The SPONSOR Act adds a new subsection to IRC §501 that makes organizations described in 501(c)(3) liable—criminally and civilly—for activities that arise from funds they receive and administer as fiscal sponsors if a donor claims (or is told they may claim) a tax deduction for the contribution. The bill defines a covered activity narrowly by reference to three categories: materially assisting a designated foreign terrorist organization, using force or credible threats to interfere with someone exercising constitutional rights, and using force or physical obstruction to stop the lawful movement of goods in commerce.
Why it matters: the bill shifts legal risk from sponsored projects to the charitable entities that act as fiscal sponsors, creates a statutory presumption that sponsors must police how funds are used, and leaves only a broadly worded ‘‘due diligence and reasonable oversight’’ defense. That combination would change how many charities structure fiscal sponsorships, raise compliance and insurance costs, and could curtail donor-funded support for loosely affiliated or adversarial civic projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends section 501 by adding a new subsection that attaches criminal and civil liability to 501(c)(3) organizations that receive and control funds as fiscal sponsors when donors claim (or are told they can claim) a deduction for those contributions. Liability covers three types of ‘‘covered activity’’—terrorism assistance tied to FTOs, violent or obstructive interference with constitutional rights, and forcible obstruction of commerce.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are 501(c)(3) organizations that serve as fiscal sponsors for projects or groups that are not themselves tax-exempt; secondary effects hit the projects being sponsored, individual donors, foundations that rely on fiscal sponsorships, and insurers underwriting nonprofit risk. Informal pass-through arrangements where the sponsor does not retain control may be treated differently because the bill conditions liability on retained discretion and control.
Why It Matters
This statute would be a rare federal move to convert tax-status relationships into a source of criminal and civil exposure for charities. It changes the incentives for sponsors, likely increasing contract terms, monitoring, and termination clauses, and could reduce access to fiscal sponsorship for grassroots or controversial initiatives.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SPONSOR Act operates by tying liability to the combination of three elements: (1) a 501(c)(3) accepts funds to act as a fiscal sponsor for an outside project; (2) a donor is allowed a charitable deduction or is told they can claim one for that contribution; and (3) those funds are used in connection with one of the bill’s defined harmful activities. The statute uses plain statutory language to impose ‘‘any criminal liability related to or arising from such fiscal sponsorship’’ and ‘‘any civil liability concerning a covered activity,’’ which is broader than a simple tax penalty and reaches non‑tax legal exposure.
The bill defines fiscal sponsorship as a relationship where the sponsor ‘‘receives and administers funds’’ for a non-exempt project and ‘‘retains discretion and control’’ to ensure the funds are used for its own organizational purposes. That definition means the protection normally afforded to donors when giving to a charity will not insulate the sponsor from downstream wrongful acts if the sponsor exerts control over the funds.
The statutory text also creates a presumption that the sponsor is responsible for lawful use of funds, shifting the initial burden of compliance onto the charity.Covered activities are set out in three buckets. The first targets material support to organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations under INA §219; the second covers intentional injury, intimidation, or interference with persons exercising constitutional rights when accomplished by force, credible threats of force, or physical obstruction; the third targets acts that use force or physical blockage to stop movement of goods in interstate or intrastate commerce.
Those categories are framed to capture violent or obstructive conduct often associated with riots, blockades, or terrorism-linked funding paths.Finally, the statute preserves a defense for charities based on ‘‘due diligence and reasonable oversight,’’ but it gives no statutory detail about what diligence looks like, who bears the burden of proof, or how courts or prosecutors should evaluate reasonableness. In practice, charities that act as fiscal sponsors would likely respond by tightening written agreements, increasing monitoring and reporting, purchasing broader insurance where available, and restricting which projects they will accept as sponsored initiatives.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Liability trigger: A 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor becomes liable when it receives and administers funds for a non‑exempt project and a donor is allowed (or told they are entitled to) a deduction under IRC §170 for that contribution.
Scope of liability: The bill imposes both criminal liability and civil liability 'related to or arising from' fiscal sponsorships—language that extends beyond tax penalties to potential prosecution and private suits.
Covered activities: Liability applies if sponsored funds are used to (A) materially assist an organization designated as an FTO, (B) use force or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone exercising a constitutional right, or (C) block the lawful movement of commerce by force or physical obstruction.
Definition of fiscal sponsorship: The sponsor must 'receive and administer funds' and retain 'discretion and control' over their use; mere pass-through conduits that lack control may fall outside the statute’s reach.
Safe harbor is undefined: The only statutory defense is 'due diligence and reasonable oversight,' but the bill supplies no procedural safe harbors, required practices, or clear standards for what satisfies that defense.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Presents the bill’s name, the Stop Proxy Organizations Nurturing Subversive Operations and Riots Act (SPONSOR Act). This is a conventional organizational provision that does not affect substance but signals legislative intent to target proxy organizations and fiscal sponsorship arrangements.
Liability trigger and scope
Adds a new subsection to IRC §501 that makes a 501(c)(3) liable when it expends funds 'for a fiscal sponsorship' and when a donor either receives or is told they can claim a deduction under §170 for that contribution. The provision explicitly reaches 'any criminal liability related to or arising from such fiscal sponsorship' and 'any civil liability concerning a covered activity,' which converts the tax-status relationship into a vehicle for both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. Practically, this exposure could implicate state and federal criminal statutes as well as private tort claims tied to the covered activity.
Definitions — covered activity
Sets out three categories of 'covered activity': (A) materially assisting an organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization under INA §219 at the time of the act; (B) using force or a specified credible threat of force, or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with people exercising constitutional rights; and (C) using force or physical blocking to prevent the lawful movement of interstate or intrastate commerce. Each bucket has operational consequences: subsection (A) ties liability to FTO designations, while (B) and (C) are behavior-based and could capture violent or obstructionist protest tactics. The statutory text defines 'intimidate' as placing someone in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, which signals a standard tied to objective fear rather than subjective feeling.
Definition of fiscal sponsorship and presumption of responsibility
Defines 'fiscal sponsorship' as a relationship where a 501(c)(3) accepts and administers funds for a non‑exempt project and retains discretion and control over those funds to ensure they are used for the sponsor’s purposes. The statute then creates a legal presumption that the sponsor is responsible for ensuring funds are used lawfully. That presumption flips the initial compliance posture: instead of regulators or plaintiffs proving the sponsor’s fault, the sponsor will face a presumption of duty to police uses of the funds, which shifts evidentiary burdens in enforcement and litigation contexts.
Defense — due diligence and reasonable oversight
Allows the sponsor to raise defenses based on 'due diligence and reasonable oversight' but does not elaborate what processes, documentation, or standards constitute adequate diligence. Because the defense is affirmative and undefined, charities will likely need contemporaneous policies, written contracts, and monitoring records to invoke it successfully. The lack of a defined standard creates uncertainty about what preventive steps will actually limit liability exposure.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims and private plaintiffs — Individuals or businesses harmed by covered activities gain an additional defendant (the fiscal sponsor) with deeper pockets or greater ability to satisfy judgments, increasing the practical chance of recovery.
- Federal prosecutors and state attorneys general — The statute supplies a statutory basis to pursue funding chains for violent or obstructive conduct, simplifying efforts to link monetary support to criminal liability.
- Donors seeking accountability — Donors who care that their gifts not enable violent or obstructive conduct get a regulatory signal and potentially greater transparency through sponsor diligence practices.
- Commercial carriers and commerce-dependent businesses — By targeting funds that support blockades or obstruction of commerce, the bill creates potential remedies and deterrence that benefit firms harmed by interruptions to supply chains.
Who Bears the Cost
- 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsors — Face elevated criminal and civil exposure, must invest in legal review, stronger written agreements, monitoring systems, and likely expanded insurance; smaller charities acting as sponsors are particularly vulnerable to compliance costs.
- Grassroots and nascent projects — May lose access to fiscal sponsorship if sponsors decline to accept higher‑risk projects or impose restrictive conditions, reducing philanthropic pathways for new civic initiatives.
- Foundations and major donors — Will confront increased reputational and legal risk when funding projects through fiscal sponsorship relationships and may shift to direct grantmaking structures or impose tighter oversight requirements.
- Insurers and underwriters — Could see higher claims or withdraw coverage for sponsor liability absent clarified standards, driving up premiums for nonprofit liability policies.
- Enforcement agencies and courts — May absorb additional investigations and litigation as sponsors are added as defendants, increasing caseloads without new procedural guidance or resourcing in the bill text.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the legitimate public interest in cutting funding paths that enable terrorism and violent obstruction against the risk of chilling lawful civic engagement and constraining charitable mechanisms that support nascent or controversial projects; holding sponsors criminally and civilly liable reduces bad‑actor proxying but also pushes sponsors to withdraw from risky but lawful public-interest work, creating a trade-off between accountability and access to charitable infrastructure.
The statute raises several implementation and constitutional questions the text does not resolve. First, the reach of 'any criminal liability related to or arising from such fiscal sponsorship' is broad; it does not define the requisite mens rea (knowledge, intent, recklessness) for criminal exposure, leaving uncertainty whether negligent oversight could trigger prosecution.
Second, the bill’s behavioral buckets (intimidation, obstruction) are fact‑intensive and could sweep in lawful, nonviolent advocacy that involves disruption as a tactic; distinguishing protected expressive conduct from criminalized interference will fall to prosecutors and courts without statutory bright lines.
Operationally, the undefined 'due diligence and reasonable oversight' defense forces charities to create ex ante compliance regimes—contractual terms, monitoring, termination rights, recordkeeping—without clear guidance on what will actually satisfy courts or prosecutors. That uncertainty is likely to produce conservative risk-avoidant behavior by sponsors and funders.
Finally, the interplay with existing doctrines—agency law, aiding and abetting statutes, state tort liability, and tax law guidance on fiscal sponsorship—creates potential conflicts: courts may disagree whether this new subsection preempts, supplements, or duplicates established lines of liability, and the bill supplies no administrative or IRS implementing direction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.