· Public charity
Mywirelessorg
Mywireless is devoted to grassroots advocacy efforts to identify, educate and persuade mobile wireless consumers to contact policymakers on wireless telecommunication matters that affect them as consumers.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k22 grants · $545k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $320k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE FREE STATE FOUNDATION INC | $110,000 |
| INFORMATION TECH & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | $60,000 |
| AMERICAN FOR TAX REFORM | $50,000 |
| THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTE | $50,000 |
| AMERICAN RESOLVE | $50,000 |
| COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | $49,000 |
| LGBT TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE | $45,000 |
| DIGITAL PROGRESS INSTITUTE | $40,000 |
| ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN ADVOCATES | $35,000 |
| CITIZENS AGAINST GOV'T WASTE | $30,000 |
| AMERICAN CONSUMER INSTITUTE | $30,000 |
| GEN-Z EMERGING TECH ACTION | $25,000 |
| R STREET INSTITUTE | $25,000 |
| LINCOLN NETWORK | $25,000 |
| AMERICAN ACTION FORUM | $25,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $140k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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 +66% since the first grant, against +53% for the ones you funded once.
35 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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 FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- ITInformation Technology and Innovation Foundation8× · 2017–2024 · $490k · revenue +57%
- TBTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION8× · 2017–2024 · $380k · revenue +2%
- ACAmerican Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research8× · 2017–2024 · $240k · revenue +175%
Funded once
- DPDIGITAL PROMISE GLOBALone grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue +15%
- TLTHE LATINO COALITION INCone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -37%
- PLPOLITIC365 LLCone grant, 2017 · $25k
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The american enterprise institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. aei pursues these ideals through independent thinking and the…
The national foundation for american policy is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to public policy research on trade, immigration, and other issues of national importance. the organization seeks to expand the debate over the…
The mission of the d.c. policy center is to arm decision makers with fact-based, unbiased, and reliable research and analyses to help create a vibrant local economy that can maximize opportunities for residents, workers, and businesses in…
The manhattan institute is a community of scholars, journalists, activists, and civic leaders dedicated to advancing opportunity, individual liberty, and the rule of law in america and its great cities.
It is the mission of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) to provide education, research, analysis and recommendations to policy makers, opinion leaders and the American people designed to help solve public policy problems through…
To educate the public on constitutional issues and public policy matters. We are dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and the values embodied in the Declaration of…
Research and education of United Nations activities
To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Action Forum Inc and the most unlike its peers is Technology Policy Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 19 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
38 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. 38 of the 45 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 THE FREE STATE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds Americans for Tax Reform ↗
- Who funds American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research ↗
- Who funds ORGANIZATION OF CHINESE AMERICANS INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE ↗
- Who funds R STREET INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds LGBT TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION ↗
- Who funds THE TAXPAYERS PROTECTION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds National Black Chamber of Commerce Inc ↗
- Who funds THE JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds The Digital Progress Institute ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CENTER FOR AMERICAN INDIAN ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds Young Voices ↗
- Who funds American Resolve Inc ↗
- Who funds JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ACTION FORUM INC ↗
- Who funds PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ↗
- Who funds FAMILY ONLINE SAFETY INSTITUTE - US ↗
- Who funds TECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON POLICY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CITIZEN EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds The Hispanic Leadership Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds National Coalition on Black Civic Partic ↗
- Who funds DIGITAL PROMISE GLOBAL ↗
- Who funds Tholos Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE LATINO COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds Gen-Z Emerging Technology Action ↗
- Who funds FRANKLIN NEWS FOUNDATION ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Ncta - the Internet & Television Association · Motion Picture Association Inc · NetChoice · Charles Koch Institute · Charles Koch Foundation · Donors Trust Inc · United States Telecom Association · Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America · National Association of Broadcasters · Association for Accessible Medicines · The Seminar Network Inc · The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc
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 Mywirelessorg 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Mywirelessorg?
Find your warmest path to Mywirelessorg 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.