Skip to content

· Public charity

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.

$572k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$446k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Community Improvement$2.2MPublic Benefit$2.1MArts & Culture$337kCrime & Legal$280kCivil Rights$55kScience & Tech$17kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $551,197, the rows itemized in this filing. The $571,902 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $20,705 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $105k
  • $250k+1 grant · $446k
$446,197
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III$446,197
JUDICIAL INTEGRITY PROJECT$105,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%BOCKORNY GROUP INC: $59k → 14%MITCHELL RESEARCH & COMM: $17k → 8%Bursch Law PLLC: $25k → 11%GRAND RAPIDS CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $20k → 13%GRAND RIVER STRATEGIES LLC: $30k → 14%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $810k → 16%DYKEMA GOSSET: $25k → 21%MO STRATEGIES INC: $10k → 5%Falls Communications Inc: $60k → 17%Ten Capitol Inc: $108k → 4%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $70k → 6%REPUBLICAN STATE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE: $950k → 14%WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLC: $15k → 11%GRAND RIVER STRATEGIES LLC: $16k → 14%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $500k → 16%2028 INITIATIVE: $15k → 21%RGA (REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION): $150k → 14%GRAND RAPIDS CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%Grand River Strategies LLC: $12k → 14%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $446k → 16%MICHIGAN FAMILIES UNITED: $30k → 21%RGA (REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION): $100k → 14%MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY: $325k → 16%MICHIGAN FAMILIES UNITED: $25k → 21%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $200k → 16%CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC: $23k → 21%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $77k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $77k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $67k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $57k → 16%MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY: $55k → 16%MICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN: $50k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $50k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $49k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $47k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER: $35k → 16%MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY: $25k → 16%Michigan Republican Party: $20k → 16%PROTECTING MICHIGAN'S FUTURE FUND: $10k → 16%MAKE MICHIGAN FIRST: $10k → 16%Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn: $50k → 16%MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $27k → 16%JUDICIAL INTEGRITY PROJECT: $105k → 16%JUDICIAL INTEGRITY PROJECT: $25k → 16%JUDICIAL INTEGRITY PROJECT: $10k → 16%STEVE GRUBER LLC: $100k → 16%STEVE GRUBER LLC: $93k → 16%GREAT LAKES NEWS NETWORK: $25k → 16%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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 96% of Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 71% of the giving stays in MI; by stated purpose, 4%.

Michigan Chamber of Commercelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.7M · 11 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +70% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
23

Total granted

$3.7M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
0%

Still filing today

27%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementArts & CultureSocial ScienceOther
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

  • MC
    MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III
    6× · 2017–2025 · $2.1M
  • MR
    MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY
    4× · 2017–2021 · $425k
  • MC
    MICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION
    7× · 2018–2024 · $401k · revenue +688% · 47% of their budget

Funded once

  • RS
    Republican State Leadership
    one grant, 2023 · $950k
  • TC
    Ten Capitol Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $108k
  • FC
    Falls Communications Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $60k
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
Defend Your Vote

To oppose a Michigan ballot measure

—
2
Michigan Rising Action

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…

—
3
Put Progress First

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…

—
4
Michigan Jobs Council

To provide the voters of michigan with an understanding of how current policy initiatives will affect michigan's economic well-being.

—
5
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
6
Lift Up Michigan

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.

Public Benefit
7
Michigan Center of Accountability for Republicans

Social welfare and issue advocacy

Civil Rights
8
Mcma Advocacy Fund

To advocate for the cannabis manufacturers in michigan

—
9
Michigan Citizens for Better Health

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…

—
10
Making Michigan Stronger

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…

—
11
Michigan Courage Fund

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…

—
12
Macomb County Chamber of Commerce

The organization's mission is to promote a healthy business climate for its members and all businesses in macomb county, michigan.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Chamber Foundation; 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.
05the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 34 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC III: $2,076,197 · OtherMICHIGAN CHAMBER PAC IIIRepublican State Leadership: $950,000 · OtherRepublican State LeadershipMICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY: $425,000 · OtherMICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTYRepublican Governors Association: $250,000 · OtherSTEVE GRUBER LLC: $217,500 · Other+26 more: $903,834 · Other+26 moreMICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $401,399 · Arts & CultureMICHIGAN CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER: $34,500 · Community ImprovementMAKE MICHIGAN FIRST: $10,000 · Social Science
Other$4,822,531Arts & Culture$401,399Community Improvement$34,500Social Science$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMICHIGAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $401,399 over 7y, 47% of budgetJudicial Integrity Project: $140,000 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetMICHIGAN MY MICHIGAN: $50,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetGreater Grand Rapids Chamber Foundation: $30,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetVOTERS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND TERM LIMITS: $20,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetMAKE MICHIGAN FIRST: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE CHAMBERS: $7,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

  • 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 ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Michigan Health & Hospital Association Dba MhaMI15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Michigan Health & Hospital Association Dba Mha

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 Michigan Chamber of Commerce funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Bigger dots raise more.

2022
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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, FY20–25
    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.

    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 34 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s filings →

    More from the funding graph