Congress Advances Nonprofit Disclosure Bills on Party-Line Votes — A Transparency Group’s Honest Reading

On July 24, 2026, the House Ways and Means Committee advanced four bills aimed at disclosure in the tax-exempt sector. Citizens United for Transparency supports the underlying principle. We also think an organization that asks others to be candid owes candor about the vote margins, and those margins were close to party-line.

What the committee approved

According to the committee’s own announcement and its markup record:

• H.R. 9772, the Foreign Funding Transparency Act, approved 23–18.
• H.R. 9771, the Stopping Foreign Influence in Elections Act, approved 23–16.
• H.R. 9721, the Fiscal Sponsorship Transparency Act, approved 23–15.
• H.R. 9722, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act, approved 23–16.

The markup followed a February 10, 2026 full committee hearing, “Foreign Influence in American Non-profits: Unmasking Threats from Beijing and Beyond.”

Separately, on April 23, 2026, the Treasury Department announced a Form 990 Transparency Initiative intended to improve the usability and completeness of the disclosures nonprofits already file.

Fiscal sponsorship is the substantive gap

Of the four, H.R. 9721 addresses the mechanism most likely to matter in the data center fight specifically. Fiscal sponsorship allows a project to operate under an established nonprofit’s tax exemption without filing its own Form 990. It is a legitimate and often necessary arrangement for small community groups that cannot afford separate incorporation. It also means that a nationally coordinated campaign can appear on paper as a line item inside an unrelated organization’s return.

Both of those things are true simultaneously. A disclosure rule written well protects the neighborhood group and illuminates the national campaign. A disclosure rule written badly does the reverse.

Why the vote count concerns us

A disclosure standard that arrives on a 23–18 vote is a disclosure standard that the other side will be tempted to repeal. Transparency law works only when it is understood as neutral plumbing rather than as a weapon aimed at a particular set of organizations. We would rather see a narrower bill pass 40–1 than a broad one pass 23–18.

We also note the obvious objection to bills of this kind, and we think it is a serious one: compelled disclosure of donors has a real history of being used against unpopular causes, and the constitutional law in this area is not settled. Any organization that supports disclosure without acknowledging that history is not being straight with the public.

Our own commitment

Citizens United for Transparency commits to meeting any disclosure standard we ask of others, on the same timeline, whether or not the law requires it of us. If these bills become law, we will comply as though we were among the largest organizations covered. If they do not, we will publish the equivalent information voluntarily.

It is easy to demand sunlight from other people’s windows.

# # #

---

---

Note on sources and fairness. This is a news summary compiled by Citizens United for Transparency from public reporting, official government records, court filings, and organizations’ own published statements, each linked above. It does not allege that any specific person or organization has engaged in unlawful conduct. Allegations described in lawsuits, letters, or audits are allegations only, and all parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. Where material is reposted or excerpted from another organization, it is identified as that organization’s statement and reproduction does not constitute endorsement. Corrections are welcome and will be posted.

---

Media & tips: Contact us — we welcome confidential submissions from the public, researchers, and officials.

← Back to all news updates