There is no indication that the ACLU uses Grassroots Campaigns for fund-raising purposes like some of the other nonprofits we looked at. But it did hire them for consultancy services totaling more than $10 million from 2014 to 2016. It gave more than twice the consulting fee to Grassroots Campaigns than to the next consultancy service listed in their 990 report.
Like the other left-leaning charities who use consulting services from Grassroots Campaigns, ACLU has seen huge influxes of revenue during the time they’ve received these services. In these same reports for these years, the ACLU has gone from $10 million in debt in 2013 to $118 million in net assets in the 2016 report, three years later. Most of this increase occurred in the year 2016. The ACLU reports that most of its funding comes from membership dues.
Who are these members? Are they people who genuinely care about civil liberties? Go back and look at ACLU.org. Their target audience is obvious—and it’s not necessarily civil libertarians. When the numbers are released for 2018, it will be interesting to note the impact of the Kavanaugh position on the ACLU’s fund-raising. If civil libertarians are funding the ACLU, we should see a significant drop in support post-Kavanaugh.
Describing the Kavanaugh hit job as “the final nail in the ACLU’s coffin,” famed civil libertarian and longtime ACLU supporter Alan Dershowitz lamented the loss of America’s premier defender of civil rights. Writing for the Hill, Dershowitz said:
[T]he core mission of the ACLU—and its financial priority—is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, just follow the money. ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process).
More recently, Dershowitz criticized the ACLU for failing to speak out on a judge-imposed gag order against Trump confidant Roger Stone. Partisan interests seem to be the driving force for the organization. Has civil liberties become nothing more than a side hustle for the ACLU?
Other Fund-Raisers
Grassroots Campaigns is not the only political group in this category. It’s not even the only such group owned by Colorado’s Douglas Phelps. Phelps has built a network of nonprofit organizations, each with the stated mission of furthering progressive causes. His biography says his organizations seek “a coordinated strategic approach to getting things done.” Coordinated is right. It seems many of the progressive groups are tied together.
Among Phelps’s organizations are Telefund, Public Interest Network, the National Association of Organizations with Public Interest, US PIRG, the Fund for the Public Interest, and Environment America. Phelps remains the president or chairperson of each of them. In particular, Telefund is known for aggressive telemarketing tactics. Once someone donates to one of these charities, they can expect to be called by many more—often looking for ongoing monthly contributions.
Former president Barack Obama got some of his community organizing experience at one of these groups. He referred to his time employed by US PIRG in the year following his graduation, saying, “I used to be a PIRG guy. You guys trained me well.”
Most of Phelps’s nonprofit organizations are 501(c)4 advocacy organizations rather than 501(c)3 charity organizations. A review of public disclosures shows a close connection between these organizations. The 990 form for Environment America showed that it gave the Public Interest Network control over the selection of its board in 2016. Donations have been made between these organizations as well.
There is also an investment vehicle for the Public Interest Network called 1543 LLC, in which Environment America invested and which comes under the direction of Douglas Phelps and the Public Interest Network. Other related parties to this group of nonprofits are the Clinton Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Center for American Progress, and the Democratic National Committee. Joe Biden was reported as having a fund-raiser at the home of Douglas Phelps in the 2014 election.
The political infrastructure of the Democratic Party is inextricably linked to the infrastructure of America’s nonprofit sector.
An Analysis of Conservative Nonprofits
After learning what was happening on the left, I was curious to see whether the same patterns could be found on the right. Forbes magazine’s William P. Barrett compiles an annual list of America’s top charities. The most recent list, published in December 2018, includes several of Grassroots Campaigns’ clients. The ACLU comes in at #50. The Planned Parenthood Federation is #27 and the Nature Conservancy is #20.
Perhaps the most well-known and liberal-maligned conservative nonprofit—the National Rifle Association (NRA)—does not appear anywhere on the list. For all the fearmongering from the left about the power of the NRA, it doesn’t even approach the size of the Clinton Foundation (#69) or the Barack Obama Foundation (#63). The NRA’s 2016 reserves of $75 million were dwarfed by the Clinton Foundation’s $326 million, although the NRA’s revenues were higher in the year of Hillary Clinton’s infamous defeat.
The only charities on the Forbes list remotely tied to conservative political views might be the handful of religious ones—none of which engage in politics.
There are, of course, conservative nonprofits. They may not approach the size and scale of their reflections on the left, but they do exist.
As we began delving through the 990 forms of a cross section of some of America’s most influential conservative groups, the first difference we noted was the revenues and assets. Whereas politically oriented nonprofits on the left were seeing significant growth in those categories over time, conservative nonprofits looked more like the rest of the nonprofit sector with very modest gains.
Over on the left, the Planned Parenthood Federation’s endowment funds had grown from $88 million in 2013 to $157 million in 2016. The Nature Conservancy went from having $5.7 billion in assets in 2013 to $6.2 billion in 2016. The Nature Conservancy’s endowment fund grew from $993 million to $1.2 billion over that three-year period. Same story for the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose endowment fund was $281 million in 2013 and grew to $470 million by 2019.
How do those numbers compare to conservative nonprofits? Let’s start with the venerable NRA, which has both a 501(c)(3) charity organization as well as a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm. In the 2016 Form 990, the foundation had $366 million in revenue, up a little from the $336 million they saw in 2015 and the $310 million in 2014. Net assets during those three years declined, primarily because of increased spending. These are healthy numbers, but the growth rates don’t match those of the left-leaning 501(c)(3) charities. Despite NRA’s huge membership and long history, its revenue numbers are dwarfed by those in the top one hundred charities. Similarly, the Gun Owners of America saw insignificant increases in revenues over the three years reported—from $1.9 million in 2013 to $2.2 million three years later with minimal reserves.
Numbers USA, which considers itself a bipartisan group that works to decrease immigration, raised $7.4 million in 2016 with net assets of $10 million. Those are healthy numbers, but they are dwarfed by the left-wing nonprofits. The even smaller Eagle Forum is an influential family-run nonprofit with limited revenue. Total income dropped from just over $1 million in 2015 to $275,661 in 2016. Expenses have outspent revenue by $1.5 million during the 2015–16 cycle, with total assets at the time of $4.6 million. Similarly, the Center for Immigration Studies is a 501(c)3 organization. It had revenues of $2,772,885 in 2014 with net assets of $3,000,323. In 2015 it had revenues of $2,907,224 with net assets of $3,267,051. In 2016, it had revenues of $2,902,940 with net assets of $3,425,201. It’s certainly not having the exponential growth of its left-leaning counterparts but still is in a healthy position.