NOTE: This text was converted to HTML/Web format from a copy of the electronic file used to print the official document that was submitted to the court. This text was not derived from the official printed document itself, and may not be considered a legal copy of the official document. Although the text itself is believed to be identical to that of the originating electronic file, the nature of HTML format makes the exact layout of the text on the page somewhat unpredictable. As a result, this text will not exactly duplicate the appearance of the official printed document, and page numbers in particular should be discounted.

Hubert H. Humphrey III
Roberta J. Cordano
Minnesota Attorney General's Office
1200 NCL Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 296-1716





FRANCINE A. GIANI, in her official capacity as Division Director, Utah Division of Consumer Protection, Department of Commerce, State of Utah,


Civil No. 2:97-CV-610B


* Additional amici are listed on the following page.

Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant
Pinellas County Attorney Susan H. Churuti
Illinois Attorney General James E. Ryan
Kentucky Attorney General Ben Chandler
Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
Maine Attorney General Andrew Ketterer
Maryland Secretary of State John T. Willis
Michigan Attorney General Frank J. Kelley
Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark
New Hampshire Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin
New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero
New Mexico Attorney General Tom Udall
New York Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco
Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
Tennessee Attorney General John Knox Walkup
Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell
Washington Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire


This Memorandum of Amici Curiae in support of defendant Francine A. Giani, Division Director of Division of Consumer Protection, Department of Commerce, for the State of Utah, is submitted with all parties' consent by 16 state Attorneys General, 2 state Secretaries of State and a County Attorney.


The amici are public officials of state and local government agencies that are responsible for oversight of charitable organizations and professional fund-raisers, professional solicitors, professional fund-raising counsel (consultants) and commercial fund-raisers (hereinafter referred to collectively as “professional fund-raisers”).1 The primary purpose of the amici's oversight of professional fund-raisers is to assure that professional fund-raisers are publicly accountable and that financial information is made available to members of the public in their state or county so donors (actual and potential) can make informed choices on how to spend their charitable dollars. Registration is also a tool for law enforcement officials in the investigation of fraudulent, misleading or deceptive solicitation activities by professional fund-raisers and charities.

The amici have a strong interest in the current litigation against defendant because it is important that professional fund-raisers not be shielded from financial scrutiny by the public and public officials. Amici, as public officials with the primary responsibility for overseeing the fast-growing charitable solicitation industry, have a special interest in ensuring that donors and law enforcement agencies have access to information about how charitable dollars are spent by charitable organizations and professional fund-raisers. Further, the amici are firmly convinced that Utah's registration scheme for professional fund-raisers properly furthers the constitutionally permissible goal of providing information to Utah donors about the activities of charities and fund-raisers in Utah and elsewhere.


The business of soliciting charitable solicitations is a large and growing business with hundreds of billions of charitable dollars at stake. As donors face more and more choices on how they can spend their charitable dollars, their need for information about charities and professional fund-raisers will increase. Consequently, it is essential that professional fund-raisers, fund-raising counsel, and charities continue to be publicly accountable for how charitable funds are spent.

Charitable giving has risen dramatically in the last twenty years. In 1979, individuals contributed $36.54 billion to charitable organizations in the United States.2 By 1996, charitable giving from individuals more than tripled to $119.92 billion, an increase of $83.38 billion.3 There is no question that charitable giving is a large industry. As one author describes it, “[f]und-raising has become big business in the United States as Americans exercise their traditional approach to solving problems, advancing causes, and sustaining programs and institutions by private initiative and voluntary organization.”4 Moreover, it should be noted that individual (rather than corporate) giving constitutes the largest percentage of all charitable giving. For example, in 1996, individual contributions totaled 86.5 percent of the total $150.70 billion given to charitable organizations.5

Professional fund-raisers are an integral part of the charitable solicitation. Because of the increasing sophistication of this industry, charities rely on the expertise offered by professional fund-raisers (many of whom identify themselves as professional fund-raising counsel) to compete successfully for charitable donations.6 For example, direct mail solicitations, regularly received in many homes in America, are highly sophisticated. They bear the signature of famous people, have personal notes written across the page, bear post-it notes resembling hastily written pleas for money, and have blurred postmarks making it difficult to determine the point of origin of the letter.7 In addition, professional fund-raisers who plan direct mail campaigns have sophisticated techniques for targeting potential donors from available mailing lists.8

This reliance on professional fund-raisers (primarily fund-raising counsel) for direct mail and direct marketing campaigns is evident from a recent study commissioned by the Direct Marketing Associates. The study found that out of the approximately $120 billion contributed by individuals, more than half of the contributions were given through charitable solicitation campaigns. Approximately $65 billion was raised through direct marketing for non-profit organizations; much of it by professional fund-raisers, solicitors and fund-raising counsel.9

Professional fund-raisers may be called professional solicitors or professional fund-raising counsel in some states. As a rule, they are generally described as persons who, for profit or compensation, solicit or assist in the solicitation of contributions. They are usually for-profit entities that perform a variety of services such as drafting and mailing solicitation materials, designing fund-raising campaigns, planning and coordinating fund-raising campaigns, collecting donated funds, telemarketing or engaging in door-to-door solicitations. They may take a share (percentage) of the funds contributed, may be paid a flat fee or may be paid based on the number of solicitations (e.g., per letter). The extent to which these for-profit entities are characterized as professional solicitors, commercial fund-raisers, fund-raising counsel, etc., varies from state to state and depends on which functions are performed and each state's definition. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the extent and nature of their participation in the solicitation process and the amount of compensation they receive is set forth in the registration materials filed by the professional fund-raiser and/or the charity for which it solicits.

For example, professional fund-raisers are often asked to file with public officials copies of their contracts with their client charities. See e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 17-34-110(a) (1997); Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 6-501(b) (Supp. 1997); and Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.9, §5009 (West 1997). The contracts describe the nature and extent of the services to be provided and the compensation to be paid. From the contract, prospective donors may be able to determine, for instance, the amount of their contribution (or of all contributions) that will be paid to the fund-raiser. Additionally, professional fund-raisers may be required to file campaign reports which detail the amount of money raised in a solicitation campaign, the net expenses of the campaign and how much money was paid to the charity.

Indeed, from the data collected from registration materials filed by professional fund-raisers, public officials in various states have been able to track the activities of for-profit firms involved in charitable solicitation efforts and the charitable dollars that are used to pay for their fund-raising expenses. For example, in 1997 at least four Attorneys General released reports on professional fund-raisers. California's seventh annual report on commercial fund-raisers, found that less than 37 cents of every dollar (out of a total of $175 million) raised by commercial fund-raisers10 in California actually went to a charitable purpose.11 Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan's report found that registered professional fund-raisers reported that they raised $114 million and that charities received only $30 million. Professional fund-raiser fees averaged 74 cents of each dollar donated with charities netting only 26 cents of each dollar.12 New York Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco's findings in his report indicated that less than 37 percent of the $163.6 million raised in New York by professional telemarketers13 was given to charity.14 In Washington state, Attorney General Christine Gregoire's report states that of the $101 million collected by professional fund-raisers,15 $41 million went to charities, resulting just under 40 percent.16

Furthermore, California's report found that in 1996, out of the 525 commercial fund-raising campaigns run in California:

New York found that in 73.6 percent of the telemarketing campaigns less than 40 percent of the money raised was paid to charities.18 The following chart provides the breakdown of the statistics revealed by information filed by professional fund-raisers in New York.

Percent to Charity Number of Campaigns Percent of Campaigns
90-100+% 0 0%
80-89% 9 1.5%
70-79% 19 3.2%
60-69% 22 3.7%
50-59% 56 9.3%
40-49% 52 8.7%
30-39% 117 19.5%
20-29% 166 27.7%
10-19% 98 16.4%
Below 0-9% 60 10.0%19 

Washington's report similarly found that a full third of fund-raisers gave only 20 percent of the receipts to the charities and that 8 percent gave 10 percent or less to the charities.20


The movement of states to exercise oversight over professional fund-raisers began in the 1950's, in large part due to widely publicized deceptive practices in connection with solicitations.21 In response to the trilogy of Supreme Court cases that dealt with oversight of professional fund-raisers in the 1980's,22 many states revised their registration statutes to enhance the public accountability of professional fund-raisers and the charities on whose behalf they work to obtain charitable contributions. Currently, 42 states require professional fund-raisers to register and conform with their charitable solicitation statute.23

Registering charitable organizations and professional fund-raisers is the primary tool available to donors and law enforcement agencies to ensure the public disclosure of solicitation activities of charities and professional fund-raisers. Through registration, as one court wrote,

[t]he state can protect its citizens from fraudulent solicitation and insure that funds actually find their way to the organization for which the solicitation was given by requiring a stranger in the community to establish his identity and his authority to act for the cause he purports to represent before permitting him to publicly solicit funds for any purpose.

Church of Scientology Flag Services Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 756 F. Supp. 1498 (M.D.Fla. 1991).

State and local government agencies have refined their law enforcement role and have become virtually the best repositories of comprehensive information on charitable solicitation activities conducted by professional fund-raisers for donors in their own respective state or community. And, following a suggestion made by the Supreme Court in its Riley decision, public officials have publicized the information obtained from charities and their professional fund-raisers to educate donors. 24

Public officials have found that

[t]he systematic and timely release of accurate and comprehensive financial and programmatic information on charities and/or professional fund-raisers is an extremely useful regulatory tool. The public is hungry for this information, which is not readily available from any other source. When done properly, it is a powerful form of disclosure that is far more effective than the difficult-to-enforce disclosure provision declared unconstitutional in 1988.25

Hopkins, The Law of Fund-Raising, § 2.6 at 40-47 (2d ed. 1996 & Supp. 1998). As noted above, state Attorneys General's Offices have published reports about paid telephone soliciting and about key financial data on charities registered with their respective states.26 Maryland has a statutorily mandated state public information program.27 In most states, citizens can call their public official to obtain information on registered charitable organizations and professional fund-raisers.28 In addition, information is available on the Internet, and more states are implementing more sophisticated data processing techniques which will enable them to make the information more widely available.

Registration of professional fund-raisers sheds the light of disclosure onto fund-raising expenditures so that a giving public can make informed choices. Registration documents for professional fund-raisers provide information to donors and public officials that are not otherwise specifically available from reports generally filed by charities, including the number of campaigns conducted, the funds raised in each campaign, the amount given to the charity, and the financial compensation and expenses paid to the professional fund-raiser. In fact, donors use this information to determine the charity that will receive their donation and also to double-check information they receive during solicitations and, consequently, are often the first to detect and report fraudulent, misleading or deceptive practices by charities and professional fund-raisers.

The registration scheme in Utah and other statues and counties are vital because accompanying the rise of charitable contributions in this country has been an increase in sophistication among donors and a greater demand for information so donors can make informed choices about how to spend their charitable dollars. One long-time observer of this industry asserts that:

the public is demanding greater accountability from nonprofit, principally charitable organizations. The consumerism movement is causing individual and corporate donors to be more concerned and sophisticated about the uses of their gift dollars. The emphasis is now on disclosure; donors--prospective and actual--are demonstrating greater proclivity to inquire of federal, state and local agencies, lawmakers, independent “watchdog” agencies, and the philanthropic community itself about the fund-raising and fund-expenditure practices of charitable organizations.

Bruce R. Hopkins, The Law of Fund-Raising, at § 1.4 at 16-17. There is no question that a substantial portion of money donated for charitable purposes is spent for fund-raising and other purposes. To date, the only way for donors to find out what fund-raising activity is occurring in their state and how much a charity is paying a professional fund-raiser is to check the information (e.g., contracts and solicitation campaign reports) filed with their state or local authority.29 Unfortunately, no other sources of information on fund-raising costs provide the kind of data needed by citizens to determine the total percentage of their donated dollars that ends up in hands of professional fund-raisers rather than in the hands of the charity.

A recent case decided by the U.S. Tax Court demonstrates the importance of reviewing the contract between a charity and its professional fund-raiser and the results of solicitation campaigns, including expenses. Based on information from a contract and solicitation campaign results, the Tax Court upheld the IRS' revocation of a charity's tax-exempt status. Specifically, the court upheld the revocation of the tax exemption because according to the contract, the professional fund-raising counsel qualified as an “insider” under the IRS Code due to its excessive control over the charity's fund-raising and finances. The court also found that the compensation received by the professional fund-raising counsel under the contract, including the ability to rent the charity's donor names for its own account, was not balanced by the risk assumed by the fund-raising counsel. The court concluded that the professional fund-raising counsel ultimately controlled the charity's activities and that the excess compensation paid to the professional fund-raising counsel resulted in private inurement in violation of the IRS Code. United Cancer Council, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 109 T.C. No. 17, 1997 WL 739558 (U.S. Tax Ct.), Tax Ct. Rep. (CCH) 52,378 (December 2, 1997).

If Utah's professional fund-raiser registration statute is struck down, donors in Utah will have no way to learn about the activities of charities and professional fund-raisers in their state. They will have no ability to determine, for example, if a charity is indeed a local group seeking help or a big business mass mailing solicitations to millions of people. Moreover, in many instances, donors would not be able to trace the identity of the professional fund-raiser who was the driving force behind the design, planning and/or implementation of the charitable solicitation. Utah's professional fund-raiser registration statute, which is similar to many other states' statutes, provides the only means for donors in Utah and elsewhere to have access to critical information in a manner that survives scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Professional fund-raiser registration statutes as a whole have been repeatedly upheld by the courts. See Special Programs, Inc. v. Courter, 923 F. Supp. 851 (E.D. Va. 1996) (holding that the record-keeping and registration requirements imposed on professional solicitors were constitutional); Dayton Area Visually Impaired Persons v. Fisher, 70 F.3d 1474, 1484 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that with the exception of the limits on organizations distributing information on missing children, the regulatory scheme and reporting requirements were constitutional); National Awareness Foundation v. Abrams, 50 F.3d 1159 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that First Amendment does not preclude license fees that serve as a means to meet administrative expenses incident to regulation and to the maintenance of public order in the matter regulated); Church of Scientology Flag Services Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 756 F. Supp. 1498 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (where the court upheld the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance regulating charitable fund-raising by means of features such as the filing of a registration statement, maintenance of records, annual reports, and prohibited acts); Indiana Voluntary Firemen's Association, Inc. v. Pearson, 700 F. Supp. 421, 448 (S.D. Ind. 1988) (holding that decision to strike down mandated point-of-contact disclosure, post-solicitation disclosure and fee arrangement does not affect remainder of registration statute); Heritage Pub. Co. v. Fishman, 634 F. Supp. 1489, 1499 (D. Minn. 1986) (holding that majority of statute was constitutional with exception of provisions that limited fund-raising expenditures).

When courts have struck down portions of professional fund-raiser registration statutes, they have limited their rulings to specific provisions of those statutes that imposed fund-raising caps and mandated point-of-contact disclosures related to the percentage of funds that are paid to professional fund-raisers.30 See e.g., Riley, 487 U.S. at 785, 803; Munson, 467 U.S. at 962-969; Schaumberg, 444 U.S. at 633-640; National Federation of the Blind of Colorado, Inc. and Fraternal Order of Police, Colorado Metroplex, Inc. v. Norton, No. Civ. A. 97-K-1396, 1997 WL 726029, at *3 (D. Colo., November 20, 1997) (holding that mandatory point-of-contact disclosure of “three-day cooling-off period” is unconstitutional); Kentucky State Police Professional Association v. Gorman, 870 F.Supp. 166 (E.D.Ky. 1994) (holding unconstitutional the requirement that solicitor must disclose at point-of-contact the fact that solicitor is receiving 50% or more of gross receipts to avoid violation of statute prohibiting false, misleading and deceptive practices); Indiana Voluntary Firemen's Association, Inc. v. Pearson, supra, at 442-447 (holding unconstitutional provisions that required disclosure of percentage of contribution that will be paid to organization and consultant and that required a post-solicitation disclosure of solicitor's fee arrangement, but upheld disclosure of solicitor's professional status). Never has the Court struck down the professional fund-raiser registration process itself. In fact, the Court in Riley implicitly upheld the registration statute when it suggested that states use the registration materials to make important disclosures to prospective donors. Riley, 487 U.S. at 800.

In only one case has a court dealt directly with the issue of personal jurisdiction. In that case, which dealt with ATA's predecessor Richard A. Viguerie Company, Inc.,31 the court held that the nature of the compensation received, the nature of the advice and expertise provided, and the financial relationship between the fund-raising consultant and the charity (including first claim on future contributions), constituted sufficient minimum contacts for the fund-raising consultant to be subject to New York's regulatory statutes.32


Soliciting charitable contributions is a huge and competitive business which has long been subject to oversight by public officials. The person often attributed with providing the catalyst for oversight over fund-raisers in the United States best stated the single most important goal of oversight of charities and fund-raisers: “The greatest possible portion of the wealth donated to private charity must be conserved and used to further the charitable, public purpose; waste must be minimized and diversion of funds for private gain intolerable.”33 Through the registration process for both charities and professional fund-raisers are donors able to ensure that the use of their charitable dollars is maximized and that recipient charities make prudent decisions regarding fund-raising expenses. Amici request that the Court uphold Utah's professional fund-raiser registration statute so the Department of Commerce can continue its important function of overseeing charitable solicitation activities in Utah and ensuring that professional fund-raisers and fund-raising counsel are publicly accountable to Utah donors in connection with charitable solicitations.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney General
State of Minnesota

Assistant Attorney General
Attorney Reg. No. 210213

Suite 1200 NCL Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-2130
(612) 296-1716 (voice)
(612) 282-5252 (tty)


Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant
Pinellas County Attorney Susan H. Churuti
Illinois Attorney General James E. Ryan
Kentucky Attorney General Ben Chandler
Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
Maine Attorney General Andrew Ketterer
Maryland Secretary of State John T. Willis
Michigan Attorney General Frank J. Kelley
Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark
New Hampshire Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin
New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero
New Mexico Attorney General Tom Udall
New York Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco
Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
Tennessee Attorney General John Knox Walkup
Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell
Washington Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire


I hereby certify that I caused to be served the foregoing Memorandum of Amici Curiae Hubert H. Humphrey III, Minnesota Attorney General in Support of Defendant, by depositing true copies thereof in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on the 6th day of January, 1998, addressed to the following:

Mark Fitzgibbons
General Counsel
American Target Advertising
12500 Fair Lakes Circle #155
Fairfax, VA 22033 and

Brent O. Hatch
Paul G. Cassel
Johnson & Hatch PC
10 W. Broadway Ste. 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2065

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jeffrey S. Gray
Rebecca D. Waldron
Assistant Attorneys General
Utah Attorney General's Office
160 E. 300 South, 5th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0872

Attorneys for Defendant 



1 For citations to amici's professional fund-raiser statutes, see infra at note 23. See also Pinellas County Code § 42-292 (1995). (The state of New Mexico does not currently have a professional fund-raiser registration statute.)

2 Bruce R. Hopkins, Charity Under Siege: Government Regulation Of Fund Raising 13 (1980) (citing Giving USA, 1980 Report of American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel).

3 Giving USA (AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, 1997) at 16.

4 Hopkins, supra, at 28.

5 Giving USA (AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, 1997) at 18. The 86.5 % figure includes bequests given by individuals. Bequests constituted 6.9% of all contributions and individual contributions constituted 79.6%.

6 See e.g., Matthew Sinclair, Envelopes Key Extremely Urgent Response: But, Make Sure the Message Is Important, The Nonprofit Times Direct Marketing Edition, August 15, 1997, at 1.

7 Susan Headden, The Junk Mail Deluge, U.S. News And World Report, December 8, 1997, at 40.

8 See, e.g., Rose Harper, Mailing List Strategies: A Guide To Direct Mail Success (1986).

9 Dial M for Money, Responsive Philanthropy, Fall 1997, at 10.

10 Under California's statute, “commercial fund-raisers” means any individual or business, other than a charity, the charity's employees or unpaid volunteers, who for compensation solicits funds for charitable purposes, or who receives or controls funds raised in California through charitable solicitations. Cal. Gov't Code § 12599 (1992 & Supp. 1998).

11 Attorney General Daniel Lungren, Attorney General's Report on Charitable Solicitations by Commercial Fundraisers, December 1997 at 1.

12 Attorney General Jim Ryan, Professional Fund-raising Report, July 1997, at 12, 14.

13 Although New York also requires professional fund-raising counsel and professional fund-raisers to register, this report only covered results from campaigns conducted by telemarketers. See N.Y. Executive Law §§ 171-a. to 177 (McKinney 1993 & Supp. 1997).

14 Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Pennies for Charity, October 1997 at ii.

15 Washington's report only includes figures from registered commercial fund-raisers.

16 Attorney General Christine Gregoire, How Much for Charity? How Much for Profit and Expenses?, November 17, 1997 at 1.

17 Lungren, supra, at 24. California's report also included a strong message about the need to register professional fund-raising counsel. In its report, California observed that “[m]any companies that previously reported to the Attorney General as “commercial fund-raisers” now claim to be “fundraising counsel,” and thereby exempt from reporting to the Attorney General.” This concern echoes the concern of many donors and states that if professional fund-raising counsel are not required to register, information about for-profit companies that oversee and conduct direct mail campaigns, without having any custody of funds, will not be available for scrutiny.

18 Vacco, supra, at ii.

19 Id.

20 Gregoire, supra, at 1.

21 See Leslie Espinoza, Straining the Quality of Mercy: Abandoning the Quest for Informed Charitable Giving, 64 S. Cal. L. Rev., 605, 635-47 (1991) (In the United States, contrary to history of oversight of charities in England, charities were always overseen by local public officials because charities have traditionally been local entities that were closely related to the religious and social community).

22 See Riley v. Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988); Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson, 467 U.S. 947 (1984); Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980).

23 See Ala. Code §§ 13A-9-70-84 (Supp. 1997); Alaska Stat. § 45.68.010-.900 (1996); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-6551 to 6561 (1994 & Supp. 1997); Ark. Code Ann. § 17-41-101 to 111 (1995); Cal. Gov't Code § 12599 (1992 & Supp. 1998); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-16-101 to 104 (1997); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 21a-175 to 190l (1997); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2591-97 (Supp. 1996); Fla. Stat. ch. 496.401-426 (1995); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 43-17-1 to 23 (1994 & Supp. 1997); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 467B-1 to 14 (1993 & Supp. 1994); Ill. Ann. Stat. 225 ILCS, paras. 460/1-460/23 (Smith-Hurd 1997); Ind. Code Ann. §§ 23-7-8-1 to 9 (Burns 1995); Iowa Code §§ 13C.1-8 (1995); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1759 to 1775 (1995); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 367.650-667 (Michie/Bobbs-Merrill 1997); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, §§ 5001-16 (West 1997); Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. §§ 6-101 to 621 (Supp. 1997); Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 68, §§ 18-35 (Law Co-op 1991 & Supp. 1997); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 400.271-293 (1997); Minn. Stat. §§ 309.50-.60 (1996); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 79-11-501 to 529 (Supp. 1997); Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 407.450-478 (Vernon 1990 & Supp. 1998); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 7:19-7:32b (1988 & Supp. 1997); N.J. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45-17A-25 to 40 (1995 & Supp. 1997); N.Y. Executive Law §§ 171-a. to 177 (McKinney 1993 & Supp. 1997); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 131F-1 to 33 (1997); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 50-22-01 to 05 (Supp. 1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1716.01-99 (Anderson 1997); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, §§ 552.1-18 (1986 & Supp. 1998); Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 128.801-.995 (1995); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 162.1-24 (Supp. 1997); R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 5-53-1 to 14 (1995 & Supp. 1997); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 33-56-10 to 200 (Supp. 1997); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-101-501 to 508 (Supp. 1997); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Arts. 9023b and c (West Supp. 1998) (only applies to professional fund-raisers soliciting on behalf of certain organizations); Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-22-2 to 21 (Supp. 1997); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, §§ 2471-79 (1993 & Supp. 1997); Va. Code Ann. §§ 57-48 to 69 (1995 & Supp. 1997); Wa. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 19.09.020-.915 (Supp. 1997); W. Va. Code §§ 29-19-2 to 15 (Supp. 1997); Wis. Stat. §§ 440.41-48 (West 1997).

24 In Riley, 487 U.S. at 800, the Court followed its reasoning in Munson, that it is constitutional to require filing information with public officials. The Court stated that a state “may itself publish the detailed financial disclosure forms it requires professional fund-raisers to file.” Also, in Schaumberg, 444 U.S. at 637-38, the Court said, “Efforts to promote disclosure of the finances of charitable organizations also may assist in preventing fraud by informing the public of the ways in which their contributions will be employed.”

25 Hopkins, The Law of Fund-Raising, § 2.6 at 40-47 (2nd ed. 1996 & Supp. 1998).

26 See supra, at notes 11, 12, 14, and 16; see also Hubert H. Humphrey III, Minnesota Attorney General, 1995, Checking on Charities, 1996 and 1997 (reports on charities that include fund-raising expenses); Dennis C. Vacco, New York Attorney General, Pennies for Charity , 1995, 1996 and 1997; Where the Money Goes, 1996 and 1997; Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Vermont Attorney General, Paid Fundraising in Vermont 1990-1992, June 1993.

27 Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 6-201 (Supp. 1997).

28 New Jersey's statute mandates this service be available. See N.J. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45:17A-37 (1995).

29 The IRS Form 990 filed by charitable organizations with many states does not provide accurate or complete information about how much money is actually paid to professional fund-raisers.

31 Richard Viguerie is the President of ATA.

32 State of New York v. Richard A. Viguerie Company, 86 Misc.2d 506, 382 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. Sup. 1976), modified on other grounds, 55 A.b.2d 535, 389 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1976).

33 Kenneth L. Karst, The Efficiency of the Charitable Dollar: An Unfulfilled State Responsibility, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 433-34 (1960).

Posted online at the:
Online Compendium of Federal and State Regulations for U.S. Nonprofit Organizations
Converted to HTML by Eric Mercer
Page last modified 03Mar99