June 26, 2008 | Read Time: 6 minutes
Now that the presidential primary season is over and the general campaign has begun, things are going to get even tougher for many nonprofit advocacy groups.
It certainly is already a difficult environment for fund raising at my organization.
At a recent meeting with a donor to the advocacy organization I lead, I received the following response to a request for a contribution: “Josh, I know you are doing great work, but this year all my money is going to Hillary Clinton.”
At another donor meeting a few weeks later, I was told the same thing, except that all of this donor’s resources were going to Sen. Barack Obama.
I checked in with a few of my colleagues at small- and medium-size organizations that work on policy issues and heard the same story. Donations have dropped, and some annual events are even rescheduled until next year to avoid the campaign season. This is especially likely to continue for organizations on the left if Senator Obama opts out of the public-finance system.
The fund-raising problem is important well beyond the short-term cash crunch: Now is the time when advocacy groups on all sides of the key issues facing the nation should be gearing up for 2009, when a new Congress and new administration will make extraordinary demands on our time and expertise.
Like many small organizations, the nonprofit group that I run does not have an endowment or any fat in its budget. Individuals contribute a big chunk of the budget, and if they slow their giving, then we have to slow our services. It is a pretty simple equation.
Even without a presidential election in the mix, the fund-raising environment — between the mortgage crisis and record high gas prices — is difficult. However, the astronomical amount of money collected from individuals by Senators Clinton and Obama, totaling more than $450-million through April 30 (and outstripping by many folds the last election cycle), has clearly diverted resources away from charitable organizations and turned what would be a difficult year for some into a crisis situation.
Not only are the pure numbers dizzying, but new and varied ways to reach donors, powered through new Internet tools (typified by the Obama campaign’s effective attempt to create an online community of donors), have allowed the campaigns to rake money into their coffers, and to some degree, away from nonprofit groups. As The Chronicle and other publications have reported, some of this fund-raising technology will trickle down and benefit groups like mine in the near future, but for most small organizations, the campaigns are light years ahead.
The campaign effect will be with us the rest of the year. Between the general presidential election and a host of competitive elections in Congress, hundreds of campaigns will be trying to pick up every loose dollar.
Although this happens every four years, donors seem especially willing to support candidates in this election cycle — and with good reason. After eight years of the current administration, the first thing on many people’s mind, even loyal Republicans, is change.
I understand the calculation: Real change, whether it is a national health-care policy or a serious effort to deal with global warming, will take a change in leadership.
Many donors, especially progressive donors, believe that their limited resources are best spent right now in the political process, and their favorite nonprofit groups will have to take the back seat this year.
While I agree that electoral change is often a prerequisite for policy change, let me argue for a moment that donors should slightly change their calculus as the primaries come to an end.
In January 2009, both Congress and the White House will be filled with new faces.
We certainly will have a new president and half a dozen seats in the Senate, and maybe as many as 20 to 30 seats in the House, could change hands.
The certain change in administrations will mean that thousands of staff positions will need to be filled across the federal government.
Not only does it take a significant amount of time to fill all those positions, but once people are hired, many will need a helping hand in getting up to speed on important issues.
In Congress, the same is true. Hundreds of new staff members will be hired and given assignments with steep learning curves.
All this will be occurring against a backdrop of voters demanding immediate change on a variety of burning issues.
That means elected officials will need to propose and adopt new ideas with lightning speed.
And where do those that govern go for help when they need ideas, facts, statistics, and advice?
They turn to nonprofit groups, which must be robust and healthy enough to provide meaningful support.
If a new legislator needs information on childhood poverty or does not understand the term “gun-show loophole,” or wants analysis on different health-care proposals, he or she will turn to a nonprofit organization with the expertise and credibility to provide analysis and information unavailable from other sources.
In fact, nonprofit directors should be getting into gear for a new administration by preparing background papers, holding study groups, developing advocacy efforts, and providing information to political campaigns. That work needs to happen now.
But many nonprofit leaders have to spend an inordinate amount of time just staying afloat when they should be in full preparation mode to meet the challenges of a new administration. History shows that trying to push new ideas in the last years of a presidential administration is difficult at best.
In short, the next administration and the next Congress will have limited time to make real change, and nonprofit organizations must be ready to support that effort. That requires that they have adequate resources now.
So it is time to turn to donors and tell those who are convinced that political contributions are the most important activity this year not to abandon support for nonprofit groups altogether.
Urge them to develop a percentage-based system: Every time they feel compelled to give to a candidate, ask them to hold back just a little, maybe 15 percent or 20 percent for their favorite charity.
Once their candidate gets elected, the advice and support from a healthy set of nonprofit groups will make him much more effective.
Second, foundation executives need to open their wallets a little wider this year. Grant makers that usually give 5 percent of their assets — the minimum required by federal law — need to up the ante by kicking in 7.5 percent or even 10 percent of assets.
Foundations, of course, can’t contribute to political campaigns, but many have missions that will benefit from the flow of new ideas that accompany a new Congress and a new administration. In other words, the openness that accompanies a changing of the guard offers a special opportunity to encourage grantees to boldly pursue new policies. Now is not the time for foundations to be stingy or to marshal resources to be used many years in the future.
I understand and share the urgency to take the country in a new direction by providing financial support to candidates. However, a strong nonprofit world, which will supply ideas and research and conduct advocacy work once campaign season ends, is essential to making change happen in our nation’s capital.
Joshua Horwitz is executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, in Washington.
