Skip to content
Pro-Democracy Campaign at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Pro-Democracy Campaign

The PRO-DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN is a social welfare organization focused on strengthening grassroots initiatives that advance participation, community involvement, and better democratic structures in the united states.

$28M
Granted FY2025still arriving
92
Grants FY2025still arriving
17
States reached
$1.8M
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, FY2024 to 2025.

Civil Rights$18MPublic Benefit$12MEnvironment$2.1MHuman Services$1.9MPhilanthropy$1.6MEmployment$1.3MCommunity Improvement$1.1MEducation$275k
02FY2025 · 92 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $190k
  • $50k–250k49 grants · $5.1M
  • $250k+37 grants · $23M
$155,000
Median grant
17
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC$1,800,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$1,500,000
FAITH IN MINNESOTA$1,500,000
MICHIGAN UNITED ACTION$1,340,000
UNITE HERE ACTION FUND$1,100,000
ONE ARIZONA$1,050,000
MAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC$1,000,000
ORGANIZE PENNSYLVANIA DBA ONE PA$800,000
NEO PHILANTHROPY INC$800,000
DETROIT ACTION$750,000
POWER ACTION FUND$750,000
ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER POLITICAL ALLIANCE$675,000
CITIZEN IMPACT$550,000
PLAN ACTION FUND$550,000
VOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC$550,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–25, $1.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 77% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ALIENTO EDUCATION FUND: $50k → 11%NCAAT IN ACTION: $300k → 8%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC: $500k → 14%CASA IN ACTION: $100k → 11%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $450k → 11%NCAAT IN ACTION: $100k → 8%ARAB COMMUNITY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL SERVICES (ACCESS): $50k → 21%LIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $50k → 11%CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC: $100k → 11%INSTITUTO LAB: $50k → 11%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

MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
OH
PA
NJ
CA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
MS
AL
GA
FL
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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26M · 42 repeat orgs$13M to everyone else

42 repeat relationships: 42 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 49 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

42
14

Total granted

$26M
$2.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

90%
93%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10M went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
Civil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesPublic BenefitEducationCrime & LegalOther
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

  • FI
    FAITH IN MINNESOTA
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.9M · revenue 0%
  • MP
    Michigan Peoples Campaign
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.6M · revenue 0%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.6M · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • OP
    Ohio Progressive Collaborative
    one grant, 2024 · $500k · revenue -92%
  • UF
    UNITED FOR DEMOCRACY
    one grant, 2024 · $392k · revenue -45%
  • FR
    FLORIDA RISING INC
    one grant, 2024 · $200k · revenue 0%
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
Colorado People's Action

Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…

—
2
Minnesota Voice

Minnesota Voice is a collaboration of organizations working toward permanent change in social, racial, and economic justice by increasing civic engagement and voter participation across the state.

Public Benefit
3
Action Institute Nc

Action institute nc is a community organization and citizens action group that organizes residents of low-wealth communities and constituencies most of whom are people of color- to represent their own interests on issues of social and…

—
4
Six Action

Six action realizes a bold policy agenda that secures and sustains meaningful racial, gender, social and economic justice outcomes that center the people most impacted by systemic and structural oppression. we support values-aligned state…

Civil Rights
5
Missouri Jobs With Justice Voter Action

To develop and advocate for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of the working class, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy; and, to conduct research, educate the public, and…

Civil Rights
6
League of Women Voters of New Jersey

Through grassroots people-powered advocacy and organizing, lwvnj trains, mobilizes, and educates advocates to have a greater voice in government and influence public policy.

—
7
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
8
Alabama Values

A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…

Arts & Culture
9
New Jersey Citizen Action

To protect and expand the rights of citizens of the state of new jersey, and encourage active citizen involvement in campaigns promoting economic, social and racial equity.

—
10
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
11
Progressive Workers Coalition

To ensure that working class people are educated on their voting rights. The coalition engages in mobilization and educational information sessions to ensure that all workers voices are heard.

—
12
Powerswitch Action

Powerswitch action is a national network forging collective democracy and economies in our cities and states, together with our 21 grassroots affiliates.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Leaders Igniting Transformation Action Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Instituto Lab. 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

100 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. 100 of the 108 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)
32
Early backer (in before they grew)
98/100
Grantees still filing
34/100
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FAITH IN MINNESOTA: $1,900,000 · Civil RightsFAITH IN MINNESOTAWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $1,800,000 · Civil RightsWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INCMichigan Peoples Campaign: $1,640,000 · Civil RightsMichigan Peoples CampaignLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,600,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INCMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $1,250,000 · Civil RightsMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INCONE ARIZONA: $1,150,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZE PENNSYLVANIA: $1,050,000 · Civil RightsVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $800,000 · Civil RightsPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $775,000 · Civil Rights+42 more: $10,647,000 · Civil Rights+42 moreUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $1,300,000 · OtherUNITE HERE ACTION FUNDDETROIT ACTION: $1,150,000 · OtherDETROIT ACTIONMake North Carolina First: $950,000 · OtherMake North Carolina FirstASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER POLITICAL AL LIANCE: $775,000 · OtherASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER PO…ACTION TOGETHER NEPA: $650,000 · OtherACTION TOGETHER NEPAWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $550,000 · OtherWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VO…CITIZEN IMPACT: $550,000 · OtherCITIZEN IMPACTOhio Progressive Collaborative: $500,000 · OtherOhio Progressive Collabor…North Carolina Families First: $455,000 · Other+18 more: $1,890,000 · Other+18 moreDOWN HOME NC: $780,000 · Human ServicesGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $500,000 · Human ServicesLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $500,000 · Human ServicesNCAAT IN ACTION: $400,000 · Human ServicesCASA IN ACTION INC: $100,000 · Human ServicesCHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC CPLC: $100,000 · Human Services+3 more: $150,000 · Human ServicesPOWER INTERFAITH INC: $750,000 · Community ImprovementActivate 48 Inc: $475,000 · Community ImprovementAmerica Votes: $300,000 · Community ImprovementPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC: $200,000 · Community ImprovementPEOPLE'S ACTION: $200,000 · Community ImprovementNEW JERSEY WORKING FAMILIES ALLIANCE CORP: $100,000 · Community ImprovementMIIGWECH INC: $100,000 · Community ImprovementWORKER POWER: $75,000 · Community Improvement+1 more: $40,000 · Community ImprovementNEO Philanthropy Inc: $1,000,000 · Public BenefitGRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WESTERN WISCONSIN: $150,000 · Public BenefitOne Voice: $100,000 · Public BenefitTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $75,000 · Public BenefitSTATE DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $62,500 · Public BenefitMICHIGAN ORGANIZING STRATEGY ENABLING STRENGTH ACTION: $50,000 · Public BenefitBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $350,000 · EducationNORTH CAROLINA BLACK ALLIANCE INC: $200,000 · EducationWe the People MI: $75,000 · EducationMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT: $300,000 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC: $200,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Philanthropy
Civil Rights$22,612,000Other$8,770,000Human Services$2,530,000Community Improvement$2,240,000Public Benefit$1,437,500Education$625,000Philanthropy$550,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFAITH IN MINNESOTA: $1,900,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetMichigan Peoples Campaign: $1,640,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,600,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNITE HERE ACTION FUND: $1,300,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetMAKE THE ROAD ACTION INC: $1,250,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetONE ARIZONA: $1,150,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetORGANIZE PENNSYLVANIA: $1,050,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $1,000,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMake North Carolina First: $950,000 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetVOCES DE LA FRONTERA ACTION INC: $800,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetDOWN HOME NC: $780,000 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA VOICE: $775,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetCAROLINA FEDERATION: $750,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetACTION TOGETHER NEPA: $650,000 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetRURAL ARIZONA ACTION: $625,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetOUR VOICE OUR VOTE ARIZONA: $625,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetSTATE POWER ACTION FUND: $600,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $550,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetBLACK MALE INITIATIVE FUND INC: $550,000 over 2y, 72% of budgetPOWER TO THE POLLS INC: $550,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetOhio Progressive Collaborative: $500,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetLIVING UNITED FOR CHANGE IN ARIZONA: $500,000 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetPROMOTE THE VOTE INC: $450,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetNCAAT IN ACTION: $400,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetUNITED FOR DEMOCRACY: $392,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetBLUEPRINT NORTH CAROLINA: $350,000 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetPA ALLIANCE ACTION: $350,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetMICHIGAN VOICES: $350,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetAmerica Votes: $300,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNew Pennsylvania Project: $225,000 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA STANDS UP INC: $200,000 over 2y, 8.2% of budgetFLORIDA RISING INC: $200,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE: $200,000 over 2y, 8.6% of budgetNew Rural Project: $200,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetBLACK MALE INITIATIVE GEORGIA INC: $200,000 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetCITIZEN ACTION OF WISCONSIN INC: $150,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $150,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGRASSROOTS ORGANIZING WESTERN WISCONSIN: $150,000 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $145,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetSPLC ACTION FUND: $125,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetPROGEORGIA STATE TABLE INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetOne Voice: $100,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetMI FAMILIA VOTA: $100,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCASA IN ACTION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetMI PODER: $100,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetNEW JERSEY WORKING FAMILIES ALLIANCE CORP: $100,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetMIIGWECH INC: $100,000 over 2y, 4.9% 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.

All Hands on Deck Net…America VotesSixteen Thirty FundTides AdvocacyWay to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…Tides FoundationWomen Donors Network …State Engagement FundNEO Philanthropy Acti…North FundWorking Families Orga…
All Hands on Deck Network IncMA122.8× affinity61 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: All Hands on Deck Network Inc · America Votes · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Tides Foundation · Women Donors Network Action · State Engagement Fund · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · North Fund · Working Families Organization 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 Pro-Democracy Campaign funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pro-Democracy Campaign. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Pro-Democracy Campaign?

    Find your warmest path to Pro-Democracy Campaign 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 108 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 Pro-Democracy Campaign’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