How do fiscal-sponsorship nonprofits like Sixteen Thirty Fund regrant money and what transparency rules govern them?

1. What “fiscal sponsorship” means in practice

Fiscal sponsorship is a relationship in which an established nonprofit provides administrative, legal, and financial services to nascent or temporary projects so those projects can operate under the sponsor’s tax-exempt umbrella instead of obtaining separate nonprofit status; Sixteen Thirty Fund explicitly describes that model on its site and says it uses fiscal sponsorship to “maximize our impact” and support projects on policy and social-change goals ^[1]. In that arrangement donations are made to the sponsor, which then pays staff, contractors, vendors, grants, or stipends for project activities; projects typically operate as programs or separately branded initiatives but remain legally part of the sponsoring entity unless a spin-off occurs ^[1].

2. How regranting and payments typically flow

Operationally, the sponsor receives contributions, records them on its tax filings and internal ledgers, and then issues payments to project budgets, vendors, consultants, media firms, and other payees as program expenses or subgrants; public databases such as ProPublica’s nonprofit explorer capture tax returns and some expense line items, which can include payments tied to sponsored projects ^[4]. For groups that also engage in political activity, payments can appear as either advocacy program expenses, independent expenditures through affiliated committees, or as transfers to other legal vehicles — the result is that tracing a specific donor to a specific ad, policy campaign, or local project often requires piecing together tax filings, FEC records, and state filings ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Transparency rules that apply to 501(c) fiscal sponsors

501(c) social welfare organizations must file IRS Form 990s that report revenue, grants, and some program descriptions, but they are not required to publicly list the names of their donors on those federal tax returns; Sixteen Thirty Fund’s tax-exempt status and associated disclosures have been described in public filings and state-level charity registration notices, but donor nondisclosure for 501(c)s remains a legal standard unless other laws apply ^{[3] [2]}. When fiscal sponsors spend on federal election activity or coordinate with political committees they may trigger FEC reporting requirements for the committees that run the ads or make independent expenditures, but the sponsor itself can often avoid itemizing donors tied to those payments under current rules ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Practical limits on public visibility and where transparency exists

Public visibility comes from a patchwork: Form 990s available via ProPublica and other databases show high-level revenue and expense totals and sometimes grant recipients ^[4], state charity registries can provide annual reports or registration details ^[3], and federal campaign finance filings reveal independent expenditures and committee payees ^[5]. However, investigative outlets, watchdogs, and Congress often point out that these records rarely provide a direct, contemporaneous ledger connecting anonymous donors to specific political spending conducted through fiscal-sponsorship channels, which is why entities like OpenSecrets and Ballotpedia track outside spending and the sponsor’s role as a hub ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

5. Contention, oversight, and competing narratives

Critics characterize organizations like Sixteen Thirty Fund as conduits of “dark money” because of the donor nondisclosure allowed for 501(c)s and the breadth of projects the sponsor incubates, a narrative reflected in summaries such as Wikipedia’s profile and in congressional oversight inquiries launched into specific programs and alleged efforts to evade campaign finance laws ^{[9] [10]}. The organization and its supporters counter that fiscal sponsorship is a legitimate philanthropic tool for operational efficiency and that they comply with tax law while advocating for greater transparency reforms publicly ^{[1] [2]}. The facts in public records show compliance with required filings but also reveal structural gaps that enable donors to remain anonymous to the public; whether that anonymity represents lawful private giving or a loophole requiring reform is precisely the policy debate reflected across reporting and oversight ^{[4] [10]}.

6. Bottom line

Fiscal-sponsorship nonprofits regrant money by receiving funds into the sponsor, recording and categorizing those funds on internal and tax documents, and then paying projects, vendors, and political efforts from their accounts; transparency for those flows exists in tax filings and campaign-finance disclosures but is limited because 501(c) law does not require public donor disclosure, producing both legitimate operational flexibility and recurring questions about undisclosed political influence ^{[1] [4] [2]}.