Obama and Romney Have Distinct Views About Responsibility for Society

This year’s presidential campaign has been devoid of much talk about issues that directly affect nonprofits, but at the heart of November’s election decisions will be a central question that matters to everyone in philanthropy: What does a candidate’s charitable giving say about his or her commitment to the common good?

The question has been raised in large part by the way Mitt Romney has responded to charges that he pays too little in taxes. He often notes the tax rate he has paid over the years, then also notes the percentage he gives away, suggesting that he considers taxes and charitable giving in the same light, as two indicators of how he fulfills his duty to society.

No one can question that Mr. Romney is generous to charitable causes: His 2011 return showed that his charitable contributions alone equaled 29 percent of his income. Mr. Romney’s supporters like to point out how much bigger a share of income he gives than President Obama did when he was running for the presidency.

Although President Obama gave 22 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity in 2011, he was considerably less generous before he assumed the presidency, with contributions of 4.6 percent of income in 2005, 1.2 percent in 2004, and 1.4 percent in 2003.

But how should we judge these giving patterns?

If a citizen manages to reduce his federal income taxes to zero and gives half of his gross income to charity, do we say that he has contributed his “fair share” to American society?

Or do we say that because he has given away his money for purposes of his own choosing, rather than divesting himself of funds for purposes determined by the country’s elected officials, he has not contributed his “fair share?”

And what does a person’s giving tell us about how he might act toward nonprofits if he were to become president?

While that is the critical question posed in this election, it will be hard, as usual, to decipher the public’s verdict because the outcome of this year’s balloting will probably be so muddied by personalities, ethnic politics, accidental events, and advertising budgets.

Even so, it’s important for nonprofits to listen hard to how voters (many of them charity donors) are grappling with the question of how to define that public good—and how to define what is public because that question has been raised more explicitly than ever before in this campaign.

The U.S. federal-income tax code, for what it is worth, embodies a fairly specific notion of how the public good is to be defined. It is a thoroughly pluralistic notion. That is, you are allowed not to pay income taxes on money you give to charity. That means the tax code considers of equal value the money citizens pay because they are required to do so by law and the decisions they make on their own about what charitable causes to support.

It is, in its way, a very messy but functionally elegant compromise. Like all such compromises, it is unsatisfying. And, as reflected in the controversy over Governor Romney’s large contributions to his politically conservative church, the compromise allows charitable giving to become another field of battle over clashing interests and ideologies.

Some people view voluntary charitable contributions as the only true expression of Americans’ fulfillment of their obligations to one another. In this view, tax money spent in a process determined by interest group and ideological politics can never be more than a deformed substitute for the real human connections represented by charity.

Other people see charitable contributions as merely a way in which Americans manage to escape from their obligations to one another: Instead of fulfilling their public duty by paying their fair share of taxes and turning the money over to duly elected officials for disposition, they subvert the democratic process by spending their money on their idiosyncratically, even selfishly chosen “charitable” causes, thereby keeping the reins of power in their own hands.

The status of nonprofit organizations under American law splits the difference; and in recent times the nonprofit world, by labeling itself the “independent sector” has embraced the compromise. But it is hard to listen to Democratic and Republican candidates without understanding how tenuous this compromise is.

When Republicans spoke at their convention of an America in which “we” must retain our freedom to determine our own fates and build our own communities, the “we” was defined in opposition to government.

When Democrats said that “we” must take care of one another and not leave others by the side of the road, the “we” was defined in opposition to people who would deprive government of the resources it needs to pursue the public good.

Notwithstanding their disappointments with the Obama administration, the leaders of the country’s large nonprofits may have made their choice already: Judging from their overwhelming support for Barack Obama four years ago, it is difficult to think of circumstances that would lead them to vote for Governor Romney this year.

That is their decision, of course. But they must understand how closely divided American citizens are on the question of whether government or individuals (including the people who work and volunteer at nonprofits) have primary responsibility for maintaining the common good.

Nonprofit leaders may want to think twice before putting themselves in a position in which people on one side of this debate can fairly regard their organizations as fundamentally opposed to their own values.