Charities and the 2008 Election

Monday, June 4, at 12 noon, U.S. Eastern time

Robert Egger is the founder and president of D.C. Central Kitchen, an antihunger group in Washington. He is also a lead of the Nonprofit Congress, and author of Begging for Change: The Dollars and Sense of Making Nonprofits Responsive, Efficient, and Rewarding for All (Harper-Collins).

A transcript of the chat follows.

Stacy Palmer (Moderator):
    Welcome everyone to our conversation about politics and nonprofit organizations. We will be taking questions throughout the hour and Robert Egger is here to answer and debate his opinion article in the current issue of The Chronicle. You can ask questions by clicking on the link that says "ask a question."

Question from Jeremy Gregg, Central Dallas Ministries:
    

Robert, I have held great respect for you and your work at DC Central Kitchen for many years. I agree with your ideas, but am concerned about how we can implement them.

At Central Dallas Ministries, we host an annual Prayer Breakfast at which we invite local leaders to join us in frank discussions about the future of our city and the systemic problems facing the poor. In 2006, our keynote address was delivered by Senator John Edwards. His message was all about the poor and what we can do as a country to alleviate poverty, but we upset many donors for simply inviting him (despite the fact that George W. Bush spoke at the same event when he was Governor of Texas). In fact, we had several donors -- including two who were giving us five-figure gifts each year -- angrily tell us that they were discontinuing their support because we had invited him.

We have no endowment, and very little operating reserve. We depend on contributions from people who have often made their living as successful capitalists. How can we continue to receive their support while simultaneously questioning the system that brought them their wealth?

Furthermore, how can we effectively engage politicians in a true dialogue about what we see on the ground without appearing to be involved in partisan politics or lobbying?

Robert Egger:
    Hey Jeremy, Thanks for your kind remarks about the Kitchen. Back at you. One of the biggest issues confronting the sector is public (mis)understanding of our work. It's understandable that many cannot view the sector beyond the confines of historic "charity." However, many of us, particularly us in the direct service side of the coin, know that all the innovation, self-sufficiency, and capacity-building exercises won't give us the tools we need to drastically reduce the demand for services. Poverty is bigger than charity. I don't think there is any way to move forward without developing a collective voice and beginning to exert our economic and social clout in local, regional, and national politics. Some will choose not to give to those who venture down this road. This is a decision all organizations will have to make individually. It might sound too blunt, but there comes a time when you must decide if you are going to participate in a system that cannot supply the solutions you seek, or whether you will risk the slings and arrows that come with bucking that system. None of the answers I provide today will be easy. There is no sugar on the medicine I am prescribing. There will be risks. . .but that is where reward lies.

Question from :
    Robert, you travel around the country talking to nonprofit leaders. What makes you think that many organizations want to take a greater role in partisan politics? A lot of people think the idea will be very damaging to charities, which already have serious image and credibility problems with the public?

Robert Egger:
    

You are right. . .I travel extensively and speak to colleagues at every level of the sector, including many young leaders who are entering the field. What I see and hear, almost universally, is a recognition that what we do right now--work individually rather than collectively, avoid politics, chase money--is not what people wanted to do when they got into this business. They wanted to make the world a better place; they wanted to make change. And deep down they know that the way things work right now will only lead us to being asked to do more, for more, with less. At the end of the day they know that the only thing we have not tried is working together, and, what I sense, is a willingness to go a new road, to own our collective strength as well as the responsibilities that go along with it.

This is particularly true of the nonprofits in New Hampshire that have already banded together and are about to host a serious a candidate meetings that will ask the candidates how they will strengthen and partner with nonprofits to achieve their vision for America. These organizations will still be able to develop and/or attend sessions focusing on their sub-sector issues (education, arts, social services). Most importantly, during these sessions (which we are calling the Primary Project) they have agreed to stand up on behalf of ALL nonprofits and introduce the notion that the sector on the whole needs to be views as an important partner for any socioeconomic plan for America's future.

Check out the Primary Project at www.nhnonprofits.org.

Question from Peter Panepento, The Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    

Robert: Your point is especially timely, given that the IRS last week reported that it is investigating about 100 charities for alleged politicking during the 2006 election. What was particularly interesting about that report was news that it has found another 270 or so nonprofits that made direct financial contributions to candidates.

Do you see a distinction between verbally supporting a candidate and giving money? Or should charities be free to financially support political candidates, too?

Robert Egger:
    

This is part of the discussion that requires robust debate. Frankly I know I am opening a can of worms. BUT. . .democracy isn't easy. This discussion won't be easy. The major thing I discovered when I wrote this piece was the origin of the laws that govern our role. LBJ, with no hearings or testimony, inserted legal restrictions into the IRS code to silence critics in Texas. It has been half of a century and our sector has grown 1000% (from 100,000 charities in the 1950s to well over 1 million nonprofits today). I don't think it is heresy to suggest that these laws were unjust then and ludicrous now. We are the nonprofits of the internet age. We are social entrepreneurs and micro financiers that work across boarders in a new economic era. To cut to the chase, new role - new rules. If we are going to be asked to take up what was the domain of government, and be subject to regulations developed through a process in which we have no REAL voice, then I think we have every right to stand together, step up, and revisit the laws.

Do not forget that while we certainly do not vote in unison on everything, neither does business. However, business learned long ago that you build on common ground to fight for common interest.

So, to answer your question, my purpose in this editorial is to stimulate debate NOW about political engagement and our potential as a sector if we built on the common ground that does exist.

Question from Suzanne Perry, Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    Hi Robert, As a former daily newspaper reporter, I was interested in your previous column about the need to strengthen newspaper coverage of philanthropy. What role do you think media coverage plays (or could play) in influencing how much political clout charities have? Thanks, Suzanne

Robert Egger:
    

Until the sector receives regular, in-depth analysis of our work in every American paper, donors will continue to confuse charity with change. The sector represents 10% of our workforce and economy. More to the point, with 80 million baby boomers about to begin aging out, and stiff global competition from countries like China, it is now essential that we move beyond the almost Industrial Age understanding that "business creates wealth while charity does good deeds." Our role in the future economy as employers, economic stimulators, and providers of service that used to be the domain of government, demand a new level of coverage. For heaven's sake, nonprofit workers and board members represent 20 million readers and there are 58 million volunteers looking every year for a place to make an impact. To me this is Business 101. Besides, and this goes to my friend Jeremy's question, an educated consumer is our sector's best friend. The more the public knows, the more they will understand what we need to do the job as well as their role in the equation. And, I believe, the public will then realize and respect our sector's need to become politically active.

When I say "get political," I don't mean that we become lobbyists or form PACs, necessarily. What I AM saying is that if we sit back at this critical juncture in our nation's history with our fingers crossed hoping we get a president who recognizes the role we play now and the role we can play in the future, shame on us. As singer Lauryn Hill says, "Consequence ain't coincidence."

This is why the Primary Project, a candidate education initiative of the Nonprofit Congress, is so important. Working well within the current laws that govern nonprofit political activity, we are going to both raise awareness and ask candidates point-blank how they would empower and utilize the amazing talents, passions, resources, and ideas of the sector.

Question from Jacob Buehler, public policy student:
    Do you feel that religious and faith-based organizations should also be allowed to endorse candidates and directly engage in political activities? Should any distinctions be made between nonprofit organizations and faith-based organizations concerning these matters? Why or why not?

Robert Egger:
    This is a toughie, Jacob.

Our society has historically had a separation of church and state, and this has served us well. This is probably the thorniest issue that will come up during this debate. I think a blanket law that covers this wide swath of a sector (including hospitals, universities, direct service agencies, etc.) does not serve our society or our economy well.

Maybe what we should explore are varying degrees of participation in the political process, allowing a wider variation of options.

I think it is also important to acknowledge that this kind of politicking is already going on and has been for a long time. And I would also suggest that there are huge gaps between what nonprofits think we cannot do and what we actually can. For this election coming up, and particularly with the Primary Project, we are going to utilize all existing opportunities to get candidates to think about our role and these questions, as I think it is imperative that after this election we continue to build conversation around our role.

Stacy Palmer (Moderator):
    We are about midway through our conversation. Thanks to everyone who has sent such great questions. If you'd like to send us a new question, please just click the link that says "ask a question" and we'll do all we can to answer every question.

Question from Stacy Palmer:
    In your piece, you pointed to some examples of efforts under way to influence the 2008 campaign. In particular, you mentioned the Gates/Broad Foundations' financing of a project that will seek to call attention to the issue of education. Some people have said the Gateses and Broads would be better off giving the $60-million they are spending directly to the candidates, rather than to a nonprofit advocacy effort. Do you agree?

Robert Egger:
    That is certainly a legitimate question.

What I hope is happening is that foundations, like Gates, are starting to recognize the same things that were brought up in this editorial. A fundamental shift must happen if any of us--nonprofit professionals, foundation leaders, corporate philanthropists, Joe and Jane Q public--are going to see more movement than we have in the past 40 years.

It is certainly a legitimate question (and it is being asked) to wonder if all the money we have spent in the last 40 years has had the impact we anticipated. I guarantee you a younger generation is sure asking these questions. And, I think they recognize that we need a whole new set of metrics and a much different strategy for this not to land on their heads. This is true for a new generation of philanthropists also. With the fast approaching transfer of wealth, we are going to see more and more donor advised funds going towards activities like what Gates has introduced. We are not alone in this. To go back to my friend Jeremy, one generation might not understand this new form of philanthropy, this new political role, but another generation cannot wait for it.

Question from Karen, Georgetown University:
    I am a young leader working for a small and newer nonprofit organization. Your call to action is compelling, but you hear so much in nonprofit management courses about the dangers of a nonprofit doing anything that could be considered lobbying or politicking. Can you tell us, what exactly ARE the rules (what's really allowed? what's not?) and what is the best way to voice our interest in changing those rules?

Robert Egger:
    Hey Karen!

Welcome to the fight.

First and foremost, what it boils down to is that nonprofits cannot endorse a candidate. The rules are impressive in length and you can find the IRS laws online or you can go to the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofit website to find the legal interpretation we are using for the Primary Project (www.nhnonprofits.org).

I also urge all readers to join their local state association for nonprofits. This is an existing network (www.ncna.org) and any shift in our power has to be backed up by 50 strong state associations. This will be new for many nonprofits and associations, but what is important is that the voice of your generation comes through loud and clear saying we want you to speak for us, not about us.

Question from :
    If nonprofits were allowed to become active participants in the political process, who should set their agendas? should endorsement of candidates, support of specific legislation, and other political activity be determined by the organization's leadership, clients, stakeholders/funders, or who?

Robert Egger:
    This is the kind of openness I seek. Frankly, I'd like to see this discussion at board meetings, staff retreats, soup kitchen lines, management degree programs, church basements, annual conferences, volunteer training sessions. . .you name it.

One of my favorite lines is "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

You will never go wrong by opening up the dialogue to including as many people as possible. I have mentioned a lot about younger people in the discussion so far, and the frustration of their generation, but don't underestimate the frustration that aging boomers, who will soon be flooding into our sector's ranks as volunteers, board members, and fellow staff members, will have.

Question from Christine Gray, TimeBanks USA:
    Hi Robert, Jeremy's question raises a very important issue -- and points to the depth of the changes that you're calling for. The sector is broadly set up with implementers on one side, funders (either foundations or individual donors) on the other. The Foundations are a key element of the sector-- and they have adapted their structure to fit their legal, relatively non-political status. I find myself wondering what kind of differences in response there are from those who are doing non-profit work and the foundations that fund it.

Robert Egger:
    Hey Christine. . . Earlier this year, I spoke at the Council of Foundations gathering in Baltimore. And, I spoke as eloquently as I could about this issue. Their reaction is one of the reasons I felt, and continue to feel comfortable, that this is an idea whose time has come. I want to go back to the Gates Foundation. What we need is more foundations willing to step out and actively push to ensure that any political debate includes a mature understanding of the role of the sector. Many will balk. That is to be expected. But, in this vacuum, many will begin to step up. Few at first, but then more and more as they see that the sky will not fall and that this captures the true spirit of justice and equality that is a benchmark/core ethos of our sector.

We can never forget that men and women who fought for civil rights truly risked. . .they risked their livelihoods, homes, lives. I think it is time for the sector to ask, "What are we willing to risk?"

Question from Sally, small nonprofit:
    How do we establish any political strength when we struggle with competition within the sector? How will taking a political stance inspire unity and not divide the nonprofit sector?

Robert Egger:
    Many people feel the sector is too divided to find common ground. However, we have three things in common:

1) We have no real voice in a political process that regulates our sector;

2)We have no regular media coverage detailing our work and giving donors accurate information about how they can invest in our work;

3) Because of this, we are all measured by the false barometer that low administrative overhead is the best measure of effectiveness.

This is where I would begin any discussion with any group. Sure, it is going to be difficult to forge a unified front, because we are just as divided as the rest of America. But, I would say two things to you as a leader: there is only one way forward and that is together. And, if nonprofits in America, the very people charged with holding communities together, elevating our spirits, caring for the elderly, nurturing the arts, cannot find common ground, then who else will?

I believe that nonprofits like DC Central Kitchen, or yours, or that of anyone who is reading. . .we cannot solve anything alone. Our destiny is to find common ground and lead our communities and this country to a place where we understand that everybody has a role, something to contribute. In our case, this starts with a political voice that reflects this goal.

Question from Michele:
    Hi Robert, I've been working in the nonprofit sector since I graduated from college 4 years ago. In this time, I've worked most directly to empower those in need and to support organizations management. Regularly, my peers and I get stuck on the question: What next? We can't see how this same approach will last through our own retirement - 40 years or more down the road. But, how do we make our voices heard? How do we bring together non-profits locally and nationally? And how do we support those leaders who are currently working (and doing important work) with limited resources, to see the political arena as another place to dedicate their time?

Robert Egger:
    Write.

Join.

Participate.

Push.

Ask tough questions.

Don't back down.

Propose new ideas.

Write more.

Speak whenever you can.

Be an example.

Don't take no for an answer.

We need you.

We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Question from Abby, small nonprofit:
    The effective use of resources is a constant struggle for nonprofits. As a young person working in a nonprofit, how do I convince our leadership that this concept is a valuable investment of resources? What can I say to demonstrate that the long-term gains will far outweigh and short term challenges?

Robert Egger:
    It does not cost anything to write. It does not cost anything to speak. But it will cost you and your generation tons of dough and tons of time if you are quiet.

I would urge you to join your state association of nonprofits. I know I have said this before, but that is the perfect forum for a younger generation to express its views in a format that an older generation will hear. I have been to sessions in both North Carolina and Hawaii in which the dais was turned over to a younger generation so they could speak about the sector as they see it, and to espouse some of the ideas that they have.

Sometimes employers and administrators are afraid of change. It reflects that their methodology, their form of philanthropy did not measure up. Recognize that this fear exists and try to create an opportunities within your organization for sharing this information. Perhaps you could introduce these ideas at a strategic planning session, or staff meeting, or forward materials you read to key decision makers. I should also let you know about the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network--they are doing huge work to bring the voice of a new generation to bear. The same thing I am espousing for the sector is what your generation needs: a shared voice. Moreover, perhaps your shared voice is what the sector overall needs.

Question from Kevin:
    Robert, your editorial is causing quite a stir and it really speaks to my generation. We're impatient for change and we want to know how we can play a part in this process.

Robert Egger:
    First of all, tune into the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits and follow the Primary Project. This is a bellwether moment. In fact, if you have ever read history and wondered what it felt like to be there, log on and you will be. Thanks Kevin.

Stacy Palmer (Moderator):
    Thank you everyone for all your participation in today's conversation and to Mr. Egger for all of his answers.

I'm sorry we were not able to get to all of your questions, but please feel free to send additional questions or comments about this topic or anything else The Chronicle covers to the editorial staff at editor@philanthropy.com.

Rober Egger (Guest):
    THANKS to everyone--really. I dug it and hope this is just the beginning.