The latest sign that the Donald Trump Foundation was operating outside the norms of typical non-profits comes in a new Washington Post report published Thursday pointing out that the charity solicited outside contributions without being properly registered to do so, under New York state law.
Tax returns from 2014 and earlier show that charity was registered as an “EPTL” under the state’s Estates, Powers and Trusts Law. That wasn’t a problem in the charity’s early years, when Trump was the only donor. But starting in the mid-aughts, the foundation began receiving outside contributions, which under New York law, requires a “7A” registration. The certification puts the charity under a stricter regulatory regime and requires that it submit annual audits by outside auditors, the Post said.
A spokesman for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is currently investigating the charity, confirmed to the Washington Post that as of this week the Trump Foundation still had not properly registered to raise outside money.
The Washington Post report provides numerous examples where the charity not only took in outside money, but explicitly solicited it — at times by Trump himself. In 2011, Trump had Comedy Central contribute $400,000 to the foundation in exchange for his participation in a televised roast. More recently, Trump skipped a GOP primary and instead hosted a splashy fundraiser for veterans. The donations procured through the event, the Post’s reporting shows, went to the Trump Foundation.
From a legal standpoint, on its own, the violation doesn’t carry major penalties, Seth Perlman, of Perlman and Perlman, a New York City firm that specializes in nonprofit law, told TPM.
“If an organization solicits contributions in [New York] and has revenues in excess of $25k nationally it must register under Article 7A,” Perlman said in an email to TPM earlier this week. “Failure to do so the first time usually requires only a back filing for all years in which it solicited contributions from [New York] residents. The statutes do not provide for significant fines.”
But, along with the charity’s other frowned-upon and perhaps illegal practices reported previously by the Post, the lack of certifications adds to the picture of a charity that failed to adhere to the most basic of non-profit guidelines.
“You wouldn’t expect somebody who’s supposed to be sophisticated, and brags about his business prowess, would run his foundation like this,” James J. Fishman, a professor at Pace University’s law school in White Plains, N.Y., told the Washington Post.
