Defending Charity in an Age of Political Mistrust

​

By many measures, we are living in one of the most divisive moments in our nation’s nearly 250-year history. Disagreement has hardened into mistrust. Americans are trading blame. As we saw in Karl Zinsmeister’s recent op-ed, even the deeply American commitment to charitable giving is increasingly under scrutiny.

With mistrust distorting perceptions of philanthropy, a concerning narrative is taking hold. This narrative, visible in Zinsmeister’s piece and elsewhere, holds that the generosity we disagree with is inherently suspect, even illegal. A clear-eyed view of how charitable foundations work helps put the debates about the sector in the proper context.

Philanthropic organizations have always supported a wide range of causes aligned with the donor’s intent as well as the institution’s specific mission and values. At times, different foundations are on opposite sides of the same issue. That variety is not a flaw in our charitable system; it is one of its greatest strengths. It allows charitable foundations and nonprofits to focus energy where government and business do not. It also allows them to take the long view necessary to address complex challenges like hunger or veterans’ mental health – all while investing in ways that support vibrant, resilient communities. Foundations are able to do this charitable work precisely because of their flexibility and independence.

For decades, Congress, the courts, and the IRS have drawn boundaries around what constitutes charitable giving. These laws govern the conduct of the sector to ensure it maintains integrity, transparency, and public trust. Leaders in the charitable sector welcome appropriate oversight given that bad actors tarnish trust more broadly. However, the challenge we face today is a growing impulse to judge charitable organizations through the lens of political discomfort rather than the law.

Charitable foundations fund organizations that provide public benefit, from food banks and churches to research institutions and community groups. They may also support groups that advance public policy ideas or solutions, even when controversial or contrary to prevailing views.

At the same time, what is out of bounds for charitable foundations and nonprofits is clear: direct support for political candidates or parties, coordinated electioneering, and partisan campaign activity. Longstanding protections like the Johnson Amendment safeguard the public trust by keeping charitable organizations out of partisan politics.

Additionally, self-dealing, fraud, misuse of funds, and violations of tax and disclosure rules are not only illegal, they fly in the face of charitable purpose, which is to serve the public good. These are clear red lines enforceable through audits, reporting requirements, excise taxes, penalties, and – when necessary – the revocation of tax-exempt status. In other words, the tools to respond when wrongdoing occurs are already in place. Those tools must be applied fairly and without consideration of who is comfortable with an organization’s work and who is not.

Speaking up about shared concerns and putting forward ideas to address them – even when they challenge current policy or popular opinion – is a core part of a healthy, independent civil society. Which is why charitable law regulates conduct – not viewpoints, outcomes, or comfort levels.

At its core, the charitable sector is one of the most visible ways Americans come together to care for each other and their communities. That work strengthens – not weakens – our democracy and must be protected. Letting political polarization undermine it would be a loss we all share.