What We Talk About When We Talk About Giving

The dog days of summer used to be slow ones for charitable donors. Usually, they're even slower for the rulemakers who govern giving. Charitable deductions? Most of us only worry about those at the end of the calendar year or at tax time (if then). Political activity by nonprofits? With few elections on this month's calendar (NJ's special election primary is the only one that comes to mind), only true insiders are worrying about nonprofit donor disclosure rules.

So why are The New York Times and Wall Street Journal running stories on charitable tax deductions and donor disclosure? Slow news days or signs that, while most of us are watching the waves roll in, the political realities of nonprofits really are shifting? Discussion and debate about tax rules and donor disclosure have waxed and waned over the last several years, heating up during campaign season and dying down during the rest of the year. But there's something different going on right now. When it seems policymakers should be preoccupied with county fairs and other seasonal issues the regulatory structures that guide nonprofits are front page news. The wonkiest of policy issues – taxes, disclosure, corporate governance – are hotter topics than the weather.

In real discussions of tax reform and as acts of political brinksmanship, real concern about IRS rule enforcement and expedient Congressional indignation, real efforts at solving city budget shortfalls and in headline grabbing efforts by local taxpayers one thing is becoming clear about how we talk about nonprofits – what was once sacrosanct is now open for discussion.

That these discussions, negotiations, and news stories are happening on the last beach days makes them more meaningful, not less. And while it's notable that we're having these discussions in the doldrums of summer, what really matters is what we're saying in those conversations. By my measure, what we're saying is "let's revisit the rules that shape how we give." No matter when that happens, that's news.

Jennifer Logan-Porter

Vincit qui se vincit (“He conquers who conquers himself”)

10y

Thank you for sharing your incredible insight!!!

Like
Reply
Aaron Hurst

LinkedIn Top Voice, CEO, Bestselling Author, & Social Entrepreneur. Founder Taproot Foundation, Imperative, Board.Dev & Shared Purpose.

10y

We should start by making sure the government pays its contracts with nonprofits on time. So many nonprofits are doing outsourced government work and then the government isn't paying the contracts on time which creates terrible cash flow issues for nonprofits.

Like
Reply
Roy Draa, MMS, CSM

Fixer | X Safety | Planning, Innovation, Execution, Process Improvement | US Marine Veteran

10y

This presupposes that new revenues are the answer to the budget crises of the nation and cash-strapped cities. Why would we not look at how our CFOs in the public sector are working? What private corporate-CFO would retain his/her position once the board realized that he/she was not doing his/her job? A CFO has three major things areas of concern: capital budgeting, financing productive assets, and working capital decisions. If public comptrollers are not doing this and shaping the decisions of citycouncils-why are they still employed? Granted, non-profits should come under some scrutiny, perhaps akin to Sarbanes-Oxley, but that is also to increase cost of operations. Sure Sarbanes-Oxley sets the ethical conditions to prevent another WorldCom/Enron/TyCo...but do you want to foist that agency cost on a Susan Komen For the Cure or St. Jude's Children's Hospital? Probably not-so how do we define charity? Altruism vice politics?

Lee Schlesinger

Technology problem solver for multiple industries

10y

Charity should be charity. Please see this link for a better understanding of 501(c)(4): http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/16/odonnell-reminds-politicians-of-the-real-irs-scandal/ To me, if a donor is giving to get, it is not really a donation. Political donations are given to have a voice and affect laws. Sometimes, it is to seek justice. Others use it as another way to lobby for self-interests. Charles and David Koch have funded American for Prosperity which wants to lower taxes, most effectively for Charles and David Koch. If there are credible threats against safety, anonymity should be given to donors. Otherwise, large amount political donors should be identified.

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Explore topics