The great debate: Should nonprofits stay out of elections?

DC Central Kitchen founder Robert Egger and Pablo Eisenberg of Georgetown University on Aug. 9 debated whether nonprofits should participate in elections. The debate, hosted by the Hudson Institute of Washington, D.C., was the result of a May 31 article by Egger, "Charities Must Challenge Politicians," in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.  Eisenberg responded with an editorial of his own on June 28, "Charities Should Remain Nonpolitical," sparking the debate.

"The stakes for America are too high for nonprofit leaders to allow themselves to be bullied into silence by the perceived or often overt threat that any talk about politics will cause a charity to lose its tax-exempt status," said Egger. "It is time for charities not just to get involved in this historic race, but also to urge candidates for the White House to make it a priority, once elected, to rethink how nonprofit groups are regarded and regulated."

Egger, recently named to The NonProfit Times' 50 Powerful & Influential list for 2007, was the keynote speaker for HANO's 2006 member meeting and a co-organizer of the Nonprofit Congress.

"I want nonprofits far more engaged in legislative activity," Eisenberg says, "bringing issues before politicians, generating voter registration, but not getting directly involved politically." Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, is a leading scholar and advocate for greater accountability and commitment by philanthropy in the United States to the poor, people of color and social justice issues.

A transcript and audio recording of the debate are available on the Hudson Institute's web site. Since then, the debate continues on the blog of the Stanford Social Innovation Review while Egger and Eisenberg have continued the conversation on the Tactical Philanthropy blog. Here are some excerpts:

Robert Egger:

Nonprofits are already inextricably linked to politics and business. The notion that we are separate or independent is wishful thinking. ... However, for many nonprofits, this debate touches on survival. For others like the DC Central Kitchen, it touches on our ability to comprehensively address social issues that eat theory for breakfast and pick their teeth with charity.

This is also about our country, and how we must adjust to deal with serious social and economic issues that you can see coming a million miles away — issues like the 80 million baby boomers who are getting older, the credit crunch and the ongoing export of jobs overseas. For me, this is about how America determines the most practical and intelligent use of our resources.

Nowhere in the debate did I suggest removing ALL the political constraints, nor do I want ALL nonprofits to make money.  What I do want is dialog — open, “all bets are off” dialog — that asks a simple question: What next?

I do believe that the resources we need to do the job are, in fact, right in front of us (and) suggest the potential power of using our collective voice. This was one of the goals of the Nonprofit Congress and what we are now exploring, using all the existing rules, with the Nonprofit Primary Project up in New Hampshire. 

Our economic strength, our share of the workforce in every community, and the number of voters who volunteer with the nonprofit sector are tremendous assets that we could use to promote a dialog that politicians and business people are not currently interested in having.

To genuflect to routine, or to excuse inactivity for fear that we may lose our purity through participation in the political process, is an embarrassing misuse of our legacy. The time has come, and we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Pablo Eisenberg:

The sector, composed of operating nonprofits and foundations, is an independent body of organizations which serve the public interest and public needs, are exempt from taxes and many, if not most, receive tax deductible funds, are self-governing, do not make profits and, by law, are permitted to do a limited amount of legislative activity.

Through common law and the social compact, they are given their special tax status in order to provide services, education, charity and research and advocacy that, for the most part, government can't or shouldn't do. They serve as counterweights and safeguards in our civil society. They are permitted to run profit-making businesses as long as the latter are germane to their missions and the profits are ploughed back into their nonprofit activities.

The Congress has endorsed the right of nonprofits to do a limited amount of lobbying, but has prohibited any partisan political activity or direct involvement in political campaigns. I agree with these stipulations that say clearly that nonprofits are not to be involved in politics.

I would go beyond this to endorse the elimination of 527 organizations that have, in my view, no business in being part of the tax code and I have some doubts about nonprofits helping to fund PAC's. I also believe that many of the nonprofits that make profits from some of their businesses --notably museums, other art institutions, etc. -- should be taxed.

This view, I believe, is far different from Bob's. He wants all political restrictions on nonprofits dropped, so that they have the leeway that unions, corporations and others have in becoming an integral part of the American political game, including political contributions. I don't want that to happen. Nor do I want the lines between businesses and nonprofits blurred.

But I do believe, as the Congress has, that nonprofits have the right to advocate on issues important to their constituencies and the public interest. My quarrel with nonprofits is that have not had either the interest, the leadership or courage to do so.

Within the limits of the lobbying law, they have failed to exercise their potential capacity. Foundations have lied about nonprofits' rights to lobby, putting restrictions on lobbying in general support grants. Unlike the few conservative foundations, mainstream foundations have generally avoided activism.

I want nonprofits far more engaged in legislative activity, bringing issues before politicians, generating voter registration, but not getting directly involved politically. As I have said, taxpayers don't want it, Congress doesn't want it and people like me don't want to corrupt nonprofits by dealing in politics. The public trust is all nonprofits have going for it. Without it, they won't be able to raise the money they need to conduct their nonprofit business.

There is a large gulf between our perspectives, I think. While I would like to see more advocacy and activism, it should take place within a framework that excludes partisan political activity and campaigns and stresses transparency and public accountability, elements not yet found in much of our political system.