hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Makes charities liable for sponsored groups' unlawful activities.
Rep. Moran (Party, State Unknown)
In committee, no House vote yet
This bill would make 501(c)(3) charitable organizations legally responsible for criminal and civil actions arising from activities of non-exempt groups they support through "fiscal sponsorship." This means if a charity helps fund another group, the charity could be held accountable for certain unlawful actions by that group. Rep. Moran introduced this bill, and it has been sent to the House Ways and Means Committee for review before it can move forward for a vote.
Introduced Mar 4, 2026
The bill was introduced by Rep. Moran on March 4, 2026, and immediately sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means. It must be approved by this committee before it can be considered for a vote by the full House of Representatives. If passed by the House, it would then go to the Senate for their consideration to become law.
Charitable organizations (501(c)(3)s) that serve as 'fiscal sponsors' for other projects would take on direct legal responsibility for certain unlawful activities linked to those projects, including acts of terrorism or interfering with constitutional rights or commerce. This increased liability could make charities more cautious about which groups they sponsor, potentially affecting how donors contribute to such projects. Non-exempt groups seeking fiscal sponsorship might find it harder to secure funding relationships due to the added risk charities would face.
Supporters Say
Supporters would likely argue it holds charities accountable for the use of funds that benefit unlawful activities.
Critics Say
Critics might contend it could stifle legitimate charitable work by making organizations overly risk-averse.
This bill aims to prevent tax-exempt organizations from indirectly supporting harmful or illegal activities by making them legally responsible. Arguments for the bill would focus on ensuring accountability for funds funneled through charities, especially when used for terrorism or disruption. Arguments against might highlight that such strict liability could deter charities from supporting innovative or controversial causes, even if legitimate, due to fear of inadvertently facing legal action, thereby limiting their scope and impact.