politics

Her approach to giving—personal, practical, rooted in place—offers a striking contrast to the ambitions and methods of America’s largest foundations.

Doesn’t seem as if there’s much pluralism in large-foundation employees’ reported political contributions.

Among the House members who cast ordinary yea-or-nay votes on all three bills, 72% voted for all three of them. Of the Senators who cast such votes on all three bills, 62% supported all three.

Actually to do democracy would demand, as she proposes, that philanthropy “better understand the American public’s full range of perspectives and what is fueling their dissatisfaction with how the system is working.”

The author of “Madisonian Nonprofit Law” talks to Michael E. Hartmann about effects of philanthropic LLCs on Madisonian nonprofit law and of a Madisonian nonprofit sector on political parties and politics; the tradeoffs in analyzing the interaction between nonprofits and politics and thinking about both the nationalization and commercialization of nonprofits; democracy and the “art of losing;” and democratically expressed backlash against elites, including philanthropic ones, and its risks to Madisonianism.

The author of “Madisonian Nonprofit Law” talks to Michael E. Hartmann about James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, checks and balances in the context of the nonprofit sector in general, some of the different ways in which nonprofits engage with and can check government, and the role of philanthropy in particular in counterbalancing government power, or not.

A mid-year collection of interesting and insightful passages.

The education scholar and reform advocate talks to Michael E. Hartmann more about philanthropic support of higher-ed reform, including for non-billionaires, the risks and drawbacks of funding conservative “beachhead” centers within existing universities in particular, and what ordinary citizens can do about the problems of and being caused by higher ed—as well as more about nonprofitdom’s privileged tax status.

A compilation of interesting and insightful thinking from the first four of seven recorded discussions so far this year about grantmaking and giving.

From other media outlets, state attorneys general, and state legislators.

The Brandeis University professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about differences in the two parties’ policy networks, corporate support of both networks, and how to consider improving the research product available to policymakers and the public, including by strengthening parties.

In missing some avenues of giving, getting it wrong.

Aggressive oversight—not new laws—may be the only way to curb the growing use of charitable dollars for political ends.

And the bluster.

The Ronald Reagan Institute senior fellow talks to Michael E. Hartmann more about how the right should consider what to do about problems caused by the left’s intermingling with and reliance on politicized nonprofits.

David Callahan is (about 90%) right, and he will still be after next November 3.

In straining to separate partisan politics from election-adjacent activities, answers to Independent Sector survey questions beg one.

A modest 1 or 2 percent increase could significantly benefit the nonprofit sector.

And its costs.

To survive future scrutiny, foundations need to reform how and where they give.

In both messaging and missions, bridges instead of bubbles.

The London-based policy analyst and commentator talks to Michael E. Hartmann about the politicization of charities in the U.K., the role of the Charity Commission and other “quangos” there, and cross-Atlantic similarities in challenges being both presented by and facing nonprofit groups.

Today’s polarization between left-wing Democrats and populist conservative Republicans is also a polarization between two radically different understandings of giving.

Wealthy foundations and nonprofits need to change their ways—not scare the rest of the field into submission.

In the wake of recent rumors and reports, revisiting a real-life, very pre-Earth Day revocation.

And the damage likely to be done if it takes his advice to deepen involvement in partisan politics.

The Indiana University professor talks to Michael E. Hartmann about the degree to which trust, or lack of it, in wealth and the wealthy may or may not have played a role in the creation of Big Philanthropy at the beginning of the last century, through to the 1969 Tax Reform Act that essentially still structures the nonprofit sector, to today. He also discusses the growth of nonprofits in the urban context, as well as some ramifications of that growth.

“At a later date, OMB will offer a new proposal designed to ensure that contractors and grantees do not use federal funds for lobbying or political activity,” the Office of Management and Budget’s Michael Horowitz wrote in May 1983.

“Using tax privileges, matching grants, special restrictions, and unique legal devices, the modern state gives the practice of philanthropy its particular strength and texture,” according to Theodore M. Lechterman. “Which if any of these regulatory strategies can be justified requires careful analysis and evaluation.”

A selection of recent reviews.

A reminder of a previous willingness to offer harsh conservative criticism of Big Philanthropy, and of that which gave rise to the critique.

In discussion with Charity Reform Initiative associate director Bella DeVaan and Giving Review co-editor Michael E. Hartmann, the editor and journalist talks about donor-advised funds and the challenges of, and prospects for, potential reform of the laws and regulations structuring the nonprofit sector more generally.

In discussion with Charity Reform Initiative associate director Bella DeVaan and Giving Review co-editor Michael E. Hartmann, the editor and journalist talks about his important recent article on “The Left’s Fragile Foundations;” philanthropy and politics in general, including funding of voter-registration projects in particular; and liberal and conservative grantmaking, including in the wake of populism’s ascendance.

A regular curation.

The fifth in a series of five republished articles to mark our fifth anniversary.

The fourth in a series of five republished articles to mark our fifth anniversary.

A mid-year collection of interesting and insightful thinking about grantmaking and giving.

Seeming to despair of creating anything of lasting value from philanthropy understood as a free-standing activity—and shifting to what turns out to be little more than another Democratic Party get-out-the vote effort, of the sort already very much in evidence in today’s political philanthropy.

Daniel Schlozman’s and Sam Rosenfeld’s new book tells how wealthy givers, on both the left and the right, have played a part in weakening political parties, and thus also politics and policymaking, in America.

A regular curation.

If successful, the suit would further politicize the charitable world, to its great detriment.

This year’s election demands greater scrutiny of nonprofits involved in political activities.

Fundamental questions.

Subcommittee on Oversight to hear from legal experts and researchers.

What might she think of The New York Times’ in-depth investigation of nonprofits and politics?