was around.  The existing regulatory framework in California and other states covers professional fundraisers (e.g., telemarketers), fundraising counsels (e.g., direct mail companies), and commercial co-venturers (e.g., retail businesses advertising that sales or use of their goods or services will benefit a charitable organization).  Many states require contracts between a regulated fundraiser and a charity to be submitted or at least disclosed, and separate campaign reports to be filed per contract (some forms even require two original notarized charity signatures!).

Most fundraisers that fall into the existing regulated categories do not support the fundraising efforts of hundreds or thousands of charities simultaneously, so compliance, while somewhat burdensome, is generally manageable.  Most new fundraising platforms, however, aim to assist hundreds or thousands of charities in broadening their fundraising reach through new innovative methods of giving.  If a platform provider is required to file hundreds or thousands of contracts and campaign reports, these reporting burdens would most likely hamper innovation and, ultimately, severely limit donations to thousands of charities, large and small.

The proposed regulations for charitable fundraising platforms provide a streamlined approach that is more appropriately suited to the way in which charitable fundraising platforms work.  The bill recognizes the potential overlap between the new “charitable fundraising platform” category and the three existing fundraiser categories, and explicitly carves out “charitable fundraising platforms” from the definition of commercial fundraiser, fundraising counsel and commercial co-venturer “when the acts of solicitation for charitable purposes occur solely through an internet service, website, or other platform provided by the charitable fundraising platform.”

While many charitable fundraising platforms will not need to comply with inconsistent or duplicative requirements applicable to the other regulated fundraiser categories, the limited scope of the carveout could still cause many fundraising platforms to remain subject to the additional regulatory requirements of other fundraiser categories.  For example, what if a platform sends an email about a specific campaign conducted on the platform to individuals who have signed up to receive communications?  What about a social media post?  Exactly how these definitional carveouts are finalized and implemented will significantly affect the amount of the compliance obligations applicable to charitable fundraising platforms.[3]

The passage of Assembly Bill 488 will not resolve the ambiguity in other states’ charitable solicitation laws and their applicability to charitable fundraising platforms. However, given the various states’ interest in providing oversight to these new technology-driven fundraising platforms, there is a good chance that other states may follow suit in adopting similar legislation.

Stakeholder Engagement
Assemblywoman Irwin and the California Attorney General’s office have been actively engaging with various stakeholders in the community in the development of this legislation (which has included associations of nonprofits and fundraisers, including The Nonprofit Alliance and the California Association of Nonprofits, as well as various fundraising platforms and platform charities) to ensure that innovation in charitable giving is encouraged within a framework of oversight and transparency.

In Conclusion…
The new bill is, in many respects, a much-needed update to the existing fundraising regulatory framework that more appropriately reflects the nature of charitable fundraising and giving in the age of the Internet.  However, the final codification of the legislation could have significant regulatory implications on the charitable fundraising community, so our firm is paying close attention to the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process.

[1] Since 2018, Assemblywoman Irwin has introduced several bills that would govern charitable fundraising platforms, including Assembly Bills 2556 (2018), 1539 (2019), and 2208 (2020). Among the comments submitted as part of the legislative process for Assembly Bill 2208, the National Association of State Charity Officials submitted a statement of support: “The National Association of State Charities Officials (NASCO) is an association of state offices (attorneys general, secretaries of state and other offices) charged with the regulation and oversight of charitable organizations and charitable solicitation in the United States. As state regulators, we have witnessed the impact of the internet on charitable fundraising over the past 20 years. Charitable fundraising is no longer limited to solicitations through telephone, direct mail, or even a charity’s own website. Fundraising through third party websites, social media apps, and live video streaming have become the norm. The sheer volume of charitable solicitations made through online fundraising has exploded; most recently, for solicitations concerning the COVID-19 and the civil rights crises. This issue is so important that NASCO has formed a working group to look at the breadth of charitable giving through the internet, the regulatory and enforcement challenges this presents, and the need for states to address it [… ]  NASCO believes that these issues require a legislative solution to protect charities and the public, and to provide the platforms with a regulatory scheme that fit their business model. Assembly Bill 2208 represents a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to address these problems.”

[2] While transparency around fees assessed is critically important in promoting trust in fundraising and avoiding deceptive solicitation violations, there may be constitutional implications depending on exactly how this disclosure requirement is ultimately codified. In a series of four cases from 1980 (Schaumburg) to 2003 (Madigan), the U.S. Supreme Court consistently held that regulation based upon fees paid to fundraisers violate First Amendment rights.  In particular, Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, 487 U.S. 781 (1988), invalidated a requirement that fundraisers disclose at the point of solicitation the percentage of funds they raised in the past year which went to the charity.  The Court found such “compelled speech” to improperly burden protected speech (i.e., a fundraising solicitation). 487 U.S. at 798. This mandatory financial disclosure requirement was found to be overbroad and not justified by the state’s interests in informing donors or prohibiting fraud. The Court determined that “the compelled disclosure will almost certainly hamper the legitimate efforts of professional fundraisers to raise money for the charities they represent.” 487 U.S. at 799. Since then, most state charitable solicitation laws require fundraisers to disclose their fees upon request of any donor. Given the online nature of charitable fundraising platforms, a balance may need to be struck between the constitutional concerns of compelled speech and the need for transparency in an online context. One option is to permit such fees to be disclosed within a conspicuous hyperlink.  The bill, as introduced, permits certain of the required disclosures to be included in a conspicuous hyperlink, but this fee disclosure is currently not among them.

[3] Consider that a professional fundraiser that registers in 40 states and has national contracts with 100 charities would have to file up to 8,000 separate filings each year! (That number is based on one contract/solicitation notice and one campaign report per contract per state x 40 states per year) While the exact reporting that will be required under Assembly Bill 488 and related regulations to be established by the California Attorney General’s office is still to be determined, I anticipate it will be a much more streamlined reporting process that will not require separate per-charity filings. The bill does not require each charity contract to be filed either, as is required of other types of fundraisers, although contracts must be available for inspection by the Attorney General. To minimize the compliance burdens of the current regulatory framework, one solution that has been adopted is for a fundraising platform that registers as a professional fundraiser to partner with a single platform charity so that there is only one professional fundraiser relationship – the relationship between the fundraising platform and the platform charity.

The post California Proposes Law to Regulate Online Fundraising Platforms first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Colleges/Universities
State regulators discussed issues faced by colleges and universities in 2020. Jim Sheehan, Chief of the New York Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, stated that financial hardship faced especially by small liberal arts colleges outside metro areas has led to an increase interest in mergers as a possible solution. He mentioned that his office has witnessed situations where a merger is the only way to save the mission of a financially distressed nonprofit college or university and, in this and similar circumstances where a merger is lawful, his office is generally supportive of this activity.

In addition, regulators are reviewing how colleges or universities forced to close due to the financial strain caused by COVID-19 might implement a teach-out plan for current students (a teach-out plan is an arrangement whereby a college or university provides current students with the opportunity to complete their course of study when the institution closes). Other common issues faced by colleges/universities in 2020 of interest to state regulators include (1) determining the circumstances when it may be appropriate to utilize a larger percentage of a college or university’s endowment fund; (2) whether a financially distressed college or university should borrow from a third party or liquidate otherwise illiquid assets; and (3) under what circumstances a college or university can remove donor-imposed restrictions on charitable contributions.

The NY Charities Bureau plans to issue guidance on the use of endowment funds for institutions facing financial challenges during COVID-19. Massachusetts has already released similar guidance.

Tanya Ibanez, Senior Assistant Attorney General in the California Attorney General’s Office of Charitable Trusts, mentioned that the California Attorney General is looking closely at for-profit schools converting to non-profit organizations.

Crowdfunding
State regulators are still considering carefully how to regulate crowdfunding platforms. Ms. Ibanez briefly discussed the California Attorney General’s support of California Assembly Bill 2208, which recently died in committee. Generally, the bill required charitable fundraising platforms to register and file annual reports with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts before soliciting, permitting, or enabling solicitations in California. Ms. Ibanez said that she anticipates that a similar bill will be introduced in the California legislature’s next legislative session.

In the context of discussing regulation of crowdfunding, Leslie Friedlander, Assistant Attorney General in the Texas Attorney General’s Office, reminded listeners of the recent PayPal Giving Fund settlement entered into between PayPal Giving Fund and twenty-two (22) state attorneys general. A summary of that settlement and its implications, PayPal Giving Fund Enters Multi-State Settlement, was written by my colleague Karen Wu.  Ms. Friedlander also teased upcoming donor-facing guidance on crowdfunding to be released by NAAG/NASCO in the near future. The FTC has released guidance for donors on giving through an online giving portal.

Form 990 Reporting
State charity regulators are taking advantage of the increased availability and searchability of data about charitable organizations, particularly data filed with the IRS on Form 990, to find organizations that may warrant closer is scrutiny.

Mr. Sheehan explained that organizations which disclose governance weaknesses on Form 990, Part VI, are more likely to have other governance problems such as weak internal controls that can lead to serious problems of interest to regulators. He recommended that, in addition to Part VI, tax practitioners should pay particular attention to Form 990 Schedules J (Compensation Information), L (Transactions with Interested Persons) and O (Supplemental Information). Organizations should ensure information on these schedules is complete, correct, and that an organization does not simply copy and paste information on these schedules from year to year.

Ms. Ibanez added that two additional areas of interest to regulators are the percentage of total contributions received as gifts-in-kind and joint cost allocations. She mentioned that if, for example, an organization receives 70%-80% of total contributions as gifts-in-kind then that organization is likely on the California Attorney General’s radar for a potential audit to determine whether those gifts are being properly valued.

Donor-Advised Funds
Speakers also discussed issues that regulators are grappling with when it comes to contributions made to and from donor advised funds.

Carol Washington, Manager of the Minnesota Attorney General Charities Division, shared how her office recently engaged with the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits to discuss areas of mutual public policy focus with respect to donor advised funds. The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits prepared an extensive white paper on the operation of donor advised funds, including policy recommendations on how the state might regulate donor advised funds to improve transparency and ensure that the original donor’s intent is respected.

Board Engagement During COVID-19
In answer to a question about the need for increased board engagement during COVID-19, Eunice Nakamura, General Counsel, Susan G. Komen, emphasized the importance of the board meeting early and often and encouraging board members to be proactive in discussing strategies that can be implemented and actions that can be taken now that will help the organization to weather this crisis now and into the future. Courtney Aladro, Chief of the Non-Profit Organizations Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, mentioned that another way boards have increased engagement during COVID-19 is to create specific committees focused on issues raised by the pandemic.

Incentive-Based Executive Compensation
Ms. Aladro was asked for her thoughts on organizations that approve incentive-based compensation in order to reward nonprofit executives for staying with the organization through the difficult circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. She explained that, even assuming the compensation was reasonable, a regulator might still raise questions about such an arrangement if, for example, the organization has offered such incentive-based compensation but at the same time has made the decision to lay-off lower paid workers in order to keep the organization afloat.

Virtual/Online Events
Sara Hall, Chief Legal Officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, discussed some very practical lessons her team has learned switching from in-person to virtual fundraising events. These include: (1) obtaining all trademark clearances (for event names, hashtags, etc.) and music licenses for the event; (2) vetting and engaging a vendor with experience facilitating multi-channel, multi-platform content; (3) projecting attendance (Ms. Hall mentioned that this is particularly difficult with virtual events since there is generally no translation from in-person events); and (4) being aware of that spammers and fake websites may pop-up prior and during the event. It is important to be ready to address these issues during the event in real time.

With respect to digital engagement, Ms. Hall reminded listeners not to forget about required disclosures when engaging an influencer as part of a virtual fundraising event. For more on that subject read Influencer Philanthropy and Social Media – What are the Rules, What are Best Practices? by my colleague Jeremy Coffey.

Online Fundraising – Charleston Principles
Brian Armstrong, Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, discussed regulation of online fundraising. He pointed listeners to the Charleston Principles (which he said is generally consistent with personal jurisdiction case law) to determine when registration may be required due to online activity. For more on this topic, please see Karen Wu’s excellent article recently published in The Nonprofit Quarterly.

The post The 2020 NAAG/NASCO Virtual Conference – Noteworthy Issues for Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.