Letter: Limiting Charity Tax Breaks for Advocacy Would Hurt Everyone

To the Editor:

The recent op-ed by David Callahan (“Stop the Tax Breaks to Donors Who Give to Influence Policy,” March 29) lays out a case against philanthropic freedom as a way to achieve better “civic equality,” including a proposal to end the charitable deduction for giving aimed at influencing public policy. But his attack on philanthropic freedom would leave us all worse off.

Organizations working to change public policy with support from wealthy individuals have made some of the most significant strides in achieving greater civic equality. For example, it was a small band of wealthy philanthropists, such as Sears Roebuck & Company co-owner Julius Rosenwald and Madam C.J. Walker, a successful African-American entrepreneur, who helped fund the NAACP in its early years.

Today, the generosity and freedom of philanthropists provides crucial funding for citizens seeking to challenge the status quo. Both the Black Lives Matter and Tea Party movements have relied on wealthy supporters to help give them a platform to spread their messages.

Policy-related giving enriches public discourse and elevates debate on vital topics by providing new data and analysis that can inform the public and elected officials. The divergent views often found in conflicting research and analysis can force proponents of varying policies to wrestle with uncomfortable truths and inconvenient facts and ultimately leads to better policy outcomes. Philanthropic freedom in the policy arena also ensures independent funding to independent organizations that can challenge prevailing thought and introduce new ideas into public debate.

Mr. Callahan suggests the public should have a role in directing to whom philanthropists give. This would take us down a road where charitable giving is subject to the prevailing political and ideological orthodoxies of the day, something that would diminish giving in all areas of philanthropy.

Undermining philanthropic freedom in the name of greater “civic equality” would leave our national conversation on important issues less robust and dominated by other sectors, including the media and politicians themselves. Such an outcome isn’t likely to be in the public’s best interest.

Sean Parnell

Vice president of public policy
Philanthropy Roundtable
Washington, D.C.