What is a whistleblower policy?

A whistleblower policy is an organizational policy that encourages workers to report suspected illegal or improper activity within the organization while protecting workers from retaliation for making such reports.

Is our nonprofit required to have a whistleblower policy?

New York nonprofits that have at least twenty employees and annual revenues of $1 million or more are required to have a whistleblower policy under Section 715-b of the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.

Keep in mind that whistleblowers have significant protections under other federal, state, and local laws, even if those laws do not explicitly require adoption of a whistleblower policy. For example, Section 1107 of the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act of 2002 (more commonly known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) makes it a crime to intentionally retaliate against any individual, “including interference with the[ir] lawful employment or livelihood,”  for providing law enforcement with truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense. Many states and municipalities have other laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

A whistleblower policy helps to educate management and workers about these legal protections. It is a helpful tool in promoting a culture of lawfulness and integrity. By explicitly stating management’s commitment to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and laying out a process for reporting illegal or improper activity, a whistleblower policy encourages workers to communicate their concerns to the employer in good faith without fear of reprisal. Adopting a whistleblower policy is a recommended best practice for nonprofit employers.

What are the key changes to New York’s whistleblower protections?

Effective January 26, 2022, New York amended Section 740 of the New York Labor Law, which protects workers who engage in whistleblowing activity from retaliation by their employers.¹ The amendments expanded the classes of protected workers, the types of protected whistleblower actions, the types of employment-related actions that are considered illegal retaliation, the time frame for individuals to file a retaliation claim, and the potential penalties for employers who do retaliate against whistleblowers. Below is a summary of some of the key changes.

1. Protected Individuals. The prior law appeared to protect current employees only. The amended law protects current employees, former employees, and independent contractors from retaliation for whistleblowing activity.

2. Protected Actions. Under the prior law, whistleblower protections only applied to disclosures or threats of disclosure that involved an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation and presented a substantial danger to the public health or safety or constituted health care fraud. There were many types of illegal activities that did not fit within this standard, leaving employees who reported such activities at risk of retaliation. The prior law also stipulated that whistleblower protections did not apply if an employee disclosed an illegal activity, policy, or practice to a public body without first notifying the employer and giving the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem.

The amended law changes these standards. An employer may not retaliate against a protected individual for doing any of the following:

• Disclosing or threatening to disclose to a supervisor or public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that the individual “reasonably believes” violates a law, rule, or regulation or poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety;
• Providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation into any such activity, policy, or practice by the employer; or
• Objecting to, or refusing to participate in any such activity, policy, or practice.
• Protected individuals also need only make a “good faith effort” to report the activity, policy, or practice to the employer prior to notifying a public body. No employer notification is required at all when:
  • There is an imminent and serious danger to the public health or safety;
  • The whistleblower reasonably believes that reporting to the supervisor would result in a destruction of evidence or other concealment of the activity, policy, or practice;
  • The activity, policy, or practice could reasonably be expected to lead to endangering the welfare of a minor;
  • The whistleblower reasonably believes that reporting to the supervisor would result in physical harm to the whistleblower or any other person; or
  • The whistleblower reasonably believes that the supervisor is already aware of the activity, policy, or practice and will not correct it. 

3. Prohibited Retaliation. The amended law expands the definition of unlawful retaliation to mean any adverse action taken by an employer or the employer’s agent “to discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate against” a protected individual who engages in protected whistleblowing activity. This includes:

• Actual or threatened adverse employment actions against a protected individual in the terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to discharge, suspension, or demotion;
• Actions or threats to take actions that would adversely impact a former employee’s current or future employment; or
• Contacting or threatening to contact United States immigration authorities or otherwise reporting or threatening to report a protected individual’s suspected citizenship or immigration status or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a protected individual’s family or household member. 

4. Increased Filing Time, Right to Jury Trial, and Penalties for Retaliation Claims. The statute of limitations for filing a retaliation claim under Section 740 is increased from one year to two years. Parties are entitled to a jury trial. A successful retaliation claim against an employer may result in any of the following penalties:

• An injunction against the employer;
• Reinstatement of the whistleblower to their same position or an equivalent position, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement;
• Reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights;
• Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration;
• Payment by the employer of reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees;
• A civil penalty for the employer of up to $10,000; and/or
• Payment of punitive damages by the employer, if the violation was willful, malicious, or wanton. 

5. Employer Notice Requirement. Employers are required to inform protected individuals of their protections, rights, and obligations under the law by posting a notice “conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees and applicants for employment.” The New York State Department of Labor has issued a model notice that employers can post. Employers must also provide an electronic copy of the whistleblower notice to protected individuals via email and/or posting on their website.

1 In 2022, New York also amended Section 741 of the Labor Law, which applies to whistleblower complaints against health care employers.

The post Updated Whistleblower Protections in New York – Is Your Nonprofit Compliant? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

While “pay-for-play” is still prohibited by the NCAA,² these new rules have opened the door for college athletes to explore a new world of sponsorships, endorsements and compensation.  For example, college athletes can now earn money for commercials, appearances, speeches, social media posts, hosting sports camps, giving lessons, writing books and more — all without violating NCAA rules.

“NIL collectives” have emerged as the chief brokers of these opportunities.  This article discusses what NIL collectives are, their legal forms of organization, and the regulatory framework that governs them.

How are NIL Collectives Structured?
NIL collectives are entities that are structurally independent of a school, yet fund NIL opportunities for the school’s student-athletes. They are typically founded by well-known alumni and supporters of the school.  Collectives generate and pool revenue raised through contributions from a wide variety of sources, including boosters, businesses, fans and more.  They use these funds to create opportunities for student-athletes to leverage their NIL in exchange for compensation.

While a number of NIL collectives have been formed as for-profit entities,³ in a growing number of cases, they have been formed as nonprofits. Numerous nonprofit collectives have, in turn, sought and obtained 501(c)(3) public charity status from the IRS, which potentially allows donors to receive a tax-deduction for their contribution to the collective.⁴

Tax-exempt collectives typically use student-athletes as independent contractors to help further their charitable mission.  For example, some provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities, including speaking, appearances and other public relations services that help expand the charities’ reach and visibility in their communities.  The student-athlete is paid by the tax-exempt collective to provide the services, while the other charities receive these services on a pro bono basis.

Special Rules Governing Tax-Exempt NIL Collectives
Collectives that obtain tax-exemption should be mindful of special rules that apply to tax-exempt entities.  These rules are enforced not only by the IRS, but also by State Attorneys General, whose responsibility is to ensure that charitable funds are used for charitable purposes. These rules require that tax-exempt cooperatives operate differently from the typical NIL collective.

For example, NIL collectives commonly facilitate endorsement, merchandising and marketing deals that allow for-profit companies to promote their products and services using a student-athlete’s NIL, which helps these for-profit companies increase business and revenues.  Many NIL collectives have the flexibility to promote such commercial interests due to their structure as for-profit (and therefore, taxable) entities.

However, facilitating commercial deals does not constitute a permissible purpose for a charitable, tax-exempt organization.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt NIL collective engages in such activity, revenues from this activity could be taxed by the IRS as unrelated business income – i.e., income from a trade or business, regularly carried on, that is not substantially related to the collective’s charitable mission.

Also, if the IRS finds that these commercial activities constitute a primary or substantial non-exempt purpose of the organization, the IRS could revoke its tax-exempt status.⁵ State Attorneys General could bring enforcement actions for similar reasons.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt collective facilitates marketing or similar NIL arrangements, it should generally avoid arrangements promoting goods and services of for-profit companies.  However, it could use the NIL of student-athletes to help promote and amplify the charitable missions of nonprofits serving communities.⁶

NIL collectives are also becoming well-known for offering lucrative compensation to student-athletes in connection with promotional deals.  For many collectives, their status as for-profit entities give them the flexibility to do so.

But, in the context of a tax-exempt collective, these payments must be reviewed carefully to ensure they do not constitute “excessive compensation” for federal tax law purposes.  NIL collectives should therefore carefully structure athletes’ compensation in accordance with IRS rules to ensure it does not exceed fair market value.  Failure to do so could put the collective at risk of losing its tax-exemption, and lead to potential enforcement actions by State Attorneys General.

However, it should be noted that even if such compensation is determined to be reasonable, a tax-exempt NIL collective could nevertheless lose its exemption if the IRS determines that its primary or substantial purpose is to pay or recruit student-athletes.  For this reason, it’s important that tax-exempt collectives work closely with legal counsel to ensure they have well-constructed charitable programs.

Given the risks outlined above, an NIL collective seeking tax-exempt status should carefully consider whether any of its time and resources will be spent on pursuing commercial (non-exempt) activities.  Collectives considering such activities should consult with counsel to reconsider its structural options, and discuss whether it would be advisable to create a for-profit subsidiary to house any commercial activity.

NCAA Interim Rules
Aside from understanding the regulatory framework discussed above, NIL collectives (no matter their legal form) should have an understanding of the NCAA rules which, as of the time of this writing, consist of interim rules adopted in July 2021.  These interim rules will remain in effect until federal legislation creates a national standard (which is what the NCAA is calling for), or until new NCAA rules are adopted.  While the purpose of the interim rules is to suspend NCAA restrictions on athletes’ profiting off their NIL, the rules maintain certain guardrails to prevent “pay-for-play” and similar arrangements.  Subject to state law, the following is prohibited under the interim rules:

• NIL opportunities cannot be used as a recruiting tool for prospective student athletes.  Such an action is considered an “improper recruiting inducement.”  Therefore, NIL collectives should refrain from making offers of NIL opportunities contingent upon a student-athlete’s enrollment at a particular school.
• As discussed above, NIL arrangements that constitute “pay-for-play” are also prohibited.   This rule prohibits any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.
• NIL agreements should be specific about the NIL work being performed by the athlete in exchange for compensation, and such compensation should be paid only for work performed.  Such compensation must be determined through an independent analysis, based upon the facts of each specific case and the value each athlete offers to an NIL arrangement.
• The NCAA interim rules prohibit compensation from any school in exchange for the use of a student athlete’s name, image or likeness.  In addition, schools may not direct how student-athletes use NIL compensation.  (For example, schools may not require a student-athlete to use NIL compensation for financial aid.) Athletic department staff are not allowed to represent student-athletes in marketing their athletic ability or reputation.  They also may not communicate with a recruit on behalf of an NIL collective.  In addition, such staff may not facilitate a meeting between an NIL collective and a student-athlete, including, for example, by sharing a recruiting list or watch list.

State Laws and School Policies
As noted above, the NCAA’s interim rules are subject to state law, which varies depending on the state.⁷  Therefore, NIL collectives should take steps to ensure compliance under any applicable state law, including any state law that applies to the collective, the school where the student-athlete is enrolled, as well as the state where the NIL activity will take place.

The collective should also look at any specific NIL policies established by the college.

Both state laws and school policies may include reporting requirements that NIL collectives should be aware of, and some state laws prohibit athletes from entering into a contract that conflicts with the student-athlete’s team contract.

Understanding the regulatory framework governing NIL collectives will help avoid missteps that can lead to punitive actions by the IRS, NCAA or State Attorneys General, or scrutiny from Congress, which has also taken an interest in these entities.  As the NIL’s regulatory environment continues to evolve, it is incumbent on both collectives and student-athletes to take affirmative steps, including consulting with legal counsel, to ensure compliance.

1 This dramatic shift by the NCAA also came on the heels of its loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). Though NIL compensation was not the subject of this case, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion which suggested that the NCAA’s NIL compensation rules could be in violation of antitrust laws, and stated that “the NCAA is not above the law.”  The NCAA’s change also follows action by numerous states that, since 2019, had led the way in creating NIL rights for student athletes.

2 As discussed later in this article, “pay-for-play” refers to any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.

3 Other legal forms taken by NIL collectives have included formation as for-profit limited liability companies (“LLCs”), which provides more flexibility in a number of ways.  For example, unlike tax-exempt nonprofits, for-profit LLCs are not subject to a cap on what’s considered reasonable compensation.  They may therefore offer student-athletes NIL work at any compensation structure.  For-profit LLCs are also not subject to limitations on the type of activities they can facilitate.  Therefore, unlike tax-exempt entities, for-profit LLCs may facilitate NIL arrangements for student-athletes such as merchandising or endorsement deals which promote commercial activities.  NIL collectives should consult with counsel to discuss the various pros and cons of these options.

4 On September 29, 2022, Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act which, if passed, would “prohibit individuals and organizations from using the charitable tax deduction for specific contributions that compensate college or incoming college athletes for the use of their [NIL].”   They argue that “[s]uch activity is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the charitable tax deduction, and it forces taxpayers to subsidize the potential recruitment of – or payment to – college athletes based on their NIL status.”  As of the time of this writing, this federal legislation is the latest of more than a handful of NIL proposals introduced, but not yet passed, in Congress.  Congress’ appetite for eventually passing NIL legislation is unclear, though these proposals do indicate that NIL collectives are facing increased scrutiny from Congress.

5 Regs. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(e)(1) and Sec. 1.501(c) (3)-1(c)(1).

6 One example of this approach is discussed in the previous section – i.e.,  tax-exempt collectives that provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities to help them promote their charitable missions.

7 As discussed above, the NCAA is lobbying Congress for legislation that would create a national standard, and thereby pre-empt differing state laws.

The post Seeking Tax-Exemption for a Name, Image and Likeness Collective (NIL)? What to Know. first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

The bill follows New York’s passage in 2019 of another diversity related law which calls for a study of the number of women serving on certain corporate boards.

The bill’s sponsors say ethnic diversity is critical to a nonprofit board’s ability to understand its community’s needs.  They say when the ethnic makeup of a nonprofit board mirrors that of the community it serves, the board is more able to relate to the shared experiences of its community, and is therefore better equipped to identify problems and feasible solutions.   The bill makes an analogy to ethnically diverse police departments, stating that as data bears out that diverse police forces provide better service to diverse communities, the same may be true for nonprofit boards.

On January 5, 2022, the bill was referred to the Senate’s Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee.  It’s unclear whether this bill will gain traction during this legislative session.  Nevertheless, the call for more diversity on boards is trending not only in New York, but in California, Maryland, Illinois and other states where board diversity requirements have either been enacted or proposed.  Given the growing expectation for greater inclusion of underrepresented minorities on boards, nonprofits should consider familiarizing themselves with best practices for board diversity.

The post New York State Legislature Considers Bills Requiring Diversity for Nonprofit Boards first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Impact of COVID-19
The impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the charitable sector was a focus of the conference. Yael Fuchs, NASCO President and Co-Section Chief for the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney’s General Office, pointed to many state regulatory changes in areas such as virtual meeting guidance, registration deadline extensions, changes to signature requirements, and modified filing requirements. Some of these changes can be found in the NASCO chart of state registrations laws. While many of the pandemic related modifications are set to, or have already, expired, NASCO is looking for feedback as to what virtual components and guidance modifications should stay. For further information on virtual member meetings, please read Virtual Nonprofit Board and Member Meetings in the Time of COVID by my colleague Jeremy Coffey.

Ms. Fuchs described the effects the pandemic has had on filings requiring regulatory approval. While the trends are anecdotal, it was a shared observation that charity regulators are seeing an increase in divestment of real property, deaccessioning of art, mergers, and amendments to certificates of incorporation. She further noted that charity regulators have not yet seen an increase in endowment modifications and dissolutions, but based on historic trends, they expect these types of transactions may be forthcoming in the near future.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Tracy Thorleifson, Attorney and FTC’s leading expert on charitable solicitation fraud, highlighted some of the key work the FTC has been doing in the charitable sphere, and explained the role the FTC plays in charitable regulation. Specifically, the FTC has regulatory authority under the FTC Act to prosecute sham charities engaged in fraudulent and deceptive fundraising activities. The FTC also has oversight over robocalls when made by fundraisers hired by charities (i.e., professional fundraisers) on the federal level. The FTC encourages everyone to report any suspected or known charitable fraud activity to www.reportfraud.ftc.gov.

Policy Updates and Trends
Courtney M. Aladro, Assistant Attorney General and the Chief of the Non-Profit Organizations/Public Charities Division at the Massachusetts Attorney’s General Office, NASCO Board Member, and Chair of the Policy Committee, presented a handful of legislation and policy changes from the past year.

State Legislation
The first focus was on two state legislative changes. The Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act (Chapter 24.03 RCW) makes changes to the existing regulatory regime. First, it updates the rules governing electronic communications and member meetings. Second, it enhances the Attorney General oversight of charitable assets held by nonprofit corporations. Finally, it allows for “domestication” and for-profit to nonprofit conversion. This new act will go into effect January 1^st, 2022.

The other state legislation highlighted was the California Bill on oversight of charitable giving on online platforms (AB 488), which was signed into law on October 7^th, 2021. The bill requires online platforms facilitating charitable fundraising to register with the Attorney General’s office. It also requires certain disclosures and prompt distribution of donations. Finally, it prohibits solicitations for charities that are not “in good standing” with the Attorney’s General Registry of Charitable Trusts, the Franchise Tax Board, or the IRS. NASCO has a crowdfunding working group that is continuing to monitor online fundraising activities. For a deeper understating of this bill, please read California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms by my colleague Karen Wu.

Federal legislation
Ms. Aladro highlighted two federal bills applicable to charitable organizations. The first bill was the Fraud and Scam Reduction Act (HR 1215). This act was supported by NAAG/NASCO in an open letter sent on behalf of 47 states. The bill passed the House on April 15, 2021 and is currently awaiting Senate approval. The bill, if passed, would establish a Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group to support training and education efforts to identify and prevent scams targeting the elderly. The bill would also establish the Office for the Prevention of Fraud Targeting Seniors in the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the FTC.

The other federal bill discussed was the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act (S 1981, known as the “ACE Act”). This bill, which was introduced on June 9th, would create new rules for private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAF). The legislation takes aim at regulating DAF funds specific to deduction eligibility and payout requirements and timelines.

Supreme Court Decision
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta was discussed. In this case California enacted a rule requiring all charities that fundraise in the state to disclose their confidential IRS Form 990 Schedule B, if they filed one, with the California Registry of Charitable Trust. The Supreme Court found this rule unconstitutional and struck it down. In doing so, it did acknowledge that states can obtain Schedule B information through subpoenas and audits, but only if there is an underlying reason. In response to this case, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York have altered their Schedule B collection rules and/or practices. For more information on this case leading into the Supreme Court’s opinion, please read Schedule B Disclosure Cases Head to the Supreme Court – Is Donor Privacy Threatened? by my colleague Seth Perlman.

Alternative Nonprofit Fundraising
Brian Yacker, Adjunct Professor at the University of California Irvine, discussed issues surrounding alternative fundraising. Alternative fundraising can include many things (for example auctions or “virtual” bake sales), special event fundraisers such as games (raffles, bingo, etc.), virtual events (gala, run/walk, etc.), or crowdfunding. Some of these activities may generate unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”). If the amount of unrelated business activities become too substantial, it could jeopardize an organization’s tax-exempt status. It is therefore important that nonprofit boards keep a vigilant eye on the type of fundraising activities that generate UBIT to ensure that it does not become too substantial. It is also important that these activities are properly reported to the IRS on the Form 990. Failing to report properly could lead to tax liabilities, penalties, and an uncertain tax position.

Charities Working with Non-Charities
A panel of regulators discussed the various considerations an organization must take into account when deciding to partner with a non-charity. On the federal level, such considerations include the 501(c)(3)’s purpose, unrelated business taxable income, private benefit, jeopardizing investments, and self-dealing. On the state level, the considerations become much broader. An organization must consider, among other things, the various duties (loyalty, obedience, care, and accounting), the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (“UPMIFA”, enacted in all states except PA), registration and reporting requirements, charitable solicitation laws, donor expectations, and charitable purpose. One of the panelists, Assistant Attorney General for Washington Joshua Studor, pointed to the 2019 American Law Institute’s Restatement of Charitable Nonprofit Organizations Law as a great resource for many of these state considerations.

Fundraising Events – Virtual, In-Person, and Hybrid
Sara Hall, Chief Legal Officer for St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, spoke on the uncertainty of fundraising events. She noted an increasing expectation for returning to in-person events. As a lesson learned, Sara addressed the hybrid event. Ms. Hall noted the heightened challenges of hybrid events (both virtual and in-person). The logistical issues with both types are compounded when thrown together.

Ms. Hall also noted that, in the area of event contracting, force majeure clauses have become less reliable. Vendors are specifically excluding COVID and no longer excusing non-performance. It is important to negotiate at time of booking with catering that cancellation penalties will be credited towards future bookings and that you have a date to confirm your numbers before food is purchased.

Cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and Beyond
Ms. Hall also spoke to the burgeoning areas of cryptocurrency and NFT donations. Currently, cryptocurrencies are considered property for tax purposes. If a charitable organization wishes to accept cryptocurrencies, it is important that they set clear policies and controls for doing so. These include: establishing gift acceptance policies and safeguards that are consistent with the organization’s finance and audit procedures, custodian agreements for individuals with account access, and monthly reporting and auditing of their crypto wallet. It is also important that charities work with vendors and exchanges that are regulated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) if you are a New York entity. For more information on how charities should handle cryptocurrencies, please see What Nonprofits Should Be Asking About Virtual Currency Regulation and Fundraising by my colleague Jeremy Coffey.

The post The 2021 NAAG/NASCO Virtual Conference – Noteworthy Issues for Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Historically, New York’s NPCL did not allow nonprofit organizations to hold virtual membership meetings. That changed with the COVID-19 pandemic, when New York offered temporary flexibility to the boards of charitable and religious nonprofits.  Under the COVID-19 rules, boards of charitable nonprofit or religious organizations could unilaterally decide to hold member meetings virtually. Under the revised law, boards of nonprofit charitable organizations may unilaterally determine whether or not to hold member meetings electronically, as long as their certificate of incorporation or bylaws do not prohibit such a decision.

Similarly, the newly-created default rule under New York’s Religious Corporations Act (RCL § 28) is that a board of a religious corporation may organize a virtual membership meeting if the board is already authorized to determine the place of a membership meeting, under either the organization’s governing documents or another provision of the RCL. However, leaders of religious organizations should bear in mind that the RCL contains different provisions depending on the denomination of the organization – leaders must be careful to review their organizing documents as well as the applicable sections of the RCL to confirm whether they have the requisite power to call virtual membership meetings or, if not, whether they could amend their governing documents to acquire that power.

Any boards considering adopting a virtual format for their upcoming membership meeting should consult with an advisor to review their organizational documents. Any nonprofit or religious corporations whose certificate of incorporation or by-laws prohibits virtual membership meetings should consider whether and how to revise their documents to provide the board with additional flexibility. We anticipate that many organizations and their members will decide to operate under virtual or hybrid formats in the near future.

The post New York Allows Virtual Membership Meetings 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.

You may have heard a LOT about “NFTs”, or non-fungible tokens, recently. The buzz around NFTs reached a crescendo on March 11, when Beeple’s digital artwork with a unique NFT sold in a Christie’s digital auction for over $69 million.  Basketball fans are trading digital highlights in NFT form in an online marketplace. Charmin is even getting in on the NFT-craze, selling unique toilet-paper inspired digital artwork to raise money for Direct Relief.

Given the amount of money swirling around NFTs and the digital art world, nonprofits and their benefactors have started to consider how to leverage the new technology for charitable ends. With any new technology come questions and in this article I will try to cover some considerations for nonprofits that are getting into the NFT-craze.

The Basics – What Are NFTs?
NFTs (non-fungible tokens) are a fully-digital method of proving ownership of an asset. Most assets associated with NFTs are digital assets, but NFTs could be implemented with physical assets as well. In the same way that a unique piece of art might come with a certificate of authenticity and history of ownership, NFTs use a technology that was originally developed in connection with virtual currency (called blockchain) to record and track ownership. Blockchain uses cryptography to validate transactions, making the system relatively secure. Blockchains can be private or public, depending on the use case, and NFTs are mostly stored on a public-based blockchain associated with the cryptocurrency Ethereum.

Almost anything digital can be ascribed an NFT. A tweet can be given an NFT and sold. The rights to music can be sold using an NFT.  Uses for NFTs, and the underlying blockchain, are seemingly endless – anything that involves tracking custody, ownership, or use could make use of NFTs and blockchain.  Whether or not businesses and consumers will want to buy, sell, and store an asset’s ownership records digitally on the blockchain is a different question – while cryptocurrency and blockchain supporters have been touting the technologies for over a decade, blockchain and NFTs have only gone mainstream publicly in the past few months.

Some people question the value of some NFT assets – who really wants to own the rights to an NBA highlight that is available on YouTube for free? Apparently a lot of people (at the time of writing, a Lebron James dunk is listed at $250,000 – it is a very good dunk). The original Mona Lisa painting is extremely valuable, whose worth isn’t decreased by additional prints being sold or versions being viewable for free online. Ownership is key to the asset’s value, whether we’re talking about a physical painting or a digital highlight.

NFTs and Charities – Similar to Auctions of Traditional Art
When an NFT is auctioned to benefit charity, it is deeply analogous to a traditional art auction (a topic I discussed in another post). If the artist or collector who donates a piece of digital art for sale at a charity auction wants to receive a charitable deduction, they may need to get an appraisal. The charity will need to be careful to keep records related to the donation and valuation of the asset. Prospective bidders should be told what the value of the item is, assuming a reasonable value can be determined. And winning bidders must be given a receipt which describes how much of the amount paid exceeds the fair market value of the item, if any.

Valuation of NFT-assets will be an extremely nuanced part of the charity auction process because the market for NFTs is so new and valuations fluctuate wildly. As an example, last year Beeple “dropped” artwork on an NFT marketplace that was resold. Between October 30 2020 and January 9, 2021, a piece that sold for $1 was resold 10 times and increased in value to $7000. Any artist, donor, or charity that places a valuation on donated digital artwork or other NFT-assets should consult with experts to document the valuation appropriately and ensure that everything is properly recorded and filed.

NFTS and Charities – New Platforms and New Problems
When Beeple’s Christie’s auction concluded, the winner paid in cryptocurrency, typical of many of the NFT marketplaces that use the Ethereum-based cryptocurrency Ether. NBA Top Shot, in contrast, will let you sign up with a credit card. As donors and charities work through the various platforms to decide with whom they want to partner to host an NFT auction, they need to consider what methods of payment are available and who their target audience will be. If the pool of potential bidders is Beeple-crazed crypto-enthusiasts, an NFT platform that requires Ether will probably work just fine. If, on the other hand, a charity wants to engage its traditional donor-base, it may want to find an auction platform that can receive traditional payments.

If the auction invites bids in cryptocurrency, the charity also needs to think through whether to hold that currency or convert it into fiat currency immediately upon receipt. Many charities, in the wake of the cryptocurrency boom of 2017, developed policies related to holding cryptocurrency – typically, the currencies were liquidated immediately upon receipt. Charities should consider crypto as a highly volatile asset, with potentially huge upsides and downsides. Most charities hold minimal amounts of crypto and only as part of a comprehensive, diversified investment strategy.

If the charity expects an auction to generate a lot of interest and a lot of funding, the charity needs to do some due diligence on the platform with whom they plan to work. With the interest in NFTs surging, so are the numbers of outlets that claim to support NFT marketplaces. If a charity wants to partner with a relatively new platform, the charity should vet the platform to make sure it is capable of performing – that it can host the auction, accept the payments, and deliver the winnings to the charity. Charities should make sure their agreement with the platform is crystal clear in terms of fees, timing, and the risk of loss if something should happen to an asset. Charities need to work with the platforms to make sure disclosures to bidders and donors are very clear on how the auction or donation will work – some states have begun to consider required disclosures for fundraising platforms, which can serve as a guide for charities and platforms.

Finally, some platforms that are operating in the NFT, blockchain, and cryptocurrency spaces may be subject to regulation as money transmitters, payment processors, or financial institutions. If a charity plans to store its assets with a platform that provides payment processing services, the charity should confirm that the platform is appropriately registered or is exempt from regulation.

Art Charities and NFTs
Similar to the concerns outlined above about vetting platforms, if an art-based charity wishes to accept a donation of NFT artwork to retain as part of its collection, the charity needs to work through the many issues around accepting and storing NFT artwork. Review the terms and conditions of any third-party platform involved in hosting or displaying the artwork. Work with the artist or collector to confirm details around the transfer, valuation, receipt, and the costs associated with the transfer on the network. Many of the tax rules governing NFT-art donations will be identical to those applicable to donations of physical art.

International Concerns
One of the appealing aspects of NFTs and blockchain is that transactions are borderless and frictionless. A digital marketplace based in ether cryptocurrency can receive payment without worrying about converting currency; there are no costs for shipping and the purchases can be delivered instantaneously. A charity that is considering receiving digital payments, selling digital goods, or transferring digital assets using NFTs or cryptocurrency has to be conscious of the risks associated with international transfers. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control has published some guidance for charities working internationally, both in the context of specific countries as well as more generally. Charities should be cognizant of the risk posed by receiving large payments from or sending payments to individuals or organizations that are overseas and may only be known as a username or Ethereum address. Charities should work with their advisors to ensure they are taking reasonable precautions to avoid the legal and reputational trouble that could arise if the charity does business with disreputable donors or recipients. Additionally, the platforms dealing in NFTs and online fundraising may also have “Know Your Customer” requirements – charities should check with the platform that they are compliant with any applicable rules.

Other Compliance
Whether a nonprofit holds an auction online or in person, selling digital or physical art, there are traditional fundraising compliance considerations that will apply. Depending on the state in which the nonprofit is operating, the nonprofit may be required to register (my colleague Tracy Boak has a great article discussing charitable fundraising regulation). Depending on the nature of the items sold and where buyers are located, there may be sales tax considerations. Charities should check with their advisers to confirm they have considered all legal aspects of online fundraising compliance.

The post NFTs and Charities – What’s New and What Isn’t? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

The Basics
For purposes of this post, by “nonprofit” we mean a public charity exempt under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the most common type of nonprofit. Eligible to receive tax-deductible donations, 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in political campaign activity. Donations to political campaigns and committees are prohibited, whether monetary or in-kind (based on federal and local law). The rules apply at the primary stage of the campaign as well as the general election – wherever this piece or other guidance refers to different political parties, the guidance is really the same for the primary, and should be interpreted to refer to the various candidates.

Just because nonprofits cannot engage in political campaign activity doesn’t mean they can’t get involved in elections at all. Nonprofits, even 501(c)(3)s, can partake in voter education activities and voter mobilization, assuming both are conducted in a nonpartisan manner.  We’ve gone into greater detail, below, but the basic question nonprofits should ask themselves when considering whether an activity is permissible is – is this designed to help (or hurt) a particular candidate? If the answer is “no”, then the activity may be allowed.

Nonprofit Leaders
Nonprofit leaders tend to be leaders in their communities as well as leaders of their organizations. As such, their opinions and endorsements hold extra weight. While nonprofits themselves may be subject to restrictions (or outright prohibitions) on their ability to endorse a candidate, nonprofit leaders have a First Amendment right to speak their mind on the politics of the day, provided that the leaders are speaking in their personal capacities and not on behalf of their nonprofits.

Nonprofits
Further below we provide a list of activities that 501(c)(3)s may and may not engage in. The most popular activities in the run up to a high-profile election are generally candidate fora and voter education activities.

While public charities can host a candidate forum, the structure of the forum is important to ensure the nonprofit preserves its tax-exemption. The forum should be carefully thought through, from the selection of the moderator, the invitations to the candidates, the composition of the audience, and the questions that are asked of the candidates. With such a large field of candidates, nonprofits will have to make decisions about who to invite and how much time each candidate is allotted. It’s important to ensure that candidates are given comparable opportunities to voice their positions and respond to questions.

Some nonprofits also like to put together educational materials to distribute to their stakeholders. While this is permissible as well, it has to be done in a nonpartisan way to avoid violating federal, state, and city rules. Everything from the topics that are profiled and how candidates’ positions are communicated to voters has to be done carefully, and nonprofits should consult with counsel.

Other Types of Nonprofits
Other types of nonprofits (501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(6)s, etc.) do not face the same federal prohibitions on political campaign activity and therefore have more freedom to make statements about candidates and campaigns. However, NYC has strict campaign finance rules that prohibit contributions from corporate entities, meaning that nonprofits cannot donate (either cash or in-kind services) to a candidate’s campaign. While political action committees (PACs) may make certain donations and expenditures, a PAC cannot circumvent the prohibition on corporate donations by accepting a nonprofit’s money and then sending it on to the candidate. Campaign finance issues are closely monitored by the NYC Campaign Finance Board and any nonprofit that is considering creating a PAC or otherwise participating in political activity should consult with counsel before entering into the political fray.

What 501(c)(3)s Can and Cannot Do
Nonprofits are allowed to engage in non-partisan activities in the run-up to an election, such as voter registration drives or education around a particular issue – see our list below for a breakdown of specific activities that a 501(c)(3) can engage in. In addition, a 501(c)(3) is allowed to engage in lobbying (attempting to influence legislation) so long as the lobbying activity does not constitute a “substantial” part of its activities. Of course, “substantial” is a fuzzy term, so the IRS allows most nonprofits (but not churches) to set a monetary limit to their lobbying activity (called a 501(h) election) below which no tax penalties will be assessed, so that nonprofits have some certainty when their lobbying activities will trigger tax consequences. In addition, if a nonprofit focuses on lobbying around issues that are highly salient to the campaign, the lobbying may be considered by IRS as political campaign intervention. The IRS has given some guidance on the factors it considers when deciding if issue-advocacy may be considered political campaign intervention (see the section titled “Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention” and example 14).

What 501(c)(3) Organizations CAN Do
501(c)(3) organizations may safely engage in the following activities:

• Conduct or participate in a nonpartisan candidate forum, so long as the forum: (a) is open to all candidates, (b) is run in a balanced way, and (c) includes a broad range of nonpartisan questions for the candidates.
• Conduct voter registration drives and nonpartisan get-out-the-vote efforts, subject to the following limitations:
  • Drives must be designed to educate the public about the importance of voting.
  • Activities cannot be biased for or against any candidate or party.
  • Nonprofits can target areas in nonpartisan ways. For instance, nonprofits may target low-turnout areas, low-income populations, minority populations, and students.
  • Nonprofits may target registration and turnout efforts to the areas or people they serve.
• Educate the public on issues and generally encourage participation in the political process.
• Make presentations on your organization’s issue to platform committees, campaign staff, candidates, media, and the general public.
• Educate all candidates and political parties on your issues.
• Continue your normal lobbying on issues, subject to the limitations described above.
• Rent or sell mailing lists to candidates at fair market value, if made available to all candidates.

What 501(c)(3) Organizations CANNOT Do
To maintain 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, organizations may not undertake the following activities:

• Endorse or oppose a candidate—implicitly or explicitly.
• Contribute money, time, or facilities to a candidate.
• Coordinate activities with a candidate.
• Restrict rental of your mailing list and facilities to certain candidates.
• Set up, fund, or manage a Political Action Committee (PAC), established under section 527 of the tax code mainly for electoral activity

These restrictions do not in any way prohibit officers, members, or employees from participating in a political campaign as private citizens, assuming those individuals ensure their actions or statements are not attributed to the organization.

If you are in any doubt regarding whether your organization’s activities might risk revocation of tax-exempt status, be sure to reach out to a lawyer with knowledge of the non-profit sector for specific advice.

The post The Mayor’s Race and Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

The cases are founded on the similar legal challenges to California’s insistence on nonpublic filing of donor information. The cases have been consolidated and the question presented for consideration is: Whether the scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.

Freedom of Association and Free Speech
A discussion of government infringement of donor privacy inevitably begins with the seminal case on the First and Fourteenth Amendments rights of freedom of association. In 1958, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) challenged an Alabama state court order that required the NAACP to reveal the names and addresses of its local Alabama affiliate’s members. When they refused to comply, the Court issued an order preventing the NAACP from conducting business or further activities in the State and levied a $100,000 fine for contempt of court.

Behind this refusal was the justified fear of violent retaliation from white supremacists against members of an organization actively fighting to overthrow Jim Crow laws. The NAACP appealed the decision to the Supreme Court[2] which overturned the State Court decision ruling on grounds that as applied to the NAACP, the disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment right to association, which is ” an inseparable aspect of…freedom of speech.”[3]

Some sixty years later, Citizens United (a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization) and the Citizens United Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charitable organization) brought a challenge to enforcement by the New York Office of Attorney General of the requirement to submit an unredacted copy of the annual IRS 990 Information filing required of most 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.[4] The Form 990 contains a disclosure schedule listing the donors to the organization whose gifts exceeded $5,000 in the reported fiscal year. This section of the Form 990 is known as Schedule B. While federal law requires that the Form 990 be made public, it specifically exempts public disclosure of the donors listed in Schedule B.[5]

Importantly, the compliance registration required of most nonprofits soliciting in New York State must be made prior to seeking support from New York State residents. Such appeals are often inseparably intertwined with persuasive speech and as such they are fully protected under the First Amendment as a core free speech right.[6]

The Citizens United groups argued that enforcement of the reporting regulations violated their First Amendment rights in two ways: 1) by creating a climate of fear among donors that limits their ability to raise the funds to promote controversial causes and 2) by operating as a prior restraint on their ability to ask for money. They also argued that these regulations are preempted by the Internal Revenue Code’s disclosure rules and that the Attorney General went beyond his authority by including 501(c)(4) organizations in the regulations’ definition of ” charitable organization.”

Challenges were brought on First Amendment grounds as a facial challenge (the regulation is unconstitutional regardless to whom it is applied), as applied (it is unconstitutional as applied the Citizens United organizations) and due process (the change in the enforcement regime was made without proper notice to those effected).  The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals held “It is well established that the Schedule B policy must satisfy exacting scrutiny, [b]ecause the Schedule B policy is a disclosure requirement and there is a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.”[7]

The Court applied the intermediate or exacting scrutiny test rather than the more stringent strict scrutiny test used to determine content-based restrictions of governmental regulation of free speech activities. The latter requires that such government action be narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means possible to serve a substantial government interest. Exacting scrutiny requires only that the government demonstrate “a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest”[8] citing an earlier decision in the same case. [9]

Notably, prior to the New York’s enforcement of its regulations requiring the filing of the full Form 990, including an unredacted version of Schedule B, no other state had attempted to enforce such a requirement. (Currently, New York, California and New Jersey require disclosure of the Schedule B – pending the outcome of the current case before the Supreme Court.)

Enter California
In 2010, the California Registry of Charitable Trusts began issuing deficiency letters to charities demanding that they submit their Schedule B as part of their annual registration renewal.  The Registry sent about eight thousand Schedule B deficiency letters to various charities, creating a de facto requirement that the tens of thousands of charities registered in California must annually submit Schedule B to the State in order to renew their registrations. California assured the charities that the confidential donor information contained in Schedule B would remain confidential and would not be publicly disclosed. Despite such assurances, litigation brought by the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech), Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center uncovered at least 1,778 Schedule Bs that the Registry had posted online. In one notable instance involving a well-known controversial cause, the Registry posted the Schedule B for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Inc. which included the names and addresses of hundreds of large donors.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation won at the district court level after Judge Manuel Real agreed that the documented history of violent threats against the group’s members, donors, and leadership meant it should not be forced to turn over its list. That decision was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, having consolidated both the Americans for Prosperity and Thomas More Law Center cases. After reviewing the evidence, The Ninth Circuit held that neither organization had established that the requirement to submit to the State, on a confidential basis, the same limited information they must report to the IRS each year would have a chilling effect on charitable contributions.

The Ninth Circuit also determined that collecting Schedule Bs serves the State’s interests in detecting fraud and other abuses and that the alternatives of case-by-case audits or subpoenas would compromise the State’s law enforcement interests. The State’s confidential reporting requirements thus survived “exacting scrutiny”.

Petitioners, in their appeal to the Supreme Court, argued that the court departed from decades of precedent and the Attorney General must show such a blanket demand is narrowly tailored to advancing the government’s purported law-enforcement interests. The decision prompted sharp disagreement on the Ninth Circuit, with five members of that court dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc when additional evidence of harm was presented by the charities.  The Ninth Circuit purported to apply “exacting scrutiny,” while jettisoning any requirement that California “narrowly tailor” its chosen means to fit its asserted ends as required by the “strict scrutiny” test.

State Donor Disclosure Landscape
According to the Philanthropy Roundtable, in 2020, fifteen states have considered twenty-nine donor-disclosure bills that would threaten donor privacy for 501(c)3 organizations. Just four of these bills remain active, with the rest failing to advance in the legislative process.

On the other side, seven states advanced donor-privacy legislation in 2020—six of them using the “Personal Privacy Protection Act,” which prevents state and local officials from demanding nonprofit donor information without a subpoena, or nonprofits from disclosing donor information they might possess. Similar legislation was originally passed by the Michigan Legislature in late 2018, though it was vetoed by the outgoing governor. Mississippi passed the Personal Privacy Protection Act in 2019 as did four other states which introduced similar legislation in 2020: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia. In each, it was supported by broad bipartisan majorities and coalitions of organizations spanning the ideological spectrum, including state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Prosperity. In addition, in three states, Iowa, Nebraska, and Tennessee, lawmakers have introduced bills that would bar public agencies from publicly disclosing identifying information about nonprofit donors. The bills would prohibit public agencies from: (1) requiring tax-exempt 501(c) groups to provide public agencies with personal identifying information about their donors, members, supporters or volunteers, and (2) releasing any personal identifying information public agencies might possess.

In a recent case focused on political advocacy, the Rio Grande Foundation (a free-market think tank in New Mexico, organized as a 501(c)(3) charity) filed a lawsuit in December 2019 challenging a law that would force it and other nonprofits to disclose donors if an organization engaged in issue advocacy mentioning anyone who is a candidate for office. An additional wrinkle in the universe of donor disclosure regulations.

And the Winner is….
Despite some legislative and judicial victories, Philanthropy Roundtable and other organizations argue that the vital right to donor privacy remains under assault in a variety of venues across the country.  Thus, the philanthropic sector needs to be vigilant and ready to act quickly whenever activists and politicians seek to diminish the right to donate anonymously to charitable organizations and civic causes.

Whether the Supreme Court will find in favor of donor privacy no one knows for sure. A number of leaders in the philanthropic arena and various other pundits predict that the Court, with its conservative majority, will rule against California in a 5-to-4 decision. But Free Speech cases bring together unusual bedfellows, so my prediction is that the decision will not break along lines of political ideology and the Court will rule against California by a 7-to-2 majority.  The one thing that is certain, the outcome of this interesting and important case will set the future course for state oversight of donor disclosure and privacy.

[1] Also see: Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, 784 F.3d 1307 (9th Cir. 2015)
[2] National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958)
[3] Id. at 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163
[4] Citizens United v. Schneiderman, 203 F.Supp.3d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
[5] 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(3)(A).
[6] See Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980)
[7] Citizens United v. Schneiderman, 203 F.Supp.3d 397, 407 (2016)
[8] Citizens United v. Schneiderman, 115 F.Supp.3d 457, (2015)
[9] See also Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. Harris, 784 F.3d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 2015)

The post Schedule B Disclosure Cases Head to the Supreme Court – Is Donor Privacy Threatened? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.