Wmc Litigation Center Inc

What it reported doing in 2025

The wmc litigation center ("litigation center") is dedicated to lessening the burdens of government through litigation and educating the public about economic freedom and related issues through communications, outreach, and legal and policy education. The litigation center's core mission is to represent clients in legal actions to foster and protect the free enterprise system. The litigation center defends the business community and individuals from government entities that act beyond their authority by commencing lawsuits, filing amicus briefs, and assisting outside counsel in select cases. The litigation center is committed to providing high-quality legal services. As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, public-interest law firm, the litigation center does not collect fees from its clients for its services. In calendar year 2025, the litigation center represented clients in a total of 13 legal matters. The matters fall into seven main categories: administrative law, environmental law, separation of powers, economic liberty, property rights, and government transparency. Benaszeski v. Wisconsin department of natural resources(jefferson county circuit court, case number 2025cv506)the litigation center filed this lawsuit in 2025 on behalf of two individuals who own land that was allegedly contaminated by a gas station that owned the land several decades ago. The lawsuit alleges that Wisconsin law does not impose liability on innocent landowners and, if it does, it is unconstitutional. This lawsuit seeks to benefit the public generally by eliminating "innocent landowner and "innocent buyer" liability under Wisconsin's spills law. This form of liability is patently unfair and is financially ruining homeowners and small businesses across Wisconsin.the litigation center did not seek or obtain any fees in this matter. Wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, inc. V. Village of pewaukee(Wisconsin court of appeals, case number 2025ap2013; waukesha county circuit court, case number 2022cv515)the litigation center is representing a not-for-profit business trade association in this matter. In march 2024, the Wisconsin court of appeals issued a written opinion which concluded that the village of pewaukee's so-called transportation user fee is an "impermissible tax." in november 2024, the litigation center filed a motion asking the trial court to hold pewaukee in contempt because pewaukee continued imposing this unlawful tax on all property owners village-wide after the Wisconsin court of appeals struck it down. The trial court held a hearing, found pewaukee in contempt, and ordered pewaukee to reimburse all its property owners for the unlawful taxes they paid since the court of appeals decision. In early 2025, the litigation center filed a reply brief supporting its contempt motion. Because the litigation center succeeded on its contempt motion, it filed a motion seeking attorney fees and two supporting briefs. The trial court denied the request for attorney fees, so the litigation center filed an appeal. In late 2025, the litigation center filed an opening brief in the appeal seeking attorney fees. This contempt proceeding sought to benefit the public generally by deterring local governments from imposing unlawful taxes, especially after a court has struck them down. This contempt proceeding thus encourages the government to comply with court rulings. This contempt proceeding thus seeks to benefit the public generally by forcing a village government to operate within the limits of its legal authority and to comply with a court ruling. In addition, this contempt proceeding sought to benefit the public generally by obtaining a refund of unlawful taxes for all property owners in this village. The request and appeal seeking attorney fees benefit the public for many of the same reasons. More generally, it is in the public interest for a court to award attorney fees to a not-for-profit legal organization. The litigation center did not seek or obtain any fe

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
• Program expense ratio: 92.7%; rating input score 93
• Fundraising efficiency: $158.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 20th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 103.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 33% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 29.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 26.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings