How does Indivisible's funding model compare to other progressive organizations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Indivisible’s funding is a hybrid of small-dollar grassroots donations and significant foundation and wealthy-donor support: reporting in 2017 put nearly $6 million raised since inception from small donors plus major backers such as Reid Hoffman and Democracy Alliance–linked foundations, and later reporting says Indivisible Project received over $7.6 million from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2017 [1] [2]. Indivisible combines those revenue streams with an active Distributed Fundraising program and internal grant programs that route money to local chapters [3] [4].
1. How Indivisible actually raises money — a hybrid model
Indivisible presents itself as both a grassroots movement and a professionalized national operation: it collects small online donations while also receiving multi‑million dollar grants from major foundations and wealthy individual donors. The New York Times’ earlier reporting summarized growth tied to Reid Hoffman and Democracy Alliance–linked funders, and Wikipedia and other summaries note roughly $6–7.6 million in major giving since 2017 alongside small donations [2] [1]. Indivisible’s own materials show formal programs — a Distributed Fundraising program and internal grant lines like the GROW program — designed to collect and redistribute funds within the network [3] [5].
2. What that mix means in practice — central support, local activity
Indivisible uses central funding to underwrite capacity-building and to enable local groups to fundraise under its umbrella rather than incorporate separately. The Distributed Fundraising program allows local groups to accept and spend money without forming a legal nonprofit, and grant programs explicitly fund collaboration, leadership development and technical capacity for member groups [3] [4]. That structure makes Indivisible’s on-the-ground footprint look grassroots while practical support often flows from centralized donors and organizational infrastructure [3] [5].
3. How this compares to other progressive organizations — similar but with distinct mechanics
Available sources do not provide a systematic, side‑by‑side dataset comparing Indivisible’s funding shares with peer groups. However, the pattern — a combination of small donors plus foundation and major-donor grants — is a common model among national progressive advocacy groups; Indivisible’s distinguishing features in reporting are the prominence of specific big donors (e.g., Reid Hoffman, Open Society Foundations) cited in prior coverage and its explicit Distributed Fundraising mechanism that routes fundraising through a national 501(c) [2] [1] [3]. For a precise numerical comparison to other organizations, available sources do not mention aggregated comparative figures.
4. Transparency and reporting — public footprint and limits
Public records and watchdog databases show activity but have limits. OpenSecrets profiles note Indivisible Project’s filings and that it did not report federal lobbying in one cycle, and the FEC lists Indivisible Action as an active hybrid PAC — indicating multiple legal vehicles for political activity [6] [7]. Wikipedia and InfluenceWatch summarize reported major grants and donor names but rely on prior press reporting; they provide totals (e.g., the Open Society figure) but not a full, current donor ledger [1] [2]. That mix of public filings and secondary reporting leaves gaps about exact current revenue shares between small donors, foundations and wealthy individuals [6] [1].
5. Critiques and alternative readings — grassroots vs. professionalized advocacy
Observers offer two competing frames. Supporters emphasize local agency — Indivisible’s playbook and distributed fundraising let neighborhood groups organize without heavy legal burdens [3] [8]. Critics call the model “hybrid” or worry about “astroturfing,” arguing that large donors and foundations can direct national strategy even where local activism is visible; scene summaries and InfluenceWatch note both small-dollar donations and large backers in the mix [9] [2]. Both claims are supported in available reporting: Indivisible’s materials show distributed local funding mechanisms, while multiple secondary sources have documented major donors contributing millions [3] [2] [1].
6. What to watch next — transparency, donor disclosures, and comparative data
To judge how Indivisible’s funding stacks against other progressive groups, look for updated IRS Form 990s, FEC filings for Indivisible Action, and foundation grant databases that list recent grants — sources that would show current proportions of small vs. large gifts. Current reporting notes specific large donors and foundation totals through 2025 but does not supply a full breakdown of current revenue shares or a comparative dataset across organizations [1] [2] [6]. Available sources do not mention an exhaustive, up‑to‑date comparative accounting.
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on the supplied documents; those sources provide donor names and multi‑million grant totals but do not contain a comprehensive, up‑to‑date accounting or direct comparisons across the broader progressive ecosystem [2] [1] [3].