Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in our society, addressing various social, environmental and humanitarian needs. More fundamentally, nonprofits represent the long-standing tradition of Americans joining together voluntarily in associations outside of government to meet the needs of our communities.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn a legal doctrine called Chevron deference marks a significant shift in how federal regulations will be interpreted and applied, with potentially far-reaching implications for donors and the nonprofit organizations they support.
“Liberty is a privilege that must continually be fought for, if we are to preserve it. … If our democracy is to be saved, and if we are to win through the difficulties and dangers in which we are involved, the aggregate will, wisdom, strength and determined purpose to do it must come from the body of the private citizenship of this country.” – Rep. Hatton W. Sumners
In May, the Illinois legislature passed S.B. 2930, a bill that requires nonprofits who grant $1 million or more to other nonprofits to annually report the demographic make-up of their board of directors. According to the bill’s language, demographic information to be collected from board members includes race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation and gender identity. The information would remain available to the public for a minimum of three years.
Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about.
In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states.
In 6-3 and 6-2 rulings today, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave federal agencies unchecked power at the expense of the legislative branch and the American public.
Last month, the IRS held a hearing on potential donor-advised funds (DAF) regulations. Various members from across the charitable sector, including Philanthropy Roundtable’s Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan, testified about their concerns. The hearing centered on the key definitions and the proposed implementation date for the rules.
In 2023, the philanthropic landscape witnessed a remarkable resilience and recovery, as individuals, bequests, foundations and corporations collectively contributed an estimated $557.16 billion to U.S. charities, according to the Giving USA 2024 report.
In a guest blog published by Georgia Center for Opportunity, Philanthropy Roundtable’s Director of Government Affairs Megan Schmidt applauds the recent passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act and the Personal Privacy Protection Act by Georgia lawmakers. Schmidt details how both bills encourage charitable giving in the Peach State.
May 1, 2024, marked the sunsetting of the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation after 54 years. Rich and Helen DeVos, who passed away in 2017 and 2018, distributed $1.1 billion in grants to over 1,000 nonprofit organizations during their lifetimes.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled in Moore v. United States that the 2017 Mandatory Repatriation Tax is constitutional. By declining to address the question of whether such a tax is an unconstitutional tax on unrealized income, the Court side-stepped the broader threat of proposed wealth taxes and the negative ramifications a tax on unrealized gains would have on charitable endeavors.
This month marks the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the Students Against Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina cases. These seminal decisions ended racial preferences in college admissions processes, also known as affirmative action, after the court ruled in 2023 that the schools were violating the civil rights of certain students based on race.
In our troubled political environment, the film is built around creating a dialogue and trust among Americans, especially those who disagree.
Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most.
WASHINGTON – Philanthropy Roundtable published “How Tax Policy Affects Charitable Giving” today, new research that finds for every $1 the U.S. Treasury forgoes in potential revenues, the charitable tax deduction results in $1.30 making its way to public charities.
Are donors to charities sensitive to changes in tax policy? This literature review and meta-analysis delves into fifty-two empirical studies spanning 1975 to 2023, exploring the intricate relationship between fiscal policy and the charitable impulse to give.
With increased loneliness, isolation and mental health challenges impacting communities throughout the country, houses of worship have a unique role to play improving the overall well-being of individuals and community life.
In 2023, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states.
Throughout commencement season, colleges and universities around the country continue to grapple with how to handle a new wave of protests, encampments and even violence as pro-Palestinian activists disrupt campus life and engage in antisemitic behavior. As a result, the responses from higher ed administrators are under intense scrutiny as they make decisions on how to deal with protester demands, campus safety and the rights and freedoms of students and faculty.