The nonprofit Fix the Court, an organization advocating for Supreme Court reforms under the banner of “ethics” and “transparency,” is facing backlash for questionable financial practices. Fiscal 2023 financial disclosures reveal the group paid its director, Gabe Roth, a salary amounting to 96% of its annual revenue.
According to IRS filings, Fix the Court, registered as a 501(c)(3) charity, received $175,400 in donations last year. Of that, Roth’s salary was $168,100. The group’s total spending reached $221,000, leaving it with a deficit of nearly $46,000.
Critics argue that Roth’s compensation may jeopardize Fix the Court’s tax-exempt status. Paul Kamenar, counsel for the conservative watchdog National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), condemned the salary, saying it constitutes an “excess benefit transaction.” The NLPC is considering filing an IRS complaint, which could lead to a 25% tax penalty for Roth and a 10% penalty for board members who approved the salary.
This isn’t the first controversy for Fix the Court. In 2023, Roth inadvertently leaked the organization’s donor list, admitting his “screwup” might cost him his job. Additionally, the group faced criticism for failing to disclose lobbying activities, forcing them to amend financial reports. Further embarrassment came when Fix the Court omitted Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s speaking engagements from its “travel tracker,” leading to accusations of selective transparency.
Despite claiming nonpartisan status, Fix the Court has significant ties to left-wing organizations. It was launched in 2014 as a project of the New Venture Fund, part of the $1 billion Arabella Advisors dark money network. Roth, a former vice president at the Democratic consulting firm SKDK, is joined on the board by progressive figures like Josh Cohen of the Center for American Progress and Michelle Kuppersmith of Campaign for Accountability.
With only $72,000 in assets at the end of the fiscal year, Fix the Court is financially vulnerable as it heads into 2025. The group reported spending tens of thousands on lobbying efforts to promote judicial ethics legislation, raising questions about its sustainability and commitment to transparency.
These revelations cast doubt on the integrity of a group that accuses others of ethical lapses, highlighting a potential hypocrisy that could undermine its mission.
