The Ties Between Congress and Charity

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

In his opinion article “How Washington’s Political Scandals Could Harm Nonprofit Groups,” Leslie Lenkowsky tries mightily to camouflage Tom DeLay and his purported philanthropic activities in a forest populated by the Aspen Institute, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Nancy Pelosi, Evan Bayh, and Charles Grassley, and plays down the impacts of Mr. DeLay’s behavior on nonprofit and philanthropic accountability. Unfortunately, it will take a better smokescreen to conceal Mr. DeLay’s particular use of nonprofits and foundations.

Some points to consider:

• The DeLay Foundation raises money ostensibly for the construction of homes and a religious facility for foster children. Notwithstanding what some might consider the overall negative impacts of Mr. DeLay’s political positions on poor children, the concern with the DeLay Foundation (in the wake of the repeal of the Congressional gift ban) is its function, particularly in its golf fund raisers, as a venue where politically motivated corporate and individual donors can purchase invaluable face-time with Mr. DeLay and other members of Congress to lobby for their priorities without disclosure on the donors’ or lawmakers’ parts.
• Unlike Senator Bayh’s foundation (capitalized by unspent campaign funds), former Senator Danforth’s (a longstanding mainstream foundation), Senator Corzine’s (capitalized by his obviously significant earnings from Goldman Sachs), and even Senator Frist’s (whose family wealth underlies the Frist Family Foundation), Mr. DeLay’s operation is a fund-raising machine, soliciting money from potential donors whose motivations may be more focused on political access than foster children. The administrators of the foundation and of last summer’s proposed Republican Convention fund-raising vehicle, Celebrations for Children, are hardly philanthropic experts or authorities on children’s issues, but recruits from Mr. DeLay’s own campaign and political fund-raising operations.
• The DeLay Foundation’s meteoric ascension after the termination of the Congressional gift ban points to the potential if not actual use of political operations masquerading as charitable entities. Mr. DeLay’s associates and confidants, such as the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the public-relations promoter Michael Scanlon, have created and manipulated charities.
• Charitable trips for lawmakers are not fungible. Some may be Aspen Institute trips for legitimate policy-related inquiry and study, though sometimes the locations and costs raise eyebrows nonetheless. However, some Congressional junkets paid for by nonprofits fail most anyone’s test of propriety. When political interests funnel money to and through nonprofits to pay for the trips of key decision makers, the red flags are obvious to almost everyone. When the trips are golf-playing junkets, the charitable justification for the payments fails to outweigh the political lobbying motivations.
• Roll Call’s citation of four dozen foundations connected to lawmakers should not be misread as a discovery of four dozen DeLay Foundation comparables. Most of these nonprofits are tiny, many of them associated with former lawmakers, some of them like Mr. Danforth’s and Mr. Frist’s established independently of their political lives and aspirations. Hiding Mr. DeLay’s foundation behind a couple of dozen other charities doesn’t work. A House Ethics Committee examination of DeLay’s political fund-raising and expenditure activities cannot and should not overlook the congressman’s use of charity and philanthropy.

Tom DeLay’s charitable operation is the poster child for the potential political misuse and abuse of foundations, but that should not mean that other charitable fund-raising entities established by sitting members of Congress should be ignored simply because they don’t measure up to the fund-raising muscle of Mr. DeLay’s philanthropic managers. However, because it may be possible for foundations like Mr. DeLay’s to skirt the boundaries of outright illegality because of vague and lax standards, that shouldn’t mean he ought to get a clean pass either. Just because the activities of the DeLay Foundation (or others) may not be illegal, that doesn’t make them right. For those of us raised on the memories of what Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt did for this nation, Tom DeLay is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt — philanthropically or politically.

Rick Cohen
Executive Director
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
Washington