American Economic Liberties Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843989657
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
5033478728
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,526,115
Expenses
$3,666,341
Assets
$4,196,831
Liabilities
$406,841

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NIDHI HEGDE (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM JAN 2024))
  • FAIZ SHAKIR (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU JAN 2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • NIDHI HEGDE (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM JAN 2024)): $199,530 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW STOLLER (DIRECTOR, RESEARCH): $180,922 total reported compensation
  • LORI WALLACH (DIRECTOR, RETHINK TRADE): $178,219 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The american economic liberties project's educational and charitable purposes are to research economic concentration in america, and study the history of competition policy, from the founding until today.

What it reported doing in 2024

To support its educational and charitable purposes, aelp's policy work continued to focus on issues like antitrust reform, junk fees, drug pricing and shortages, noncompetes, digital trade, labor and industrial policy. Aelp produced 44 reports, policy briefs, academic papers, policy digests, and fact sheets, submitted 7 comments to various agencies, and led or joined 68 letters on key policy fights. Aelp also hosted 8 policy briefings on topics such as doj's trial against google, the harms of pharmacy benefit managers, and how to ban junk fees.to shape the narrative around addressing corporate power broadly and a number of policy goals specifically, aelp's prolific strategic communications operation included 60 articles and op-eds, 991 earned print mentions and 102 tv, radio and podcast hits, video partnerships with other nonprofits that generated 374,000+ social media view, and supported staff newsletters with 171,000+ subscribers. Aelp works in partnership with allied organizations on policy priorities, issue campaigns, and events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $168.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.8% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $145K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.