Sign in Subscribe

The Problem of the DSA Fund

Christina W, Shane K.

• 11 min read

The DSA Fund, envisioned as a sister organization to the Democratic Socialists of America, has increasingly diverged from DSA’s core democratic principles. What was once conceived as a complement to DSA’s work has now become a source of significant tension within the movement. While both organizations share the DSA name, the Fund’s governance structure and political priorities no longer reflect the growing diversity or the leftward shift within DSA. This disconnect is particularly evident as the Fund’s leadership increasingly mirrors an older, more conservative faction within the broader socialist movement, straying from the evolving direction of DSA. The Fund’s approach, marked by a lack of democratic accountability and insular decision-making, undermines the very values DSA champions. This raises pressing questions about the Fund’s role and its alignment with DSA’s changing mission and membership.

In this piece, we outline the fundamental contradictions between the two organizations and propose a path forward that ensures democratic alignment and accountability for the DSA Fund.

What is the DSA Fund?

The DSA Fund was established in 1978 as the Institute for Democratic Socialism (IDS) by Michael Harrington, who also founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (later merged into what is now DSA). In the mid-1990s, IDS was rebranded as the DSA Fund.[1]

The DSA Fund is an educational nonprofit organization focused on political advocacy. According to its bylaws, the Fund's mission is to “promote public understanding of democratic socialism in the U.S., and provide a space for democratic socialists to exchange ideas, study U.S. society, and share their analyses with the public.[2]” The Fund’s work includes putting on webinars on organizing strategy, compiling educational resources, and funding documentaries and other media material about socialism in the U.S.

The Fund receives independent donations, leveraging its tax-exempt status. The Fund has provided funding to DSA through its Grants program.

Governance Disconnect

DSA and the DSA Fund have no legal connection to each other and operate under different legal designations that reflect their distinct roles and limitations under U.S. tax law. The DSA Fund is a 501(c)(3), a common designation used by many nonprofits such as charities, educational organizations, or religious organizations. A 501(c)(3) organization must remain nonpartisan—it cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office and has strict limits on lobbying efforts. It is granted significant tax advantages, including the ability to collect tax-deductible donations. This makes 501(c)(3) organizations appealing for donors seeking tax benefits for large donations. It does not pay federal income tax on its revenue.

In comparison, DSA is a 501(c)(4), an organization whose primary purpose is political activity and social welfare advocacy.[3] DSA can engage in lobbying efforts and support or oppose legislation related to its mission. It is significantly limited in how it interacts with electoral candidates and supporting electoral candidates cannot be its primary activity.[4] Donations to DSA are not tax-deductible, which limits the organization’s ability to solicit large donations.

The DSA Fund operates as a traditional nonprofit with no membership. Its board is self-perpetuating, meaning board members elect their successors,[5] and the day-to-day operations are managed by an executive director—until recently, Maria Svart, former national director of DSA, and now Gabe Tobias, who managed Cori Bush’s 2024 campaign. The political composition of the Fund has remained relatively stable over recent history, with a leadership group that has maintained significant control over the organization’s direction, with limited input or oversight from the broader DSA membership.

Many organizations have both (c)(3) and (c)(4) arms, and have connected them. Organizations often have connected 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) arms because each serves distinct purposes. The (c)(3) entity allows for educational and charitable work, such as public awareness campaigns or training sessions, while the (c)(4) arm engages in direct advocacy and political activity. This structure enables the organization to maximize its impact while staying compliant with legal and tax regulations.[6] This dual-entity model enables these organizations to maximize their impact, leverage tax-exempt revenue, and ensure compliance with IRS rules on nonprofit activity.

This is not the case for the relationship between DSA and the DSA Fund. Unlike other organizations where governance structures for the (c)(3) and (c)(4) entities are typically designed to align in service of a common mission, DSA and the DSA Fund maintain distinct approaches to leadership and decision-making. DSA is a membership organization, where the highest body is the membership itself. Ultimate democratic authority goes to the membership, represented through the body of DSA’s biannual Convention, which has the ability to set the organization’s political line and direction, as well as to elect the organization’s National Political Committee, which legally acts as DSA’s Board of Directors.

While the DSA Fund has historically provided financial support to DSA through grants and shared costs, this relationship has weakened over time. Recent funding from the Fund has significantly decreased, and there is uncertainty about the level of support DSA can expect in the future. DSA received $12,000 in 2024 for the YDSA Winter Conference and is currently going through the DSA Fund 2025 grant process.

The Fund’s activities now reflect an increasingly narrow political agenda, dominated by a faction of DSA's old guard. This leadership group—with its Chair David Duhalde being a thought leader among the Social Democrat wing of DSA—has retained significant control over the Fund, even as their influence within DSA has diminished.

Problems with the Fund

This disconnect raises important questions about the role and accountability of the DSA Fund, especially as it continues to operate independently while leveraging the DSA brand. While the political composition of DSA’s membership has become more diverse over the past decade, including the emergence of tendencies more opposed to reformism and the Democratic Party, the DSA Fund’s leadership has largely remained anchored in an earlier, more social-democratic tradition. The Fund’s board is composed mainly of members from DSA’s old guard, including former National Political Committee (NPC) members and leaders who have been involved since DSA’s founding. These leaders represent a narrower segment of the political spectrum, which contrasts with the broader, more diverse political landscape of modern DSA.

As DSA has become more responsive to its evolving membership, with leadership reflecting a wider range of political perspectives, the DSA Fund has maintained an insular leadership structure. This self-perpetuating board has allowed older leadership figures to retain significant influence within the Fund, even as their influence within DSA has waned. The Fund’s board remains largely dominated by the Social Democrat wing of DSA, and figures like Maria Svart continue to hold key roles within the Fund. This continuity of leadership highlights a disconnect between the Fund’s political priorities and the broader shifts occurring within DSA.

While the two organizations have historically shared resources, including office space and staff time, these connections have diminished in recent years, and the grants from the Fund to DSA have decreased.[7] The remaining link between them is the shared DSA branding, with the Fund sharing a name, design language, and even a website domain. This has become increasingly significant as the Fund carries out its independent political programming. While the Fund’s events reflect its own political agenda, the shared name means these activities still carry the DSA brand, potentially confusing the broader membership and the public about the Fund’s alignment with DSA’s evolving mission.

One troubling example of this disconnect occurred in September of 2024 when the Fund organized a conference for socialist elected officials, without consulting local chapters or DSA’s National Electoral Committee (NEC). Due to DSA's limitations in programming with electeds due to its tax designation, the DSA Fund has historically hosted events related to socialist elected officials. Earlier this year, the Fund organized a conference for socialists in office, inviting electeds to private meetings, some of which occurred without consultation with the relevant chapters. For example, the Fund invited an elected official whose chapter had declined to endorse them,[8] while Rhode Island DSA leadership was excluded and not invited to send members to the conference, despite the inclusion of a Providence city council member. During the conference, DSA chapter representatives as well as DSA’s National Co-Chairs were denied access to most events, which were reserved for staff, electeds, and Fund members. This separation is especially notable given that coverage of the conference largely conflates the DSA Fund and DSA itself.

The event’s programming provided space for elected officials and their staff to discuss strategies that diverged from DSA’s established party-like relationships with local chapters—relationships that have been a core mandate of DSA conventions since 2017. Instead, by reports from several DSA members present, the conference fostered conversations on how to tightly screen members before they could join local Socialist in Office formations, and ensuring chapters and members did not put elected officials in uncomfortable situations, such as facing difficult press questions. There were even discussions around accusations of “feds” infiltrating chapters. Despite not formally being part of DSA’s organizing structure, the Fund's approach to chapter relations became a focal point of the conference, yet neither chapter leadership nor the NEC was consulted to shape this conversation. 

As DSA has moved further left, the Fund has become more insular, expanding its programming and reinforcing its own political agenda. The Fund’s political character is a reflection of its leadership: the right-wing old guard, increasingly marginalized within DSA, has retreated into the Fund as a response to this shift. Rather than engaging in DSA’s democratic structures, contesting power with other tendencies, or working to convince members through governance and debate, this leadership chooses to consolidate control over the Fund, which remains outside of DSA's democratic processes.

This situation undermines the democratic foundations of DSA. The DSA Fund’s lack of accountability to the broader membership contradicts the very principles DSA stands for—participatory democracy, collective decision-making, and inclusivity. The Fund’s operations, which increasingly reflect the priorities of a small, insular leadership group, divert resources and energy from the movement’s democratic structures and broader goals. By taking on the role of advising DSA electeds, often while excluding DSA members and leaders themselves, the Fund preempts the democratic accountability that chapters work to build with their elected members in favor of insular, private relationships. Moreover, the Fund’s significant financial resources ($661,000 net assets in 2023) are being spent without any democratic oversight or alignment with the evolving political priorities of DSA. This not only misuses the DSA name but also limits the potential for DSA’s growth and effectiveness, as funds could be better directed towards programming that aligns with the diverse needs and values of the organization’s members. This situation calls for immediate attention and reform to restore democratic accountability and ensure that the Fund's resources and branding align with DSA’s collective goals.

A Democratic Path Forward

To address the growing disconnect between DSA and the DSA Fund, it is essential to create democratic accountability and alignment to the Fund with DSA’s evolving political priorities. While DSA and the Fund have distinct legal statuses—one focused on education and the other on political advocacy—there is room for greater democratic alignment and accountability between the two entities.

Despite the two organizations’ separate legal status, it’s important to recognize that maintaining complete separation between these entities is not legally required.[9] U.S. tax law allows for a degree of coordination and shared leadership between entities with different tax designations, as long as each entity complies with its respective restrictions. DSA and the DSA Fund had NPC and board overlap prior to 2016. Organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which operate with both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities, often maintain overlapping governance structures. Similarly, some unions and their affiliated nonprofit entities, such as educational or charitable arms, may have shared directors or governance structures, provided they comply with restrictions on 501(c)(3) activities.

In these examples, the entities remain distinct in terms of their missions, but their governance is not entirely separate. By utilizing Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or other formal agreements, these organizations ensure they comply with tax laws while still maintaining a coordinated strategy and leadership.[10] An MOU is a formal document outlining an agreement between two or more parties, often to coordinate their efforts while maintaining their independence. Although not legally binding in the same way as a contract, an MOU establishes a framework for cooperation and defines the terms under which the parties will operate, ensuring clarity and compliance with legal restrictions. Similarly, DSA and the DSA Fund can explore avenues for collaboration and alignment between their missions, provided that they maintain the integrity of each entity's purpose and activities.

In the case of DSA and the DSA Fund, the separation in their missions (education vs. advocacy) provides a clear legal framework for the entities to work in tandem and for the DSA Fund to live up to its name and mission and fund DSA’s educational and development initiatives. As long as both organizations remain compliant with their tax rules, there is room for coordinated leadership that reflects the evolving needs of both organizations, especially as DSA becomes more inclusive of left-wing voices. It is this shared leadership and governance that would help alleviate the tension between the two organizations, ultimately resulting in stronger alignment between DSA’s mission and that of the DSA Fund.

With the recent appointment of a new Executive Director of the Fund, there is an opportunity to work more closely with the Fund’s new leadership. The new  Executive Director, Gabe Tobias, joined the NPC at its March 16th meeting. During the meeting, he engaged in a constructive dialogue with the NPC, answering questions and discussing the Fund's direction. Tobias emphasized a desire to work more closely with DSA and invited NPC members to future meetings. However, he also noted the Fund's capacity issues, acknowledging that as a small organization, it cannot always check in with chapters or the NEC on every matter. Regarding the conference for socialist elected officials, Tobias clarified that DSA’s criteria for endorsement could not be the Fund’s criteria for invitations, signaling a recognition of the need for separate roles within the broader movement, but failed to answer the political questions at play as to why the Fund would want to build relationships with non-DSA electeds. Additionally, he mentioned that the Fund is seeking to bring in more volunteers, underscoring the importance of expanding the organization’s base and engaging more with DSA members.

We urge the NPC to take advantage of this opportunity and take steps toward creating a formal relationship with the Fund: initiate a thorough review of the Fund’s governance structure, advocate for greater transparency and coordination between the two organizations, consult with attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law on potential structural changes, and explore avenues to ensure that the Fund’s work aligns with the evolving political priorities of DSA’s membership. The Fund board members should share DSA’s commitment to member democracy and uphold a commitment to democratically determined decision making. If the DSA Fund board is not willing to coordinate more closely with DSA, the NPC should have a serious discussion with the Fund about ceasing to use the shared DSA name. Then, DSA could explore creating a separate associated 501(c)(3) entity, allowing DSA to directly seek direct donations which it can coordinate in alignment with our political goals under democratic principles.

Ultimately, while full integration may not be legally feasible, there are numerous ways to ensure that the Fund's significant resources are being used in ways that reflect DSA’s democratic, member-driven structure and its broader mission. Whatever path forward is chosen, the goal should be to restore a balance between the Fund’s operations and DSA’s political goals, ensuring that the Fund’s resources are used transparently, democratically, and in the best interests of the broader movement. 

Further Discussion

If you're interested in discussing this piece with other DSA members, head on over to the DSA Discussion Forum at discussion.dsausa.org.

The forums are open to all DSA members in good standing. If you're not a DSA member in good standing, sign up or renew your dues at act.dsausa.org/donate/membership.

Footnotes

  1. https://fund.dsausa.org/about-us/ [back]
  2. The DSA Fund’s stated mission is to “promote greater public understanding and appreciation of the history and traditions of Democratic Socialism in the United States and greater public understanding of the achievements of individuals and institutions within our tradition; to make our comrades outside of the United States aware of the history and traditions of democratic socialism in the United States, and to make Americans aware of the international movement for democratic socialism; to provide a center for democratic socialists to meet and exchange ideas on the nature of our beliefs; to encourage democratic socialists to study and analyze US society and its institutions and make the results of such studies known to the public.” https://fund.dsausa.org/fund-bylaws/ Bylaws Sec. 1.2. [back]
  3. Types of organizations exempt under Section 501(c)(4) | Internal Revenue Service [back]
  4. There is no regulation which states what constitutes “primary activity” but it is commonly held that funding should not exceed 30-40% on candidate-related expenditures. Election Year Activities for 501c4 Social Welfare Organizations [back]
  5. Fund Bylaws Sec. 2.03 https://fund.dsausa.org/fund-bylaws/ [back]
  6. For example, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its ACLU Foundation use this structure to separate litigation and educational efforts (501(c)(3)) from lobbying and advocacy work (501(c)(4)). Similarly, Planned Parenthood and its Planned Parenthood Action Fund operate in tandem, with the former providing health services and education (501(c)(3)) and the latter focusing on lobbying and political advocacy (501(c)(4)). [back]
  7. $40,000 provided in 2020 (Democratic Socialists Of America Fund Inc - Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica), $25,000 in 2023 Democratic Socialists Of America Fund Inc - Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica [back]
  8. This link leads to DSA's internal forum. If you're a member, you can gain access at discussion.dsausa.org. [back]
  9. Affiliated 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) Organizations – Nonprofit Law Blog [back]
  10. How to Develop a Nonprofit Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - fundsforNGOs - United States [back]

Sign up for more like this.

Enter your email
Subscribe