In its 2010 federal disclosure, the National Organization for Marriage, a tax-exempt nonprofit that opposed the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, reported its largest individual donations since its 2007 formation. Two contributors supplied more than $6 million to the political arm—roughly two-thirds of its reported revenue—while gifts below $5,000 represented about 8 percent.
Reliance on a small pool of large, mostly unidentified contributors was not new for the organization. The filing nevertheless showed a sharper concentration than the prior year. Contributions above $5,000 accounted for about 78 percent of contributions in fiscal 2009 and roughly 92 percent in 2010.
What the 2010 filing reported
Revenue claims and broad reporting
A public statement from a former board official said the organization had raised and spent $13 million in 2010. The tax return instead reported about $9.6 million in revenue and $10.7 million in expenses. The difference prompted requests for clarification, but the organization did not provide a response for the original report.
The filing attributed about $3 million to advertising and promotion, $1.2 million to employee wages, benefits and taxes, and $600,000 to grants and assistance for other organizations. Its largest expense category—approximately $4 million, or 38 percent of spending—was listed as “other.” The treasurer characterized the organization's work broadly as advertising and outreach conducted through broadcast, mail, telephone, email and the web.
Legal expenses of $313,746 and political expenditures of $206,509 appeared comparatively limited given the group's participation in federal lawsuits, state campaigns and political committees. Public court records indicated involvement in at least six federal cases during 2010. The filing also listed campaign contributions in the District of Columbia, New Hampshire and Virginia, along with $200,000 in spending associated with a California political committee.
Grants, staffing and related entities
The organization reported grants ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 to 11 groups that opposed marriage equality. Two recipients were affiliated committees. A $200,000 California entry appeared in both the grants and political-spending portions of the filing, leaving open whether these were separate payments or duplicate reporting.
About 96 percent of total revenue came from contributions. Of the remaining $368,513, the filing assigned $139 to investment income and the balance to “other revenue.” It reported a staff of 17 and no volunteers, while listing compensation for four personnel.
One compensated employee also led the Ruth Institute, then described as a project of the organization's educational arm while holding separate tax-exempt status. Her name did not appear in the educational fund's corresponding return, creating another point that merited clarification.
Concentration among major contributors
Under the applicable filing rules, the organization listed 22 contributions on its confidential donor schedule. The five largest were:
- $3,416,000
- $2,940,000
- $750,000
- $600,000
- $400,000
The group publicly described itself as broadly supported and said it had 50,000 donors. Critics argued that the reported concentration of funds made its activity look less like small-donor organizing and more like a campaign financed by a handful of wealthy contributors. Because public nonprofit returns generally omit donor identities, the filings alone could not establish who provided the largest gifts.
Disclosure was also contested in several states. Advocacy organizations and campaign-finance watchdogs had challenged the group's efforts to shield contributor identities connected to ballot campaigns. An earlier report noted that a $1.4 million contribution from the Knights of Columbus in 2009 was not readily apparent in the recipient's public return, adding to calls for clearer reconciliation of related records.
The educational fund
The affiliated education fund reported raising about $1.3 million and spending approximately $1.4 million in 2010. Eight anonymous contributions, ranging from $30,000 to $500,000, totaled roughly $971,000—about 75 percent of contributions reported by the fund.
Its listed costs included $345,733 in grants, $153,693 for fundraising and $994,793 in “other expenses.” The size of that final category again made it difficult for readers to determine precisely how the money was used from the public filing alone.
Tax-exempt charities may not endorse candidates for public office. Earlier coverage had examined whether public statements by an official of a related project crossed that boundary. The 2010 education-fund disclosure did not specifically identify the project, while the political arm listed the official's salary as an organizational expense.
Campaign activity in historical context
The group entered 2011 after mixed political outcomes. It had participated in state campaigns against marriage equality, pursued legal challenges to disclosure requirements and continued national fundraising. At the same time, legislative and court developments expanded recognition of same-sex relationships, increasing pressure on both sides of the debate.
Critics called for federal and state authorities to examine whether campaign activity and tax reporting complied with applicable rules. Allegations about undisclosed institutional funding circulated, but the public documents reviewed for the original report did not independently prove those claims. Religious institutions contacted at the time did not respond.
The central, document-supported issue was narrower: reported revenue was highly concentrated among a few large contributors, and millions of dollars in expenses appeared under broad labels. Those facts did not by themselves establish wrongdoing. They did demonstrate why source documents, consistent categorization and enforceable disclosure standards matter when tax-exempt organizations participate in elections and public-policy campaigns.