“The expansion of politics into almost all aspects of life means that activities that were previously considered nonpartisan have been made partisan—legislation and regulation have not kept up,” concludes open letter co-signed by its chairman.
“Such an examination by a respected Congressional agency could reassure both critics and defenders of the IRS generally and the Exempt Organizations division in particular,” according to Ellen P. Aprill and Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer.
Policymakers must divorce themselves from the old connotations of what they always believed “charity” represented, and instead see them as what they have morphed into today.
This article, republished with permission, originally appeared in The Chronicle of Philanthropy on December 13, 2022. With Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock’s victory last week, another contentious Georgia Senate race is over, and with it, the attention focused on nonprofits for their role in registering, educating, and mobilizing voters and monitoring the fairness of the electoral process.… Continue reading Georgia Senate race shows why the fraying line between charity and politics must be repaired
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s promise that any efforts to “clean up” the politicization of nonprofits will be pursued regardless of various practical effects on those engaging in it may present an opportunity.
A “joke,” and other characterizations.
The scholar of nonprofit and election law talks to Michael E. Hartmann about what should and shouldn’t be considered a subsidy for charities, and the relationships between charity, politics, and government.
Conservatives would be wise to push for a bolder plan that addresses the conflation of political and charitable causes—and clearly defines what constitutes legitimate charitable goals. That’s the only way to ensure philanthropy doesn’t lose all credibility and become completely politicized. Let’s focus on what really matters.
She probably should have known better, and sure seemed to have known so once.