1
Introduction
Nonprofit organizations are at the heart of political advocacy that shapes the laws and
society in which we live. They are the vehicles by which problems are identified, publicized,
and addressed through changes in local, state, and national law. Indeed, they have been the
structures through which some of the most important social issues of our time have found their
voice including women’s suffrage, child labor, civil rights, tax reform, and environmental
protection. So vital is this role that one nonprofit scholar stated nonprofit advocacy “may…be
more important to the nation’s social health than the service functions the sector also performs”
(Salamon, 2002:9).
A variety of charitable, community, labor, corporate and other interests use nonprofit
sector organizations to lobby lawmakers, educate the public on issues, and stimulate voter
turnout in elections. Some nonprofit organizations are in fact well known for their advocacy
efforts, for example, the National Organization for Women (NOW), Sierra Club, and the
National Rifle Association (NRA) (Boris and Krehely, 2002). While much attention has been
given to how these groups influence policy, little has been written on how policy shapes their
organizational structures and finances and consequently their advocacy practices.
Tax and election laws have encouraged nonprofits active in policy making and elections
to establish themselves as separate but related tax-exempt organizations, bound by different
laws, and structured to gain the widest possible advocacy advantage. The authors refer to these
related organizations as complex organizational structures. Specifically, complex
organizational structures are institutional arrangements of separate tax-exempt organizations
interrelated through overlapping boards, shared administrative and fundraising costs, and shared
policy goals. Components of a complex organizational structure used for policy and election-
Convention