June 14, 2007 | Read Time: 1 minute
An article in The New York Times about a Congressional earmark that went awry shows why charities should continue to be barred from contributing to political campaigns, says Jack Siegel on his Charity Governance blog.
The article reports that the U.S. Coast Guard, instead of following the normal auction procedure, transferred two decommissioned ships to Canvasback Missions, a religious group that was supposed to use them to provide medical services to some South Pacific islands. Instead, the group sold the ships.
Congress authorized the gifts as earmarks, which bypass normal review, bidding, and monitoring procedures. “Earmarks are a sign of the corrupting influence of money on politics,” Mr. Siegel writes, adding that they are often “hidden paybacks to a politician’s supporters.”
Mr. Siegel, a Chicago lawyer, takes Robert Egger, president of D.C. Central Kitchen, to task for arguing in The Chronicle of Philanthropy
(subscription required) that charities should be allowed to get more involved in political campaigns.
“Were charities permitted to intervene in political campaigns, we would expect to see more earmarks to charities as payback, just as is the case today for earmarks to others.”
The “unyielding pull” of money would prove disastrous, Mr. Siegel writes in an earlier posting on the same theme. “Charities would divert resources from the hungry, sick, and homeless to make campaign contributions.” .
Do you agree that it would be dangerous for charities to get directly involved in political campaigns? Share your thoughts by clicking the comments link below this posting.
