First, review the CLPI/Kellogg Foundation publication, “Effective Lobbying at All Levels” http://www.wkkf.org/advocacyhandbook/index.html AND Listening to the Robert Egger and Pablo Eisenberg debate on “Should charitable, exempt nonprofits advocate?” (Scroll, Click, and View all 5 clips)
http://www.zimbio.com/Egger+vs+Eisenberg#zVideo_1_anchor
THEN answer the following questions: -Where do you stand generally on this issue? Please describe your stance, and support your stance with evidence from course readings and the above two materials. -Identify an 501 ( c ) 3 organization of interest (briefly describing the organization and, if possible, providing a link to the organization’s website). Review the organization’s website and consider skimming the organization’s most recent IRS Form 990 and comment on their current level of advocacy behavior (or the lack thereof, or the lack of transparency regarding such activities). Finally, make recommendations for whether the organization should or shouldn’t engage in “charitable advocacy and lobbying in the public interest”, and strategies for doing so or scaling back, as appropriate.
Should nonprofits participate in advocacy? Yes, in accordance to their limits prescribed by law - and those laws should be expanded.
Western Philanthropical History is rife with the natural outgrowth of advocacy from the work of charity as demonstrated in Kevin C Robbins article "The Nonprofit Sector in Historical Perspective: Traditions of Philanthropy in the West". Whether it is one of the prime elements in Jewish values, or an outgrowth of Roman political manuevering that inured conquered to Caesar's rule, it is inextricably tied with the work that nonprofits are said to engage in.
From a practical perspective advocacy is both an outgrowth of the work done specifically in the social welfare sectors of the nonprofit complex and a communication instrument vital to the efficient management of the industry and the individual organization. If we truly care about our clients, if our ethics are truly rooted in a mission that serves to improve the world by addressing certain societal "gaps" - whatever those may be, then it is incumbent upon us to advocate on behalf of what we see "on the ground". One way to think about the function of advocacy is to simply think of it as best practice communication techniques with stakeholders and external influences. With stakeholders, and the public at large - any organization that is truly transparent not only wants to show why the work they are doing is important, but they want to simultaneously lift people up while educating others to the important work they are doing.
Another perspective, I like is the perspective of Washington Protection and Advocacy System (http://www.wpas-rights.org/What%20is%20Advocacy/what_advocacy.htm) which posits Advocacy as "problem solving used:
To protect rights or change unfair discriminatory or abusive treatment to fair, equal, and humane treatment- To improve services, gain eligibility for services or change the amount or quality of services to better meet the needs of an individual
- To remove barriers which prevent full access to full participation in community life"
In this viewpoint, Advocacy is problem solving...it is a method by which we help those served by our mission and purpose.
If we understand that advocacy is each of these individually (an innate characteristic of charatos, a method of communication, and a method of problem solving) and / or all of these three elements at the same time, then why should we constrain or limit nonprofits from doing so. After all, it is well attested that the for-profit sector is allowed to directly lobby, endorse candidates, etc in order to get what best benefits them. I saw this best in my professional life during the 2007 state legislative session in which the cable industry was trying to defeat a measure to open internet to phone company competition, a bit of legislation wherein corporate actively tried to recruit every employee in our company via grassroots mechanisms to call their elected officials and defeat this measure.
Is this bad? Does this get out of hand?
Yes, that particular summer a special session was called for education reform in Texas that ended up being a drawn out battle on this telecommunications "topic". But, does that necessitate that we deny the ability of those who own machines of industry to talk with and work with government towards solutions - even if those solutions are in the best interest of party "A". I would disagree with that.
I would agree that there need to be limits, as we see in the nonprofit world - but that those limits need to be changed. 501c3 organizations are allowed basically issue based, grassroots advocacy. I accept that, but think that more should be allowed. I do not agree that funds should be used to directly fund a candidates campaign - as those funds are in a real sense owned by the public at large through the tax deduction incentive for those who donate to such organizations.
And so, it would extend that perhaps such organizations should not say "We like candidate X and think you should vote for her." However, I do not agree with the crackdown on grassroots, issue based spending that the IRS has engaged in and enforced. I think that amounts spent on issue based activism for 501c3 organizations should be transparent for public viewing. The 501c3 is then beholden to the public in their community - and not the IRS for those expenditures. And, since the tax deduction virtual dollar is the community dollar, and not the IRS....that seems more fair (unless we consider that the IRS is the watchdog of the "community virtual dollar" created through tax deduction).
I also do not agree that 501c4 organizations should be prohibited from candidate endorsement, as funds donated to a 501c4 to not incur a tax deductive benefit. If such organizations can get people to donate to them, then they are beholden to those people and not the IRS for their use of those funds. For me the nondistribution constrain and transparency demands of the IRS serve well enough as guard in the case of 501c4.
For me this is most apparent for an organization like the American Diabetes Association, which needs to do several things to fulfill its vision of "cure, care, and commitment" through a mission to, "prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes".
To do this, ADA ( http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp) must engage in research, while also communicating that research to the public and directly to the government through advocacy to address those government failures wherein policy can be improved and citizen needs can better be addressed in a normative government funding sense of other initiatives.
Personally, having a partner with diabetes, and hearing via my "ear to the ground", I think that the ADA needs to do more. Insurance companies need to be addressed directly in terms of
- Deductibles and co-insurance provisions of diabetic supplies.
- Life-insurance denial when patients may be in treatment for diabetes that minimizes or mitigates their acturarial risk. Government needs to be encouraged to engage in programming that really addresses nutrition emergencies in our nation, to educate the public, and to encourage through incentive programs those sort of initiatives that move industry towards more nutritionally sound and diabetic risk mitigated foods and drugs. Not being an advocate for ADA, and viewing only what is on their website - I am encouraged that some of this is being pursued. However, more always needs to be done.
Thank you for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment