· Public charity
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $551,197 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $571,902 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $20,705 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k1 grant · $105k
- $250k+1 grant · $446k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III | $446,197 |
| JUDICIAL INTEGRITY PROJECT | $105,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 96% of Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 71% of the giving stays in MI; read by stated purpose it is 4% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +70% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- MCMICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III6× · 2017–2025 · $2.1M
- MRMICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY4× · 2017–2021 · $425k
- MCMICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION7× · 2018–2024 · $401k · revenue +688% · 47% of their budget
Funded once
- RSRepublican State Leadershipone grant, 2023 · $950k
- TCTen Capitol Incone grant, 2017 · $108k
- FCFalls Communications Incone grant, 2017 · $60k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To oppose a Michigan ballot measure
Michigan Rising Action is focused on holding special interest networks accountable and advancing conservative principles. We're fighting for limited government, lowering taxes, fighting government over-regulation that stifles freedom, free…
To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to, the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and…
To provide the voters of michigan with an understanding of how current policy initiatives will affect michigan's economic well-being.
To promote the common good and general welfare of Michiganders through advocacy, research, and participation in public policy initiatives concerning the economy, health, safety, environment, civic engagement, and good governance.
Social welfare and issue advocacy
To advocate for the cannabis manufacturers in michigan
To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and…
To research and promote issues concerning education, economic opportunity, individual freedoms and public policy within the state of michigan and to support activities and programs that improve the quality and effectiveness of local and…
To promote civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the State of Michigan; to support public policies on the federal, state, and local levels that will bring about…
The organization's mission is to promote a healthy business climate for its members and all businesses in macomb county, michigan.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Chamber Foundation and the most unlike its peers is National Association of State Chambers. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 34 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Judicial Integrity Project ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds Greater Grand Rapids Chamber Foundation ↗
- Who funds VOTERS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND TERM LIMITS ↗
- Who funds MAKE MICHIGAN FIRST ↗
- Who funds Protecting Michigans Future Fund ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE CHAMBERS ↗
- Who funds SMALL BUSINESS FOR A BETTER MICHIGAN ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Michigan Health & Hospital Association Dba Mha
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Michigan Chamber of Commerce funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.