October 8, 1998 | Read Time: 5 minutes
Some politicians are trying to turn next month’s Congressional elections into a partisan referendum on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but what Americans should really do when they go to the ballot box is send a message that they are tired of lawmakers who refuse to look out for the public’s true interest.
Many members of Congress, as well as numerous state legislators, have been arguing in recent years that only elected officials are entitled to decide what is in the public interest. They have lashed out at charities that have argued that they, too, have a responsibility to help shape government policies so that those policies serve all Americans. Instead of crediting charities for taking steps to encourage debate on important national issues, many politicians, especially conservatives, have gone to great lengths to suggest that when non-profit organizations undertake advocacy efforts, they are simply pursuing political, partisan, and ideological agendas.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-profit groups have a far more legitimate claim that they represent the public’s interest than do self-righteous politicians concerned mainly about serving their campaign contributors. It is time for voters to think hard about whether they really want to be represented by people who believe that charities are just like any other special-interest group.
The accumulation of more than 20 years of political action to destroy legitimate charity advocacy has held back the nation’s progress in incalculable ways. The ideological attacks began during the 1980s, when conservatives started to tag environmentalists, consumer-protection activists, children’s advocates, women’s organizations, cultural institutions, and many other charities as “special-interest” groups. White House and Congressional officials tried to use both administrative rules and tax legislation to impose draconian limits on policy work by non-profit groups. Those direct assaults were beaten back.
Now, in the 1990s, the efforts to reduce the rights of advocacy organizations have continued, often in a more devious fashion. Non-profit organizations have been threatened with legislation that would cut off federal funds to any charity that lobbies or seeks to educate the public on policy issues. Even after several versions of that proposal failed to muster enough votes for final passage, conservative members of Congress and state legislatures did not give up.
As Congress is wrapping up the current session, it faces a vote on a back-door effort to put advocacy groups at a serious disadvantage in seeking charitable donations. It will be asked to approve a bill that would offer federal funds to states that provide tax credits for charitable donations, but only to individuals who give to groups that provide direct relief to the poor. The states would be allowed to use federal money provided through the Community Services Block Grant program to offset the cost of offering those credits — but not for groups that advocate significantly in behalf of the poor.
Such proposals stem from a desire by legislators to promote their own political ideology and to keep money and other resources from flowing to groups that could be strong advocates for different policy positions. Instead of pursuing issues that serve the nation or have any real consequences for the quality of most Americans’ lives, politicians too often create false debates that offer them an opportunity to score points for their party and supporters — and to weaken their opposition.
That tendency has bred in the general public a strong distaste for politics. While it would be far smarter for politicians to take steps to help the voters believe in politics again, they have instead cynically tried to use the public’s disenchantment to their own advantage. They stigmatize non-profit advocacy by claiming that it is partisan political activity — thereby making it harder for charities to rally support for their causes.
When that doesn’t work, lawmakers claim that the only reason why charities lobby government is for money they hope will trickle into their own coffers. Instead of recognizing that many non-profit groups depend on government funds to carry out programs in the public interest, lawmakers try to cast all advocacy as part of ideological battles for political power. Lost in all the shouting is the fact that non-profit groups are motivated to get involved in the difficult process of lobbying government because they believe that it is their responsibility to do what ever they can to protect the interests of the commonwealth.
In a sign of how hard charities must fight to preserve their basic rights, non-profit groups were criticized recently for defending themselves on California’s so-called paycheck-protection measure. The ballot measure, which is still being promoted by conservatives in other states, would have required any group that raised money through payroll deductions to obtain permission from employees before using that money to finance public-policy work. State officials determined that the measure, which ostensibly was directed against labor unions, also applied to charities — and clearly would have hampered their ability to pursue their legitimate advocacy work. But even so, the accusation was made that by speaking out against the measure, charities were inappropriately taking sides in a partisan political struggle. Charities were even criticized by some for aligning themselves with labor unions and against the corporate world in this partisan battle between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.
The effort to besmirch non-profit advocacy with the stench of partisan politics grows daily. The 2000 census offers an example. By far the majority of non-profit organizations that have taken a position on the census have advocated the use of scientific sampling to insure an accurate count that will allow equitable political representation and appropriate government grant making. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose sampling, while Democrats overwhelmingly favor it. Some people think that non-profit organizations ought to avoid commenting on the issue because they might be accused of partisanship.
If non-profit organizations succumb to such pressures, they will have lost far more than the battle over the way the census is conducted. Non-profit groups need to demonstrate that they will never waver from doing everything in their power to protect the common interests of the people they serve. Until politicians can once again see beyond the partisanship that now characterizes their activities, charities must attend to those higher public purposes.
Mark Rosenman is a vice-president of the Union Institute, a university in Cincinnati. He oversees its Office for Social Responsibility, in Washington.
