Since the Citizens United ruling, attention has largely focused on concerns around how much money will be spent on elections. However, groups are already spending heavily, particularly since the Wisconsin Right to Life decision when the Supreme Court decided that the electioneering communications ban is unconstitutional when applied to genuine issue ads. Subsequently, groups have been allowed to run issue ads that may come quite close to arguably resembling a campaign message, without having to disclose donors. POLITICO reports on the rise of such groups that are "pumping cash into the airwaves."

"Along with traditional industry groups, these new actors — their sources of funding and precise agenda often unclear — are emerging as powerful voices in the fights over health care and regulatory reform, and they plan only to get louder."

The decision raises legal issues that may affect tax exempt organizations, with particular implications for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor unions, and 501(c)(6) trade associations. These nonprofit corporations remain subject to federal tax law, and political activities cannot be the primary purpose of an organization. The ruling does not directly affect the laws governing 501(c)(3) charities, but such groups may remain somewhat perplexed as to what campaign-related activity is permissible.

Eliza Newlin Carney's latest column in the National Journal touches upon how 501(c)(3) groups may be impacted; "the ruling -- by equating corporate and individual First Amendment rights -- could trigger sweeping changes in IRS law as it applies to political activity, some tax experts say. All this could thrust 501(c)3 charities, which are now barred from engaging in partisan political activities, into an uncomfortable spot."

"For social welfare groups and trade associations, the big question is how to weigh in on elections without running afoul of the IRS." Lawrence H. Norton, with Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, was quoted in the article as stating that guidance on how to define primary purpose has been, "to put it charitably, less than a model of clarity."

Reportedly, the measure yet to be introduced by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) would force tax exempt groups to reveal the identities of the groups funding their political ads. However, tax exempt organizations may oppose this proposal because of donor confidentiality concerns. Or instead be supportive, as Rick Cohen at the Nonprofit Quarterly suggests; "unmonitored flows of corporate and special interest funds into partisan 'issue ad' electioneering may have changed things so significantly that the public good will be better served by disclosure than confidentiality of the sources of donations for these election purpose."

A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report commented on proposals to have additional disclosure requirements for nonprofits, specifically in regards to the disclosure of large donors in group's political ads. The reports states, "it might be argued that the relationship between (1) the compelled disclosure of donors who gave money for reasons not necessarily related to campaign activity and (2) the government's interest to provide information to the electorate or avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption is insufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny."