August 21, 2007
Charities and Politics: The Debate Rages On
A debate over charities and politics between Robert Egger, founder of D.C. Central Kitchen, and Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University — which began in The Chronicle‘s opinion pages — is now continuing on Tactical Philanthropy.
Both Mr. Egger, author of Charities Must Change Politicians, and Pablo Eisenberg, author of Charities Should Remain Nonpolitical, have now weighed in on the blog.
This follows a live debate between the two earlier this month.
Mr. Egger writes that charities must get more involved in partisan politics to help influence public policy. “Our economic strength, our share of the work force in every community, and the number of voters who volunteer with the nonprofit sector are tremendous assets that we could use to promote a dialogue that politicians and businesspeople are not currently interested in having,” he says.
But Mr. Eisenberg counters that laws that permit charities to undertake a certain amount of lobbying, but bar them from partisan political activity should not be changed. “Taxpayers don’t want it, Congress doesn’t want it, and people like me don’t want to corrupt nonprofits by dealing in politics.”
Earlier, William Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, gave his take on the debate for the blog’s readers.
The author of Tactical Philanthropy, Sean Stannard-Stockton, who works for an investment-management company in Burlingame, Calif., has put out a plea for someone to edit the video of the live debate to a length “that lots of people will take the time to watch.” The Hudson Institute has posted the video (part 1 and part 2).
What do you think about charities getting involved in partisan politics? Share your thoughts by clicking on the comment link below.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Urban Grant Makers Should Explore Rural Affiliates
Next: Spam Words to Avoid
I agree with Mr. Eisenberg. Charities should NOT become involved in politics. We have a responsibility to educate people at large about the issues our organizations address. Taking sides politically serves to alienate the half of the political spectrum opposed to whichever side we take in a political fight.
Example? There is not one decent person in this country that believes that all people should pay for justice and that the amount of justice one gets should be tied to how much they pay. For most of the past 30 years, one half of the political spectrum “appeared” to be unalterably opposed to the support of free civil legal aid to the poor.
In the past decade, that has changed considerably. While support for “increases” in federal support might still be tied to politics, support for federal funding of free civil legal aid is NOT.
Were I to take sides politically as a way to increase federal funding, I would RE-alienate the half of the political spectrum it has taken the better part of a decade to “educate.”
No thanks. As a fund raiser, I’d rather go out and raise more privately.
Speaking of which, I’ll be going back to banging my head against the wall now – trying to raise money from lawyers.
— Sam Prince Aug 27, 05:15 PM #