Skip to content
Fairvote Action at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Fairvote Action

FAIRVOTE ACTION campaigns for better elections for all.

$443k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$285k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Public Benefit$1.4MEnvironment$40kCivil Rights$6k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $105k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
  • $250k+1 grant · $285k
$25,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$583k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DC$285,000
CALIFORNIA RCV INSTITUTE INC$50,000
PREFERENTIAL PRIMARIES ACTION$35,000
IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY$25,000
FAIRVOTE MINNESOTA$25,000
YES ON 117$10,000
MISSOURI DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE$10,000
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 58% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PARTNERS IN DEMOCRACY INC: $12k → 7%FAIRVOTE MINNESOTA: $25k → 14%BETTER ELECTIONS FOR SANTA: $10k → 8%CALIFORNIA RCV INSTITUTE INC: $50k → 10%VOTER CHOICE ALBANY: $4k → 10%CALIFORNIA RCV COALITION INC: $25k → 12%PROGRESSIVE HUMBOLDT COALITION: $6k → 18%DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF HAWAII: $25k → 9%RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR TEXAS: $10k → 16%FILBLASTER LLC: $5k → 14%IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $25k → 10%RANK MI VOTE BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE: $35k → 16%MISSOURI DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE: $10k → 15%CHARTING A BETTER PORTLAND: $50k → 12%NAT ASSOC OF NONPARTISAN: $10k → 12%FIX DEMOCRACY FIRST: $1k → 9%RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SAN JUAN COUNTY: $10k → 10%ALASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $25k → 22%YES FOR RANKED CHOICE VOTING: $20k → 14%PREFERENTIAL PRIMARIES ACTION: $35k → 22%NEVADANS FOR ELECTION: $4k → 10%VT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH: $30k → 9%COMMITTEE FOR RANKED CHOICE: $2k → 7%CALIFORNIA RCV COALITION INC: $15k → 12%MAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DC: $285k → 14%OREGONIANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS: $50k → 12%NAT ASSOC OF NONPARTISAN: $10k → 12%RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SEATTLE: $390k → 9%VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GR: $20k → 9%MAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DC: $25k → 14%OREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES: $13k → 12%RCV FOR COLORADO FUND: $4k → 12%RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR CLARK COUNTY: $50k → 9%VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC (VPIRG): $10k → 9%YES ON 117: $10k → 12%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
ME
VT
WA
MN
IL
MI
MA
OR
NV
WY
IA
CA
CO
MO
VA
KS
DC
HI
TX
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.

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$541k · 7 repeat orgs$935k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
22

Total granted

$541k
$780k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
0%

Still filing today

43%
32%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $155k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsPublic BenefitEducationOther
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

  • CR
    California RCV Coalition Inc
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +75% · 37% of their budget
  • VP
    VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $40k · revenue +5%
  • NA
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS
    2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • RC
    RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SEATTLE
    one grant, 2022 · $390k
  • PF
    Portlanders for Charter Reform
    one grant, 2022 · $75k
  • OF
    OREGONIANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
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
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
2
Fairvote Washington

To promote electoral reform in Washington state

Human Services
3
Utah Ranked Choice Voting Action

Educate public officials regarding Ranked Choice Voting and advocate for legislation

Civil Rights
4
Voter Choice Arizona

Voter Choice Arizona aims to educate Arizona voters about how Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), along with open primaries, will improve elections, give them more voice and more choice, and lead to better outcomes for our state.

Public Benefit
5
Mobilize Oregon Votes

Supports and opposes ballot measures in the 2024 General Election

—
6
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
7
Utah Ranked Choice Voting

Educate citizens and voters about Ranked Choice Voting as an alternative method of voting compared to traditional voting

Civil Rights
8
Yes On National Popular Vote

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

—
9
Presidential Election Project Inc

Securing reforms to the electoral count act

—
10
Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund

Support ballot measure

—
11
Protect Our Right to Vote

Opposition of local San Francisco ballot initiative to consolidate city elections to even-year.

—
12
Equal Vote Coalition

To educate the public on fairer voting methods especially STAR voting and advocate for and support its implementation

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Partners in Democracy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Portlanders for Charter Reform. 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

15 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. 15 of the 35 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/15
Grantees still filing
6/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SEATTLE: $390,000 · OtherRANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR SEATTLEMAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DC: $310,000 · OtherMAKE ALL VOTES COUNT DCPortlanders for Charter Reform: $75,000 · OtherPortlanders for Charter ReformKANSAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $60,000 · OtherWYOMING DEMOCRATIC PARTY: $60,000 · OtherOREGONIANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS: $50,000 · OtherRANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR CLARK COUNTY: $50,000 · Other+20 more: $326,502 · Other+20 moreCalifornia RCV Institute Inc: $50,000 · EducationCOALITION FOR DC REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS EDUCATION FUND: $5,000 · EducationCalifornia RCV Coalition Inc: $40,000 · Civil RightsOREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES: $13,000 · Civil Rights+1 more: $1,000 · Civil RightsFairVote Minnesota Foundation: $25,000 · Public BenefitAlaskans for Better Elections: $10,000 · Public BenefitRANKED CHOICE VOTING FOR TEXAS: $10,000 · Public Benefit
Other$1,321,502Education$55,000Civil Rights$54,000Public Benefit$45,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPortlanders for Charter Reform: $75,000 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetCalifornia RCV Institute Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetCalifornia RCV Coalition Inc: $40,000 over 2y, 37% of budgetVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC: $40,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetFairVote Minnesota Foundation: $25,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetFairVote Illinois Action: $20,000 over 1y, 47% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NONPARTISAN REFORMERS: $20,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetOREGON RANKED CHOICE VOTING ADVOCATES: $13,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetPARTNERS IN DEMOCRACY INC: $12,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetBetter Elections for Santa Clara Yes on Measure A: $10,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetYes on 117: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAlaskans for Better Elections: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCOALITION FOR DC REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS EDUCATION FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 IncUnite America Institu…Article IVProteus Fund Inc
Unite America IncCO13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Unite America Inc · Unite America Institute Inc · Article IV · Proteus 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 Fairvote Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fairvote Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get 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 · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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.

    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 35 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Fairvote Action’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