Hi Adrian, thanks for asking! My understanding is that Europeans (who are not US citizens) cannot make 501c4 donations.
There are 501c3 giving opportunities ā for example, earmarking gifts to the Uproot Center within Earth Share ā however Iāve heard that these c3 are less cost-effective than c4 opportunities (like the AMPA linked in this post) at causing the desired legislative change.
Iām not sure about the extent to which c3 opportunities differ from c4 opportunities in cost-effectiveness. However, Iāve heard that c4 donations are recommended for US citizens even though they are not tax-deductible, which suggests the difference in cost-effectiveness could be at least 30%.
Iāll also note that the EA Animal Welfare Fund (a 501c3) still represents a very strong donation option to help animals in my view. Iām not confident in which of the Uproot Center or EA AWF is more cost-effective at the current moment, but I am confident that the EA Animal Welfare Fund is incredibly cost-effective.
(I am not a lawyer ā I looked into this as a non-US donor living outside the US)
My understanding is that Adrianās reading is correct:
The foreign-national ban (52 U.S.C. Ā§30121) covers contributions and spending in connection with elections (source). It defines āforeign nationalā as someone who is neither a US citizen nor a green card holder, so Angelina is right that permanent residents are unaffected.
AFAICT, the ban does not include lobbying or issue advocacy.
āIn a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban ādoes not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting processāproviding money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.ā Bluman v. FEC,ā (Source)
My understanding is that since this campaign is issue advocacy/ālobbying rather than electioneering, foreign nationals can lawfully fund it through a 501(c)(4).
AFAIK the campaign itself has a note for foreign nationals without a green card, plus a template letter to send so your gift is recorded as restricted to non-electioneering use. They ask foreign donors to only do this above $50k because of the accounting overhead.
Can and should European also donate? Foreign donations are sometimes sensitive in politics.
*Responding in a personal capacity*
Hi Adrian, thanks for asking! My understanding is that Europeans (who are not US citizens) cannot make 501c4 donations.
There are 501c3 giving opportunities ā for example, earmarking gifts to the Uproot Center within Earth Share ā however Iāve heard that these c3 are less cost-effective than c4 opportunities (like the AMPA linked in this post) at causing the desired legislative change.
Iām not sure about the extent to which c3 opportunities differ from c4 opportunities in cost-effectiveness. However, Iāve heard that c4 donations are recommended for US citizens even though they are not tax-deductible, which suggests the difference in cost-effectiveness could be at least 30%.
Iāll also note that the EA Animal Welfare Fund (a 501c3) still represents a very strong donation option to help animals in my view. Iām not confident in which of the Uproot Center or EA AWF is more cost-effective at the current moment, but I am confident that the EA Animal Welfare Fund is incredibly cost-effective.
Just a note that I believe US permanent residents (green card holders) can make 501c4 donations as well as US citizens!
Really? Claude seemed to think they can, just not for anything related to elections?
(I am not a lawyer ā I looked into this as a non-US donor living outside the US)
My understanding is that Adrianās reading is correct:
The foreign-national ban (52 U.S.C. Ā§30121) covers contributions and spending in connection with elections (source). It defines āforeign nationalā as someone who is neither a US citizen nor a green card holder, so Angelina is right that permanent residents are unaffected.
AFAICT, the ban does not include lobbying or issue advocacy.
āIn a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban ādoes not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting processāproviding money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.ā Bluman v. FEC,ā (Source)
My understanding is that since this campaign is issue advocacy/ālobbying rather than electioneering, foreign nationals can lawfully fund it through a 501(c)(4).
AFAIK the campaign itself has a note for foreign nationals without a green card, plus a template letter to send so your gift is recorded as restricted to non-electioneering use. They ask foreign donors to only do this above $50k because of the accounting overhead.