Arabella finances how much each year and to who? still active?
Executive summary
Arabella Advisors manages and advises a network that handled roughly $1.2 billion in revenue across its four nonprofit subsidiaries in 2023, funnels large sums through vehicles such as the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund, and has been a central conduit for major progressive philanthropy and grantmaking in recent years [1] [2] [3]. The network’s outputs—grants to hundreds of domestic recipients and tens of millions to foreign recipients—are documented in IRS filings, but donor identities are often opaque because 501(c) law does not require donor disclosure, producing persistent debates over “dark money” versus legal fiscal sponsorship [4] [3] [5].
1. What Arabella moves each year: size, growth and recent totals
Public reporting and watchdog tallies show explosive growth: Arabella‑managed revenue expanded from roughly $332 million in 2015 to nearly $1.7 billion in 2020, with the network managing about $1.2 billion of revenue across its four nonprofit subsidiaries in 2023, marking it as one of the largest philanthropic fiscal‑sponsorship machines in the U.S. nonprofit world [3] [1]. Specific program numbers surface in tax filings: for example, the three principal Arabella charities—the New Venture Fund, Windward Fund and Hopewell Fund—reported more than $97.4 million in grants to foreign recipients in 2023, while the New Venture Fund alone listed hundreds of domestic grant recipients on its 2023 Schedule I [4].
2. To whom that money flows: recipients and patterns
Grants routed through Arabella affiliates reach a sprawling set of recipients, from national issue groups to state advocacy organizations and news projects; commentators and filings cite recipients such as Blueprint NC, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Democracy North Carolina, North Carolina Justice Center, States Newsroom, ACLU affiliates and Common Cause among others [6]. Reporting from watchdogs and media also documents programmatic spending—Sixteen Thirty Fund’s large expenditures on election-related advocacy and New Venture Fund grants to hundreds of domestic organizations—demonstrating the network’s role as a pass‑through and incubator for advocacy and media projects [5] [4].
3. Who funds Arabella (known donors) and why some identities are hidden
Tracing upstream donors is difficult by design: 501(c) nonprofits are not required to publicly name donors, so watchdog reconstructions rely on disclosed grants, occasional public acknowledgements, and investigative reporting; known large funders reported or associated in coverage include philanthropies and individuals such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar, while other major foundations and donor-advised vehicles have been named in analyst compilations—but many gifts remain unattributed in public filings [2] [3] [7]. Critics call this “dark money” and warn it obscures accountability, while defenders argue fiscal sponsorship and donor privacy are lawful and enable effective philanthropic pooling [5] [3].
4. Is Arabella still active today? corporate changes and ongoing operations
Arabella’s operating model continues: the firm and its affiliated funds remain active as grantmakers and advisors, though the structure has shifted over time—reporting notes an acquisition by Sunflower Services and indicates Arabella directly managed the four major nonprofits at the time of that transaction, with those nonprofits financing Sunflower Services according to the press release cited in public records [1]. OpenSecrets reporting shows Arabella Advisors did not report outside spending for the 2024 election cycle and had no recorded federal lobbying in that cycle, which is compatible with continued nonprofit grantmaking even when direct electoral spending or federal lobbying receipts are absent [8].
5. Why the debate persists: transparency, legality and political framing
The controversy around Arabella is as much about legal structures as about politics: multiple outlets have called the network a “dark‑money behemoth” and spotlighted its role in progressive campaign and policy efforts, while pro‑Arabella sources defend fiscal sponsorship as a standard philanthropic tool and point to compliance with tax rules; both critiques and defenses cite the same public filings and examples—large programmatic disbursements, pooled funding, and anonymous upstream donors—to support opposing narratives [5] [3] [2]. Reporting limitations remain: public filings document amounts moving through Arabella‑affiliated nonprofits and many named recipients, but do not reliably reveal which individual donors financed specific downstream grants, leaving a factual gap that fuels both policy calls for disclosure and critiques of “money‑laundering” tactics [4] [5] [3].