Involvement in Election Politics Is Good for Charities

To the Editor:

Given my long history of arguing for campaign-finance reform, it takes a lot to get me to promote political contributions. It was provided, however, by Trent Stamp in his misguided Opinion piece (“Invest in Charities, Not Political Campaigns,” April 29).

Under a better electoral system, there would be no challenge to Mr. Stamp’s assertion that the billions of dollars fueling political races could be better spent elsewhere. However, argument must be given to his poorly reasoned position that such a recognition means that “charity leaders need to spread the word that people donating to political campaigns are making neither a smart nor a particularly responsible decision.”

Charities have the responsibility to advance the public interest. They cannot do that simply by providing services to those in need.

To go beyond palliative care, to get to preventative efforts, requires changes in public policy and public institutions. Nonprofit organizations must help their own program beneficiaries take better care of themselves and take more responsibility for better representing themselves not simply in their daily lives, but also in the life of their democracy.

To suggest that they and others disdain politics, to discourage people from fueling the electoral races of the best candidates for the executive and legislative branches of government, is both foolhardy and contrary to charities’ mission to serve the public interest. Charities need to do more to influence legislative and administrative decisions by governments, and that will be easier with good people in office.

Mr. Stamp argues that “charities are more efficient than candidates” because those running for electoral office spend every penny donated on “overhead, fund raising, and communications.” For what else would he have them use cash? One might rather argue that every dollar given a candidate for office is spent directly on mission and program — on that person’s efforts to win an electoral race.

Next, Mr. Stamp turns to accountability, explicitly arguing that Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of charities is greater than that faced by candidates. What charity would trade places and conform to the oversight requirements of the Federal Election Commission, or its equivalent at other jurisdictional levels, rather than submit a 990 to the IRS? What charity would welcome the opposition-research and press scrutiny given candidates for elective office? Is any charity really as externally compelled to be as accountable as any candidate?

The next argument made by Mr. Stamp goes to the heart of the debate, that “charities are more effective” than government. How absurd the notion that voluntary action can be an adequate substitute for governments’ public agency. Elected officials can do more to advance preventative action, to slow or stop the emergence of need, than any aggregation of nonprofit officials and their organizations. Government also can do more to fuel and provide services to those in need, often exactly by working with and through charities, than can any other entity. For government to do the right thing requires that good people win elective office, and they still cannot do that without the campaign contributions that Mr. Stamp eschews.

Mr. Stamp next asserts that we, as taxpayers, already are supporting candidates because they get “matching funds.” Exactly what does Mr. Stamp think is being matched other than the campaign contributions he opposes? Compounding his illogic, he seems chagrined that such matching funds are not being cut at the same time as government program dollars flowing to nonprofit organizations. I certainly abhor cuts in those and many other programs, and I also understand that such bad policy decisions are made by the people elected to public office. That is exactly why good candidates need campaign contributions.

It is vital that all of us support charitable organizations with our money and our time. It also is critically important for individuals to do what they can to make sure that whoever they think is a good candidate is enabled to win electoral races, also through contributions of money and time. These two essential public needs ought not be set in opposition to one another. While it would be inappropriate and illegal for nonprofit groups to encourage campaign contributions to any candidate, it also is inappropriate and wrong to do anything less than to encourage all eligible people to be registered, educated, and mobilized voters. Let each person make up his or her mind about who to support, but let us help democracy to work for the people.

Mark Rosenman
Public-Service Professor
Union Institute & University
Research Fellow
Independent Sector
Washington

To the Editor:

Trent Stamp’s clever article suggests that money is better spent on nonprofits than on political campaigns.

Having run a couple of small nonprofits and a foundation, and having watched many of my political-campaign contributions go for naught, I think there is an important, if ironic, message in what he says. Where he’s wrong is when he says that “donors already pay for the candidates through their taxes. …most elections are financed with large chunks of government matching funds.”

Actually, we’d be better off if that were the case.

The presidential campaign fund raises nobody’s tax — it’s a voluntary check-off. Few states have public financing at all, and only a handful of cities. If we really funded campaigns with taxpayer money, and eliminated the hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into the campaigns from private coffers, it would cost less to run campaigns, encourage more-diverse candidates to run for office (i.e., not just the ones who can raise the big money), and give average citizens a lot more confidence in the integrity of government. And heck, with the different types of candidates running for office, there might even be more public money available for important social programs. One group, Americans for Campaign Reform, suggests that for a mere $6 per American, we could fully fund every Congressional and presidential race in the country. Now that’s a bargain, and it would leave plenty for nonprofits. Hurrah!

Stuart Comstock-Gay
Executive Director
National Voting Rights Institute
Boston