Florida’s New Foundation Law Protects Donor Intent

To the Editor:

We at the Philanthropy Roundtable agree with Emmett Carson that “government should not be in the business of deciding who sits on foundation boards or which nonprofit organizations receive grants based on demographics.” And this is precisely the intent of the new Florida law on philanthropic freedom—no more, no less.

In Mr. Carson’s opinion piece (“New Fla. Law Makes It Harder for Foundations to Live Up to Values” ), he asks us to imagine the results of applying this law to the banking industry. Most Chronicle readers know the increasing role government is taking in banking oversight in response to the continuing economic crisis. But where is the comparable crisis in the foundation sector?

The most recent Giving USA study shows that Americans gave more than $300-billion to nonprofit organizations last year. The impact of that generosity can certainly be seen across America. But foundations are not banks, they do not require a potential taxpayer bailout, and the regulation of banking is an inappropriate model for the regulation of foundations.

The piece also discusses California legislation, AB 624, which Mr. Carson characterizes as “a simple requirement to collect data.”

Yet the facts on the ground in California show that lawmakers were seeking much more than data—they were seeking that grants be made for specific causes. Thus, it should come as no surprise that donors in Florida and other states took notice and are now taking action to prevent what happened in California from happening to them.

Finally, there is not a word in the Florida law preventing foundations from voluntarily disclosing as much information as they wish. We wholeheartedly agree that transparency is valuable, certainly to assure that foundations are operating within the bounds of the law. What the provision in Florida prevents is the government from mandating and imposing its own arbitrary demographic standards.

Moreover, is the public really clamoring for detailed descriptions of the “race, religion, gender, national origin, socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, andor political- party registration” of foundation board members, employees and grantees? If not, we believe it is fair to ask: Who is? And, how will this information support and uphold private philanthropy and the legacy of American generosity?

The diversity of our nation is reflected in charitable support of a wide variety of causes. Americans know best to whom and to what they choose to give their time and money, and this must be protected.

Laws to protect this freedom have become necessary because some seek to substitute their own agendas for those of charitable donors. That would represent a ruinous turn for private philanthropy. The Florida legislature and governor agree, and have enacted sensible steps toward preserving donor intent and promoting charitable giving.

Sue Santa
Senior Vice President for Public Policy
The Philanthropy Roundtable
Washington