Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the public disclosure of the names and partial addresses of contributors to 501(c) organizations that receive Federal funding.
ELI5 AI
The Putting Trust in Transparency Act wants to make sure that when certain groups that help people get money from the government, they have to tell everyone who gave them big amounts of money. This way, everyone knows where the money is coming from and how it's being used to help people.
Summary AI
H.R. 2841, titled the “Putting Trust in Transparency Act,” seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to require public disclosure of donor names and partial addresses for 501(c) organizations that receive federal funding. These organizations must reveal this information through Form 990 Schedule B, and failure to comply could result in losing their tax-exempt status. The bill emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability when NGOs utilize federal funds, asserting that they should be subject to the same fiscal oversight as government agencies.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Putting Trust in Transparency Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The focus is on enforcing greater transparency among 501(c) organizations that receive federal funding. Specifically, the bill requires these organizations to publicly disclose certain information about their donors, including names, partial addresses, and contribution amounts on the Form 990. Should an organization fail to comply with these disclosure requirements, it risks losing its tax-exempt status until it meets the conditions for reinstatement.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary issues raised by this bill is the potential invasion of privacy due to the public disclosure of donor information. The requirement for "all Americans" to access details about megadonors could infringe upon individual privacy rights. The term "megadonors" itself lacks a clear definition, which may result in ambiguity regarding who exactly falls under this disclosure requirement.
Moreover, the bill does not clearly define what qualifies as "Federal funding," which could lead to varied interpretations and implementation challenges. Another concern is the lack of detailed guidelines on how frequently the list of organizations with revoked statuses will be updated, leading to potential transparency issues. Additionally, there is no specified appeals process for organizations that wish to contest a revocation decision, which may affect their legal rights.
Impact on the Public
The bill has the potential to increase transparency around how federal funds are utilized by NGOs, theoretically allowing taxpayers to hold these organizations accountable. However, the broad requirement for public disclosure could deter individuals from making contributions, especially if they value privacy. This might lead to decreased funding for valuable NGOs, which could impact their ability to provide services and support to communities in need.
Impact on Stakeholders
Nonprofit Organizations: The bill presents both challenges and advantages for NGOs. On the one hand, increased transparency could strengthen public trust in these organizations. On the other hand, NGOs might face increased administrative burdens and privacy concerns amongst donors, potentially leading to a decline in contributions.
Donors: The bill could negatively affect current and prospective donors who prefer to keep their contributions private. The lack of privacy might discourage donations, particularly from high-net-worth individuals who might prefer anonymity to maintain discretion about their financial allocations.
Federal Agencies and Legislators: For federal agencies and legislators, the bill represents a tool to enforce oversight and accountability for taxpayer money. Greater transparency in funding would potentially allow better-informed policy decisions and resource allocation.
The General Public: The public could benefit from increased awareness of how federal funds are distributed and used by NGOs. However, this transparency comes with an ethical trade-off concerning individual privacy rights, which might not sit well with everyone.
Conclusion
While the "Putting Trust in Transparency Act" is designed to promote transparency and accountability, the potential privacy implications and administrative challenges it introduces warrant careful consideration. Balancing the need for public oversight with respect for individual privacy rights will be crucial to the bill's reception and effectiveness.
Financial Assessment
The “Putting Trust in Transparency Act” or H.R. 2841 addresses the financial aspect of nonprofit organizations, particularly 501(c) groups that receive federal funding, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in how these funds are utilized. The bill does not directly involve government spending or financial appropriations; rather, it focuses on the flow of money to and from these organizations and aims to make this information publicly accessible.
Financial References and Transparency
The bill underscores the need for public disclosure of financial contributions to organizations that benefit from federal funding. Specifically, it seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to require the public disclosure of the names and partial addresses of donors contributing to 501(c) organizations receiving federal funds. This requirement revolves around ensuring these organizations are taxpayers’ dollars with transparency and accountability.
Section 2 of the bill points to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate taxpayer dollars. The bill asserts that for legislators to make informed financial decisions, the identity of significant donors to such organizations should be accessible to the public. This highlights the attempt to ensure that taxpayer money is not diverted towards specific agendas without scrutiny.
Issues Pertaining to Financial Disclosure
One of the primary concerns involves potential privacy infringements. Although financial transparency is emphasized, the requirement that “all Americans should have access to the megadonors” could be seen as jeopardizing the privacy of individual contributors. The term "megadonors" remains undefined, which could lead to ambiguity about how much a donor must contribute to be classified under this term, complicating both enforcement and public understanding.
Additionally, the bill does not provide specific guidelines on what constitutes "Federal funding" for these organizations. The lack of clarity regarding what qualifies as federal assistance could lead to confusion and issues determining what forms or amounts of funding trigger these disclosure requirements.
There is also a practical financial complexity regarding organizations' tax-exempt status being revoked if they fail to file Schedule B of Form 990, which now would need to include unredacted names and contributions. The timeline and process for remedying such failures, including the Secretary’s notice period and the possibility for appeal, are not clearly defined. This lack of structure could lead to inconsistencies and potential due process concerns.
Conclusion on Bill’s Financial Implications
Ultimately, while the bill seeks to enhance fiscal oversight and ensure transparency of organizations receiving federal support, several financial issues remain regarding donor privacy, definition clarity, and procedural specifics. These challenges need careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences that could impede the operational capacities of affected organizations or challenge donor trust.
Issues
The requirement for 'all Americans' to have access to information about megadonors of NGOs could be seen as an invasion of privacy and raises ethical concerns. This issue pertains to Section 2, where the extent of transparency required might infringe upon individual privacy rights.
The term 'megadonors' in Section 2 is not clearly defined, leading to potential ambiguity in enforcement and public understanding. This lack of definition can result in confusion about who is targeted by the disclosure requirements.
The potential lack of clarity regarding the term 'Federal funding' in Section 3 may lead to ambiguity. It is not specified what qualifies as Federal funding, which is critical for determining disclosure requirements.
Section 3 lacks guidance on how frequently the published list of revoked organizations will be updated, leading to potential transparency and administrative issues.
The revocation process described in Section 3 lacks detail on the appeals process, creating legal uncertainties for organizations that wish to contest a revocation decision. This could be seen as an oversight that may affect due process rights.
In Section 2, the statement alleging that NGOs leverage Federal dollars for their own agendas lacks evidence or specificity, which could lead to unfounded claims being made against these organizations.
Section 3 mentions that the Secretary must make public any schedule B of Form 990 with unredacted donor information, raising concerns about the potential unintended consequences for donor privacy and confidentiality.
The timeline for the Secretary's notice regarding the failure to file in Section 3 is vague, potentially leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and operational difficulties for affected organizations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that it can be referred to as the "Putting Trust in Transparency Act."
2. Findings and Sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) help distribute resources in the U.S. but highlights a need for better oversight, especially when these NGOs receive Federal funding. It suggests that NGOs using government money should follow the same financial rules as government agencies and that information about their funding sources should be more transparent to the public.
Money References
- (4) Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make rules for the government and regulate the use of taxpayer dollars.
- (6) To empower lawmakers to make responsible decisions with Americans’ tax dollars and provide transparency to the American People, all Americans should have access to the megadonors of NGOs that leverage Federal dollars for their own agenda.
3. Annual disclosure of contributors to exempt organizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill changes the rules for exempt organizations that receive federal funding by requiring them to publicly disclose certain donor information on Form 990, including names, zip codes, and total donations. If these organizations fail to submit the required form on time, they risk losing their tax-exempt status until they apply for reinstatement, and the IRS will publish a list of those with revoked status.