The authors argue that the network expanded significantly compared with previous election cycles.
The report claims spending through these organizations increased roughly 30 percent from 2020, even as spending through more traditional political committees declined.
Critics say that difference matters because 501(c)(3) organizations operate under a very different set of rules from political action committees.
Donations to qualifying charitable organizations can generally be tax-deductible, while the identities of many donors may remain outside the same public disclosure requirements associated with direct political spending.
That combination has fueled concerns that organizations legally classified as charities could nevertheless play an increasingly important role in shaping the electorate.
The Podesta Document Draws Fresh Attention
One of the most controversial pieces of evidence highlighted in the report dates back to 2015.
According to the account presented in the report, a representative associated with Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss’s private foundation sent John Podesta a proposal focused on large-scale voter-registration efforts in several battleground states.
The document reportedly included calculations involving projected numbers of “total non-white” votes.
It also contained language about “beating Republicans” and “reshaping the electorate.”
According to the report, portions of the document that appeared to have been removed remained visible because tracked changes were still embedded in the file.
Critics argue that the language raises serious questions about whether organizations presented as nonpartisan charitable entities were being considered as vehicles for explicitly partisan electoral goals.
The issue, however, is not limited to the 2015 document.
By 2020, according to the material cited in the report, a Democratic super PAC described charitable voter-registration efforts to major donors as being “4 to 10 times more cost effective than the next best alternative” at “netting additional Democratic votes.”
That language has become a central point for those demanding greater scrutiny of nonprofit political activity.
Fraud Allegations and the Everybody Votes Campaign
The report also focuses on the Everybody Votes Campaign, described as one of the largest organizations operating within this broader network.
According to the report, the organization raised more than $75 million during the 2024 election cycle.
It reportedly directed $4.6 million to a canvassing firm known as Field+Media Corps for “voter registration support” in politically competitive areas of Pennsylvania.
The matter later became the subject of a criminal investigation.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced charges against several employees connected to the firm following allegations involving fraudulent voter-registration forms.
The individuals faced accusations including forgery and tampering with public records. According to the material provided, one organizer later pleaded guilty.
Investigators also examined the payment structure used for voter-registration work.
According to the allegations described in the report, canvassers were compensated based on registrations collected. One worker allegedly told investigators she was “making up names and information to meet the quota” because she feared losing her job.
The allegations have intensified calls for closer oversight of organizations that finance large-scale voter-registration drives.
Questions Surrounding Stacey Abrams’ Former Organization
Another organization mentioned in the report is the New Georgia Project, founded by Stacey Abrams.
The group became a major force in Democratic-aligned voter outreach efforts in Georgia.
According to the report, the organization later agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty following findings by the Georgia Ethics Commission involving campaign-finance violations.
The organization subsequently dissolved.
The case has become part of a broader debate over whether politically active nonprofit organizations are operating within the limits of their tax-exempt status.
The report also points to the Voter Participation Center and its advertising practices.
According to the allegations cited, the organization sought to exclude Facebook users interested in NASCAR, Duck Dynasty, and golf from seeing certain voter-registration advertisements.
Critics argue that targeting or excluding audiences based on cultural interests could undermine claims that voter-registration campaigns are genuinely nonpartisan.
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Claudia Tenney previously called for federal scrutiny of the organization’s activities.
Beyond Voter Registration
The Capital Research Center report argues that nonprofit political activism extends beyond simply encouraging people to register.
The report points to significant spending connected to Census outreach and activism.
According to its findings, organizations in the network spent approximately $118 million on Census-related activities in 2020, compared with about $38 million a decade earlier.
The report also cites Census data and outside analysis concerning population undercounts and overcounts, although the precise political impact of those counting errors remains subject to debate.
Redistricting battles have also become part of the larger controversy.
In Virginia, politically active groups, including organizations connected to major liberal donors and labor interests, spent heavily in support of a redistricting ballot initiative.
The proposal was later approved by voters before the Virginia Supreme Court struck it down on procedural grounds, according to the account provided.
The report further highlights the National Popular Vote Compact, which seeks to award participating states’ electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote once states totaling at least 270 electoral votes join the agreement.
For critics, these efforts represent different parts of a much larger political infrastructure.
Capital Research Center President Scott Walter summarized the concern by calling it “a coordinated infrastructure working to influence who votes, how districts are drawn, how we elect our President, and ultimately who controls the government.”
That accusation now sits at the heart of the growing political fight over tax-exempt organizations and election activity.
The central question is whether existing federal rules are being properly enforced.
Critics argue that Congress and the IRS should take a closer look at organizations accused of crossing the line between charitable activity and partisan political operations.
Supporters of the nonprofit groups, meanwhile, are likely to argue that voter registration, civic participation, Census outreach, and similar activities can fall within legally protected nonprofit work.
But the allegations detailed in the report — particularly the Podesta document, the Pennsylvania fraud case, and questions surrounding targeted voter outreach — are certain to keep the issue in the political spotlight.
With hundreds of millions of dollars reportedly moving through tax-exempt organizations during a presidential election cycle, the debate is no longer simply about campaign spending.
It is about transparency, enforcement, donor disclosure, and whether the line separating charitable activity from political influence is being clearly observed.
And as pressure builds for federal investigators and lawmakers to examine the allegations, one question is likely to remain: Are America’s nonprofit laws being used exactly as intended — or have politically connected organizations discovered a way to influence elections while operating behind the shield of tax-exempt status?
