Philanthropic Freedom
Adam Meyerson, president of The Philanthropy Roundtable, comments on the new NCRP initiative
On June 8, the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) introduced a new project, Philanthropy’s Promise, an initiative to encourage grantmakers to voluntarily “allocate at least 50 percent of their grant dollars to address the unique needs of the poor, elderly, disabled and other underserved populations, and at least 25 percent towards supporting advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement to address the root causes of social problems.” This initiative channels at least some of the criteria outlined by NCRP in its 2009 Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact.
After reviewing NCRP’s latest initiative, Roundtable president Adam Meyerson commented:
The Philanthropy Roundtable believes that voluntary initiatives such as “Philanthropy’s Promise” are consistent with a free society under two conditions. First, it is important that the initiatives remain truly voluntary, without the threat of coercion from regulators, legislators, community activists, and/or mandatory accreditation systems. Second, it is important that donors and foundations remain free to give to the many worthy charitable objectives that are not included in the NCRP “promise.” Activist groups should be free to criticize donors’ choices, and to seek to push philanthropic giving in a different direction, so long as they defend and respect the freedom of donors to make their own charitable decisions.
2010 Philanthropy Roundtable Annual Meeting—- Coverage of ACR sessions
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on the ACR session “Right, Left & Center: Why They Each Have a Stake in Philanthropic Freedom” at the 2010 annual meeting.
Here’s an excerpt:
Making the case that philanthropic dollars do good and benefit society isn’t going to be enough to convince lawmakers and the public that foundations deserve the freedom and tax benefits they now enjoy, William Kristol, the conservative commentator, told an audience at the Philanthropy Roundtable’s annual meeting.
Click here for the full article.
Continue reading...
Adam Meyerson, president of The Philanthropy Roundtable, recently delivered a speech entitled “The Generosity of America” as part of a lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.
Adam notes “Private charitable giving is at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.”
He cautions us though, warning “this freedom to give is now under serious threat… three kinds of proposals coming from Capitol Hill, the IRS, state governments, and sometimes from the charitable sector itself, that should be of concern to all Americans.”
The full article is available here.
ALEC Public Policy Forum Report, Sue Santa
Sue Santa, Senior Vice President for Public Policy at The Philanthropy Roundtable, provides an overview of philanthropy in the February 2009 ALEC Public Policy Forum Report.
Excerpt: “While more than 75,000 foundations exist in the United States today, with over 6,500 new foundations having been established in 2008 alone (source: The Foundation Center), when asked, 56 percent of influential Americans were unable to name a single foundation (source: Philanthropy Awareness Initiative). Though responsible for numerous innovations that have improved the lives of every American, the work of private foundations remains largely concealed…”
Further Reading
New York Times, Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation
In a New York Times op-ed, Daniel Popeo, chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, makes the case in support of donor intent and against greater government regulation for private philanthropy.
Excerpt: “According to a study by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, charitable foundations’ assets declined an average of 28% in 2008. The nonprofit organizations they fund are struggling to survive. Given these dire circumstances, shouldn’t we be empowering citizens to create new charities and helping philanthropists give more? Instead, some ideologues think now is the ideal time to impose additional government regulations and even quotas, on the philanthropic community…”
Further Reading
Wall Street Journal, Heather MacDonald
Heather MacDonald argues that “a growing number of activists and politicians argue that foundations should meet diversity targets in their giving and on their staffs. If foundations fail to diversify “voluntarily,” threaten the race, ethnicity and gender enforcers, they risk legislation requiring them to do so. In other words, the diversity police, having helped bring on the subprime meltdown through mortgage-lending quotas, now want to fix philanthropy. And instead of rebuffing this power grab, the leaders in the field have rolled over and played dead.”
Also read the ACR’s Letter to the Editor regarding this article available here.
Further Reading
Corrections to Heather MacDonald op-ed by Sue Santa and Sandra Swirski
Sue Santa, Sr. Vice President of Public Policy at The Philanthropy Roundtable, and Sandra Swirski, Executive Director of the Alliance of Charitable Reform, provide corrections to an op-ed by Heather MacDonald in the Wall Street Journal.
Excerpt: “In “Never Enough Beauty or Truth” (Feb. 2, 2009), Heather MacDonald provocatively argues that challenges to philanthropic freedom abound. The Alliance for Charitable Reform (‘ACR”) couldn’t agree more. ACR is a project of The Philanthropy Roundtable established in 2005 to defend the charitable sector against such encroachments… ACR must, however, correct a couple of errors in Ms. MacDonald’s otherwise laudable piece.
Further Reading
