July 07, 2008
Opinion: What Obama's Campaign Views Say About Philanthropy
By Leslie Lenkowsky
On Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Web site, he offers no place for people in philanthropy to sign up, even though environmentalists, veterans, students, labor-union members, and other groups are all encouraged to provide their support. But judging from the demographics of his supporters, it may be fair to assume that a large majority of nonprofit employees back his candidacy against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.
If so, Senator Obama’s actions in the past few weeks should certainly have produced some anxiety. On three important issues, he has taken stands at odds with positions his supporters in philanthropy have long been advocating.
To be sure, he still supports lots of measures they will like, including quadrupling the amount spent on national-service programs to $3.5-billion annually. But on these three significant issues, the Illinois senator’s call for “change” seems to be directed at the nonprofit world as much as at government.
Senator Obama first broke ranks with many in philanthropy when he announced he would not accept government financing for his campaign but instead would rely on donations from the public. Much of the support for limits on campaign contributions, which will not now apply to Senator Obama’s run for the White House, has come from foundations and nonprofit groups.
Next, after ducking the issue during the Democratic primaries and even suggesting that President Bill Clinton had erred in signing the legislation, he declared in a nationwide television ad that he favored the 1996 bill restructuring the nation’s public-assistance system. Advocates for the poor, social-service providers, and others in philanthropy have sharply criticized the measure as one that badly shredded protections for the needy.
And in a speech last week in Zanesville, Ohio, Senator Obama embraced an idea that had been a key component of George W. Bush’s run for the White House in 2000: providing more government support for charities sponsored by religious groups.
For a variety of reasons, ranging from fears of the loss of money for their own programs to concerns about blurring church-state boundaries, nonprofit groups (including some on the right) made Mr. Bush’s “faith-based initiative” the most controversial effort of his presidency, at least until the war in Iraq claimed that distinction.
How serious Senator Obama is about these positions only he and his closest advisers know. But his approach inevitably calls into question what philanthropy has stood for.
In declining government financing for his campaign, for example, the soon-to-be Democratic nominee not only called for fixing current election laws (as many in the nonprofit world would) but also suggested that raising money directly from the public might be a better way to guard against undue influence by lobbyists and others. This strikes at the heart of philanthropy’s calls for stricter regulations on fund raising and spending for elections.
When he endorsed the 1996 welfare-overhaul bill, Senator Obama praised the fact that it had “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” But to the measure’s opponents, including those at charities and foundations, the problem of public assistance was not that it aided too many but that it aided too few, and not that it gave them too much gave them but too little.
In last week’s remarks, though, he made it clear he also supported secular charities, Senator Obama took pains to emphasize the role of “faith and values” as a “source of strength in our lives,” even going so far as to call his plan to help religious groups “the foundation of a new project of American renewal.”
For more than a century, secular nonprofit groups have claimed that role, arguing they offered greater possibilities for widespread social change than traditional religious charities did, which was one of the reasons for their opposition to the Bush administration’s program.
Yet with Senator Obama now reconsidering this and other issues, his supporters in the nonprofit world could face some difficult challenges if he succeeds in winning the White House.
One is facing up to how little their years of advocacy have really accomplished. Many election observers regard Senator Obama’s recent statements merely as political maneuvers, designed to broaden his appeal to centrist voters.
Yet this implies that a number of ideas that the philanthropic world has long championed with considerable money and effort have still not found much traction among large segments of the public or, for that matter, a presidential candidate who enjoys the nonprofit world’s support.
A second set of problems will arise if he seeks to follow up on his views once elected: How will philanthropy respond?
Nonprofit groups had considerable success blocking the Bush administration’s efforts to provide more assistance to religious charities or expand work and training requirements for welfare recipients; they were also instrumental in a major expansion of campaign-finance restrictions (co-sponsored by Senator McCain).
But in an Obama administration, working against a president whom they wish to see succeed and whose other policies they support would be more challenging and could necessitate making some hard choices.
In any election, it is tempting to treat speeches as just rhetoric, words designed to win votes, not to express serious thoughts. That may explain Senator Obama’s recent reversals on issues of special concern to philanthropy. However, so much of Senator Obama’s appeal rests on his oratory that it would be foolish to assume he did not mean what he said, especially in the context of a campaign whose mantra is “change.”
Election Day is still four months away, and both major-party candidates still have plenty of time to expand, clarify, and adjust their positions. But based on the surprising stands he has taken in recent weeks, Senator Obama may turn out to give the philanthropic world much more than it bargained for.
Leslie Lenkowsky is a professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University and a regular contributor to The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Obama Seeks to Continue and Expand Bush's Efforts to Help Religious Charities
Next: A Philanthropist Offers His Strategy for Charities' Investments
Why is it always an “either or” argument when it comes to faith-based nonprofits and secular nonprofits sharing in government funding? How about trying to work together for a change instead of always talking in negative terms about faith-based nonprofits which are working in the sector in a non-sectarian manner? There are plenty of “strings” attached when government money is given to those nonprofits, so let’s get on with another argument that is not grounded in suspicion and innuendo that every dollar given to such nonprofits is a dollar given to religious proscelytizing.
— CBS Jul 7, 04:25 PM #
.
As long as a faith-based NGOs discriminate against hiring those that don’t follow their faith (like gays for example) then they should not get government money. And you are not allowed to tell them they can’t do that (rightly so) because their faith is protected. Ergo, the separation of church and state is the correct answer.
Faith NGOs are not prevented from doing their own thing, just not on our dime.
Since Christains believe proscelytizing is a key component of faith, the distrust is warranted.
.
— JSF Jul 7, 08:06 PM #
Outcomes! That is the measurement for success for any social service organization. As a tax payer and a social worker both, success is what I want to see my dollar accomplish, faith-based or not. Besides, just because a person works in a non-religious field does not mean they are not sharing their faith. Give my tax dollars to the social provider that can do the most good with the least dollars. Isn’t that we we all are trying to do with our limited resources in these difficult times?
— Susan Greene Jul 9, 08:38 AM #
To the Chronicle Editors,
I think you do your readers a disservice to not identify Mr. Lenkowsky as also having been a political appointee in the George W. Bush administration, where he was the head of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
It’s fine for him to have a conservative perspective on issues in the non-profit sector, but when you move into partisan political issues your readers deserve to know his background, instead of just the reference to his current position at a university.
— Bill Huddleston Jul 10, 08:49 PM #