Charity: a Campaign Front-Runner

Charity issues have become a hot topic among Presidential hopefuls staking out their positions for the 2000 campaign.

Contenders from both major political parties have been promoting a variety of strategies that all share a common goal: to find ways for the government to do more to help non-profit groups — especially those with religious ties — carry out their charitable missions.

The convergence of opinion marks a departure from previous Presidential campaigns in which candidates tended to split down party lines, with Democrats arguing that government had the primary responsibility for providing social services and Republicans insisting that government should simply get out of the way of private groups.

“The public knows that the sort of Great Society solutions have failed,” says Arianna Huffington, a political commentator who has been involved in numerous efforts to promote charitable giving. “But the public knows that just saying that the private sector will take care of everything is an illusion: It has not been borne out.”

Such a view is being echoed by the Presidential contenders in their campaign speeches. Some observers also expect the theme to become a major topic of debate in next year’s Congressional, state, and local elections.

Among the proposals being touted in the race for the White House:

Aid for faith-based groups. Gov. George W. Bush, Republican of Texas, and Vice-President Al Gore, a Democrat, have each endorsed steps to make it easier for groups with religious affiliations to qualify for federal money to finance their social-service work. Both have noted that, in the past, charities that have received government aid have been forced to compromise the religious flavor of their programs. They say they want to insure that this is not the case for future grant recipients. Other candidates who have said that so-called faith-based organizations can provide effective solutions to social problems include Republicans Lamar Alexander, former Governor of Tennessee and former U.S. Secretary of Education; Elizabeth Dole, former president of the American Red Cross and former U.S. Secretary of Transportation and of Labor; and former U.S. Senator and Vice-President Dan Quayle.

State charity tax credits. Governor Bush has recommended allowing states to use federal money to create tax credits that would make it more attractive for their residents to give to religious and other non-profit organizations that fight poverty. Each state would be able to design the credit as it chose, but Mr. Bush has said he would like individuals and companies to be able to give some of the money that they would pay in state taxes to antipoverty groups instead.

New federal charity tax deductions. Governor Bush and Mr. Alexander both say they would support a change in the federal tax code that would allow people who do not itemize to claim a charitable deduction for their donations. Mr. Alexander is also seeking an expanded tax deduction aimed at encouraging Americans to increase their charitable giving from an average of 2 per cent of their incomes to 5 per cent — what he calls a “half tithe.” Under his proposal, taxpayers would receive a double charitable deduction for all gifts that exceed 5 per cent of their incomes.

An Oval Office appeal for charities. Many of the candidates promise to use the Presidency to encourage Americans to dig deeper into their pockets. For example, Mrs. Dole, who herself has had to raise charitable donations as head of the American Red Cross, says she would “use the White House as a bully pulpit to encourage people of all ages to give their time and resources to help others.” Democrat Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator from New Jersey, has also emphasized his desire to urge people to volunteer and donate to charities.

The large number of charity proposals is a sign that “these ideas have moved into the mainstream of political thinking in this country,” says Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, in Washington.

The transformation of the nation’s welfare system is a big reason for the new focus on non-profit groups. While political leaders had high expectations for what charities could do to help the poor cope with the changes, many candidates now say they realize that non-profit groups need more help if they are to play a significant role in moving people from welfare to work.

Other forces behind the current emphasis on charity include growing public awareness of the widening disparities between rich and poor — which has raised the profile of antipoverty services. Recent outbreaks of violence, such as the shootings at a high school in Littleton, Colo., have also led to warnings about the breakdown of civility in society.

Marvin Olasky, a senior fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty who informally advises Governor Bush’s campaign, believes that the key voters in next year’s election will be those he terms “seeker moms and dads” — a play on the term “soccer moms,” which described swing voters in 1996. Mr. Olasky says “seeker voters” are hungry for leadership on such tough issues as poverty, the nature of society, and spirituality.

Others agree that charity-related policies make good politics.

In a recent column in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress, Dick Morris, former political consultant to President Clinton, urged candidates to boldly solicit the votes of supporters of non-profit groups by endorsing a charitable-tax credit to replace the current, less-generous tax deduction. “Politically, the Democrats own the public sector and the Republicans control the private sector,” he wrote. “But the voluntary sector is up for grabs.”

Some observers say charity issues may also play well with other blocs of voters, such as people in their 20s, who in polls reveal greater interest in community activism and non-profit work than do people in other age groups. Policies that promote faith-based groups may also help candidates court black voters, some political observers say, since studies have shown that the churches most interested in getting government aid for social services tend to be located in the inner city and serve predominantly black congregations.

Of all of the candidates, Governor Bush has set out the most-specific charity proposals to date. In his first major policy address as a Presidential contender, during his visit to an Indianapolis church last month, Mr. Bush outlined a dozen ideas for tax credits and other incentives worth $8-billion to support charities.

Mr. Bush said he wants to “encourage an outpouring of giving in America” by passing an array of laws to give individuals and corporations more tax incentives to make charitable gifts, and to get more government money to private institutions, especially faith-based groups. He would also name an advocate for “faith-based action” who would report directly to him “to insure that charities are not secularized or slighted.”

The Texas Governor made clear that he thinks government should actively help non-profit organizations — not just “get out of the way” of peoples’ lives. “It is not enough for conservatives like me to praise [charities’] efforts,” he said. “It is not enough to call for volunteerism. Without more support and resources — both private and public — we are asking the armies of compassion to make bricks without straw.”

Mr. Bush added: “Government cannot be replaced by charities — but it can welcome them as partners and not resent them as rivals.”

Meanwhile, Vice-President Gore, in a move that surprised liberals in his party, made a speech in May that promised a “new partnership” between government and religious organizations (The Chronicle, June 3). He said he wants to expand the pool of federal-grant and corporate-giving programs that are open to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups that provide social services.

“These groups nationwide have shown a muscular commitment to facing down poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence, and homelessness,” said Mr. Gore. “I would like to propose concrete actions to clear bureaucratic hurdles out of the way of these good men and women who are helping to solve our problems.”

Most non-profit leaders say the recent attention from politicians is welcome, if somewhat overdue.

“The fact that Presidential candidates see the non-profit sector as one that is doing stuff important enough to be debated and argued over is a key indicator of the worth and value this sector now adds to the national debate,” says Bill Shore, founder of Share Our Strength, a Washington organization that fights hunger and poverty, and a former aide to two Democratic Senators.

Many charity officials, however, remain skeptical about whether the rhetoric will really translate into concrete federal policies.

“I don’t think we’re past the photo-opportunity stage yet,” says Fred Grandy, president of Goodwill Industries International and a former Republican Congressman from Iowa.

Candidates for the 2000 Presidential race have certainly seen the value of using charities and churches as backdrops for their campaign appearances.

Governor Bush unveiled his major proposals on charity issues at a gathering of the Front Porch Alliance, a group of Indianapolis government, religious, and neighborhood leaders. Vice-President Gore gave his address about faith-based groups at the Salvation Army of Atlanta.

Robbie Callaway, senior vice-president of government relations for the national office of Boys & Girls Clubs of America, says that Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore, and Mr. Bradley have collectively made far more campaign stops at local Boys & Girls Clubs than did contenders in previous elections.

“Smart, viable candidates have recognized that charities have been active players in welfare reform, in helping communities,” says Mr. Callaway. “They see there’s something going on here.”

Mr. Callaway says that while his group’s local clubs don’t actively seek the campaign stops, the appearances carry major benefits: Politicians get a firsthand look at the work of grassroots groups, and kids get the chance to be involved in the national political process.

Charity leaders are divided when it comes to evaluating the messages delivered during those stops.

One of the most contentious issues has been whether government should make it easier for faith-based groups to receive federal money. Some non-profit groups say they are alarmed by such talk, cautioning that the plans may violate the constitutional separation of church and state. But others hail the ideas, saying they exemplify the creative approaches needed to tackle deeply rooted problems.

Some non-profit officials are also concerned that some charity-related proposals may ultimately allow the federal government to shirk its responsibilities.

“It’s nice to be talked about, but I think we also have to hear all of this with a certain amount of fear and trembling,” says Gordon A. Raley, president of the National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations, which represents 58 major charities.

Mr. Raley says that if the candidates’ charity proposals are driven by a desire to “help non-profits partner with government to achieve goals that both share, then we need to applaud those efforts.”

But, he adds, “if what they’re talking about is carrying devolution to another, lower level — passing responsibility for the public welfare not to state or local governments but entirely to charities, without being really careful about making sure that that’s the right or possible thing to do — then we run considerable risks.”

Another concern is that the spotlight on charity could have harmful side effects. For example, some organizations worry that tax proposals that favor antipoverty groups over other types of charities could wind up hurting groups that focus on the arts, the environment, education, or other causes.

One candidate, however, has rethought an earlier proposal that would have given preferential treatment to antipoverty organizations. During his 1996 Presidential bid, Mr. Alexander proposed a charity tax credit that would have applied only to gifts to non-profit groups that provide direct services to the poor. But this time he is promoting a plan to give donors a double deduction on their federal income taxes for any amount they give to charity that exceeds 5 per cent of their incomes.

“While one of the problems with charitable giving is that most charity doesn’t go to the poor,” Mr. Alexander said in an interview, “it would be too complicated, and there would be too many end runs, if the government tried to narrow the definition of what a charity is.”

Mr. Alexander says his view has been shaped in large part by his experience as head of the National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, which was financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, in Milwaukee. That commission issued a report in 1997 with specific recommendations for how charities and foundations, as well as government and businesses, could better work together to improve society.

Perhaps just as important as what the candidates say about charities now are the issues the contenders avoid.

For example, Mr. Mann of the Brookings Institution says a big issue that deserves more attention is how to handle the continued explosion in foundation assets that stem from a soaring stock market and newly minted family funds formed by high-technology millionaires. Some observers have recommended increasing the minimum amount that foundations must pay out each year to charities, an idea that many foundations say is not needed.

“It will be very interesting to see whether any of the candidates bite” on the controversial topic, he says. “Right now they probably won’t because candidates want everyone in the non-profit sector to feel warm and fuzzy toward them.”

Many candidates also have yet to define their views on thorny issues that are important to people in philanthropy but do not deal directly with non-profit groups.

“The candidates have to have a consistent philosophy that puts those left behind first,” says Ms. Huffington. “You cannot justify cutting the estate tax before you cut the payroll tax. In the same way, you cannot justify cutting welfare and not cutting corporate welfare.”

Many political experts say they believe that the interest in charity issues is so strong that it won’t be just a part of Presidential politics, but will also play an important role in races for Congress and the statehouses, and even for city and county offices.

Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, an adviser to Governor Bush, says he has received numerous inquiries from candidates at all levels who are interested in learning more about his city’s Front Porch Alliance. The coalition, which Mr. Bush praised in his speech last month, has brought government and churches to work on community policing, park renovation, and many other projects to improve the city.

“Combined with the attention generated by the Presidential campaigns, these issues will be predominant themes for the next year or two’s worth of elections,” says Mr. Goldsmith. “The closer you are to people, the more important these issues become.”