Free Speech for People Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450709993
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Amherst, MA, USA
Phone
4132532700
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Liberties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,287,603
Expenses
$2,347,309
Assets
$6,097,115
Liabilities
$132,852

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BONIFAZ (PRESIDENT & BOARD CLERK)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN BONIFAZ (PRESIDENT & BOARD CLERK): $258,720 total reported compensation
  • COURTNEY HOSTETLER (LEGAL DIRECTOR): $196,364 total reported compensation
  • OSKE BUCKLEY (DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE): $127,502 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Free speech for people works to renew democracy and the united states constitution for the people, not big money and corporate interests. The organization catalyzes and advances the movement to amend the u.s. Constitution to overturn citizens united, buckley v. Valeo, mccutcheon v. Fec, and the fabrication of corporate constitutional rights. The organization engages in legal advocacy to advance a new jurisprudence on money in politics and to confront the misuse of the u.s. Constitution to claim corporate exemptions from our laws. The organization develops and advocates for model laws and other tools to challenge big money in politics and to make corporations responsible and accountable to the public. The organization challenges corruption at the highest levels of government and leads campaigns for accountability under the law. The organization works to fight for free and fair elections.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal advocacy program - free speech for people's legal advocacy program engages in legal advocacy, public education, and organizing to push back in the courts against the supreme court's rulings in citizens united v. Fec and buckley v. Valeo and the legal doctrines underlying those rulings. In addition, the legal advocacy program seeks to ensure the integrity of local elections by challenging foreign corporate influence and super pacs. This program adds legal depth, experience and expertise to the growing movement in the united states to reclaim our democracy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 17th 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: 28.6%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.6; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $259K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.