Skip to content
Article IV at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Article IV

Our mission is to advance policies that promote freedom and

$69M
Granted FY2024still arriving
49
Grants FY2024still arriving
22
States reached
$18M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Public Benefit$71MHealth$6.5MCivil Rights$3.2MSocial Science$478kEnvironment$300kHuman Services$250kPublic Safety & Disaster$187kCommunity Improvement$23k
02FY2024 · 49 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k12 grants · $338k
  • $50k–250k21 grants · $2.5M
  • $250k+16 grants · $67M
$100,000
Median grant
22
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Vote Yes on 3$18,380,000
Montanans for Election Ref$18,175,000
Citizens Not Politicians$10,150,000
Oregon Ranked Choice Votin$6,465,000
No on 2$4,900,000
Yes on 117$2,830,000
Idahoans for Open Primarie$2,220,000
Alaskans for Better Electi$615,000
Conservative Majority Fund$500,000
FairVote Minnesota$500,000
Wyoming FREE$450,834
Joseph Rainey Center for P$343,000
North Dakota Citizens Prot$324,433
Ballot Access Mississippi$307,781
Southern Nevada Building T$250,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Platte Institute for Econo: $75k → 12%Nebraska Votes: $140k → 13%Nebraskans for Better Gove: $199k → 13%FairVote Minnesota: $690k → 14%Four for Montana Action Fu: $80k → 9%Joseph Rainey Center for P: $343k → 14%Conservative Leadership fo: $200k → 11%Better Elections: $1.0M → 21%Fix the System Wisconsin A: $100k → 10%Utah Ranked Choice Voting: $400k → 5%ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION I: $187k → 6%Rank the Vote Ohio: $90k → 13%Citizens Not Politicians: $10.2M → 15%No on 2: $4.9M → 10%Ballot Access Mississippi: $308k → 11%North Dakota Citizens Prot: $324k → 12%American Unity Fund: $200k → 6%Wyoming FREE: $451k → 15%Equality State Policy Cent: $75k → 17%NAACP Las Vegas Branch 11: $250k → 13%Vermont Public Interest Re: $200k → 9%Nebraskans for Better Gov: $150k → 13%FairVote Minnesota: $500k → 14%Common Cause: $203k → 14%Veterans for Political Inn: $120k → 11%Fix the System Wisconsin A: $100k → 10%Utah Ranked Choice Voting: $157k → 5%ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION I: $160k → 6%Rank the Vote Ohio: $80k → 13%One Person One Vote: $850k → 15%Alaskans for Better Electi: $615k → 10%Ballot Access Mississippi: $300k → 11%United Conservatives Polic: $200k → 9%Wyoming FREE: $201k → 15%Southern Nevada Building T: $250k → 13%Vermont Public Interest Re: $75k → 9%Common Cause: $125k → 14%ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION I: $80k → 6%Citizens Not Politicians: $550k → 15%Conservative Majority Fund: $500k → 10%Common Cause Education Fun: $110k → 14%Ohio Progressive Collabora: $200k → 15%Alaskans for Better Electi: $400k → 10%FairVote Action: $500k → 8%House Majority Forward: $100k → 14%FairVote Action: $200k → 8%FairVote Action: $100k → 8%Represent Women Inc: $67k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
VT
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
OH
CT
UT
NE
MO
VA
MD
NM
AR
DC
OK
MS
GA
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

29%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$24M · 23 repeat orgs$59M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +26% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 31 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
17

Total granted

$24M
$2.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
0%

Still filing today

91%
65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $56M went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitSocial ScienceEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • OR
    OREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1.5M · revenue ×13 · 67% of their budget
  • FM
    FairVote Minnesota
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +1% · 84% of their budget
  • AF
    Alaskans for Better Elections
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +26% · 70% of their budget

Funded once

  • OP
    One Person One Vote
    one grant, 2023 · $850k
  • UR
    UTAH RANKED CHOICE VOTING ACTION
    one grant, 2022 · $400k · revenue -89% · 82% of their budget
  • AU
    AMERICAN UNITY FUND INC
    one grant, 2023 · $200k · revenue -25%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
2
Election Reformers Network Inc

To strengthen democracy in the United States through an assessment of US voting systems and US election administration from the perspective of global best practices.

Civil Rights
3
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
4
Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—
5
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
6
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
7
Ballot Pa Action

Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.

Civil Rights
8
Election Watch Inc

Research analyze publish information to public on elections election systems laws and campaign financing.

Civil Rights
9
Democracy for America Advocacy Fund

Democracy for America Advocacy Fund (DFA-AF) is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for fair, just, inclusive, and equitable public policies that benefit all, not just a few. DFA-AF was launched to take on structural democracy reform…

—
10
Texas Justice Fund

To support legal, political & administrative efforts to protect fair voting.

—
11
Upstate Action Alliance

Non-PartisanVoter Educ Advocacy

Civil Rights
12
Right Vote Inc
Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Votes Idaho Company; the most unlike its peers is One Person One Vote. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

61 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 61 of the 71 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

23
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
58/61
Grantees still filing
22/61
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Vote Yes on 3: $18,380,000 · OtherVote Yes on 3MONTANANS FOR ELECTION REFORM ACTION FUND: $18,175,000 · OtherMONTANANS FOR ELECTION REFORM ACTION FUNDCitizens Not Politicians: $10,700,000 · OtherCitizens Not PoliticiansOregon Ranked Choice Votin: $6,465,000 · OtherOregon Ranked Choice VotinNo on 2: $4,900,000 · OtherNo on 2Better Elections: $4,812,978 · OtherBetter ElectionsYes on 117: $2,830,000 · Other+33 more: $8,537,579 · Other+33 moreOREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES: $1,467,000 · Civil RightsFairVote Minnesota: $1,190,000 · Civil RightsWyoming FREE: $651,668 · Civil RightsUTAH RANKED CHOICE VOTING ACTION: $400,000 · Civil RightsEternal Vigilance Action Inc: $240,000 · Civil RightsOhio Progressive Collaborative Education Fund: $200,000 · Civil RightsNEBRASKA VOTES: $185,000 · Civil Rights+11 more: $836,500 · Civil RightsAlaskans for Better Elections: $1,015,000 · Public BenefitEQUALITY STATE POLICY CENTER: $125,000 · Public BenefitCOMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $110,000 · Public BenefitWIN MINNESOTA: $50,000 · Public BenefitCOUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND: $50,000 · Public Benefit+2 more: $53,600 · Public BenefitJOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $343,000 · Social SciencePLATTE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH INC: $158,000 · Social ScienceFIX THE SYSTEM-WISCONSIN ACTION INC: $200,000 · Membership BenefitFAIRVOTE WASHINGTON: $125,000 · Human ServicesEquality New Mexico Foundation: $20,000 · Human ServicesHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $100,000 · Community Improvement
Other$74,800,557Civil Rights$5,170,168Public Benefit$1,403,600Social Science$501,000Membership Benefit$200,000Human Services$145,000Community Improvement$100,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVote Yes on 3: $18,380,000 over 1y, 64% of budgetMONTANANS FOR ELECTION REFORM ACTION FUND: $18,175,000 over 1y, 80% of budgetCitizens Not Politicians: $10,700,000 over 2y, 27% of budgetNo on 2: $4,900,000 over 1y, 34% of budgetYes on 117: $2,830,000 over 1y, 71% of budgetOREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES: $1,467,000 over 2y, 67% of budgetFairVote Minnesota: $1,190,000 over 2y, 84% of budgetAlaskans for Better Elections: $1,015,000 over 2y, 70% of budgetOne Person One Vote: $850,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetFAIRVOTE ACTION: $815,000 over 3y, 44% of budgetWyoming FREE: $651,668 over 2y, 100% of budgetCONSERVATIVE MAJORITY FUND: $500,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetUTAH RANKED CHOICE VOTING ACTION: $400,000 over 1y, 82% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE: $368,300 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetNebraskans for Better Governance: $349,200 over 2y, 60% of budgetJOSEPH RAINEY CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $343,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetNORTH DAKOTA CITIZENS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION: $324,433 over 1y, 31% of budgetVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC: $275,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetEternal Vigilance Action Inc: $240,000 over 2y, 34% of budgetAMERICAN UNITY FUND INC: $200,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetUnited Conservative Policy Fund: $200,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetOKLAHOMA UNITED FOR PROGRESS INC: $200,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetFIX THE SYSTEM-WISCONSIN ACTION INC: $200,000 over 2y, 76% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative Education Fund: $200,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetConservative Leadership for Missouri: $200,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNEBRASKA VOTES: $185,000 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetPLATTE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH INC: $158,000 over 4y, 6.4% of budgetUTAH RANKED CHOICE VOTING: $157,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetProtect AR Constitution: $150,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetFAIRVOTE WASHINGTON: $125,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetEQUALITY STATE POLICY CENTER: $125,000 over 2y, 27% of budgetVeterans for All Voters: $120,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetCOMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND: $110,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFOUR FOR MONTANA ACTION FUND: $80,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetCENTER FOR CIVIC DESIGN INC: $75,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetVOTES IDAHO COMPANY: $75,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetREPRESENTWOMEN INC: $67,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetRANKED CHOICE VOTING MARYLAND: $55,000 over 1y, 87% of budgetFAIRVOTE: $51,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetWIN MINNESOTA: $50,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetSAM Advocacy Fund: $50,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE: $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetUPVOTE VIRGINIA: $36,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetNEW PROGRESSIVE NETWORK: $35,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetOpen Primaries Inc: $33,600 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetUtahns Protecting our Constitution: $27,337 over 1y, 25% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Unite America IncSixteen Thirty FundUnite America Institu…New Venture FundDemocracy Fund Voice …Action Now IncAmerica VotesHopewell FundOur American Future A…Democracy Fund IncTides FoundationFinal-Five Fund Inc
Unite America IncCO36.8× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Unite America Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Unite America Institute Inc · New Venture Fund · Democracy Fund Voice Inc · Action Now Inc · America Votes · Hopewell Fund · Our American Future Action · Democracy Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · Final-Five Fund Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Article IV funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Article IV. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 110%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    11get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Article IV?

    Find your warmest path to Article IV through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 71 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $227k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Article IV’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home