Abrams-Founded Group Slapped with Historic $300K Fine, Feds Circle

Paul Riverbank, 3/25/2025Georgia nonprofit hit with record fine for failing to report $7M in political activities.

The Blurred Lines of Nonprofit Political Activity: A Georgia Case Study

The recent $300,000 fine levied against the New Georgia Project has sent ripples through America's nonprofit sector, raising thorny questions about the intersection of charitable work and political activism. As someone who's covered campaign finance for three decades, I've rarely seen a case that so clearly illustrates the challenges of enforcing our complex web of election laws.

Let's cut through the noise: At its core, this isn't just about one organization or one election cycle. The NGP failed to report roughly $7 million in political activities during Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial race. That's not a clerical error – it's a systematic breakdown in compliance that should concern anyone interested in electoral transparency.

I spoke with several nonprofit compliance experts last week. Their take? The sheer size of the fine – the largest in Georgia Ethics Commission history – reflects not just the scale of the violations but also growing frustration among regulators with what they see as increasingly bold testing of political activity limits by tax-exempt groups.

The IRS angle here is particularly fascinating. Chairman Smith's push to revoke NGP's tax-exempt status puts the agency in a tough spot. They'll need to thread the needle between enforcing clear statutory prohibitions on campaign activity while avoiding any appearance of political targeting – no small feat given the organization's high-profile founder.

Here's what often gets lost in the partisan back-and-forth: These rules exist for a reason. When 501(c)(3) organizations blur the lines between charitable work and campaign activity, it undermines public trust in both our electoral system and the nonprofit sector. The tax benefits these groups receive come with strings attached – strings that seem increasingly frayed.

The Georgia Senate's expansion of their investigation to include scrutiny of federal grants to affiliated organizations adds another layer of complexity. While Stacey Abrams' characterization of these investigations as politically motivated shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, neither should legitimate concerns about proper oversight of taxpayer dollars.

Looking ahead, this case may well become a landmark in defining the boundaries of nonprofit political engagement. The Justice Department's interest suggests potential implications beyond just state-level compliance issues. For the broader nonprofit community, the message is clear: The days of playing fast and loose with political activity restrictions may be numbered.

The ultimate resolution of this case will likely influence how regulators approach similar situations nationwide. As we navigate these waters, we'd do well to remember that transparency in political spending isn't just a legal requirement – it's essential to maintaining public trust in our democratic institutions.

The Blurred Lines of Nonprofit Political Activity: A Georgia Case StudyThe recent $300,000 fine levied against the New Georgia Project has sent ripples through America's nonprofit sector, raising thorny questions about the intersection of charitable work and political activism. As someone who's covered campaign finance for three decades, I've rarely seen a case that so clearly illustrates the challenges of enforcing our complex web of election laws.Let's cut through the noise: At its core, this isn't just about one organization or one election cycle. The NGP failed to report roughly $7 million in political activities during Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial race. That's not a clerical error – it's a systematic breakdown in compliance that should concern anyone interested in electoral transparency.I spoke with several nonprofit compliance experts last week. Their take? The sheer size of the fine – the largest in Georgia Ethics Commission history – reflects not just the scale of the violations but also growing frustration among regulators with what they see as increasingly bold testing of political activity limits by tax-exempt groups.The IRS angle here is particularly fascinating. Chairman Smith's push to revoke NGP's tax-exempt status puts the agency in a tough spot. They'll need to thread the needle between enforcing clear statutory prohibitions on campaign activity while avoiding any appearance of political targeting – no small feat given the organization's high-profile founder.Here's what often gets lost in the partisan back-and-forth: These rules exist for a reason. When 501(c)(3) organizations blur the lines between charitable work and campaign activity, it undermines public trust in both our electoral system and the nonprofit sector. The tax benefits these groups receive come with strings attached – strings that seem increasingly frayed.The Georgia Senate's expansion of their investigation to include scrutiny of federal grants to affiliated organizations adds another layer of complexity. While Stacey Abrams' characterization of these investigations as politically motivated shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, neither should legitimate concerns about proper oversight of taxpayer dollars.Looking ahead, this case may well become a landmark in defining the boundaries of nonprofit political engagement. The Justice Department's interest suggests potential implications beyond just state-level compliance issues. For the broader nonprofit community, the message is clear: The days of playing fast and loose with political activity restrictions may be numbered.The ultimate resolution of this case will likely influence how regulators approach similar situations nationwide. As we navigate these waters, we'd do well to remember that transparency in political spending isn't just a legal requirement – it's essential to maintaining public trust in our democratic institutions.