This legislation, which I do not expect to make it through the Senate (this time) is a clear cut reason why using policy to affect #philanthropy can be a real loser for the proponents of it. There are plenty of examples of organizations that have been accused of domestic terror (that are tied to long-standing nonprofit institutions and organizations) and view themselves as part of the coalition to which the authors of this bill belong. With a Presidential election won by one of the narrowest margins in decades, a House that will have, at best, a four seat majority; and a Senate with a three seat majority, surely the incoming, dominant plurality in our country cannot believe that they will hold on to power for long. Should that be the case, would they be comfortable with the opposing plurality determining the definition of terror and who should be investigated for it? This whole effort seems risky and unnecessary to me... but, here we are https://lnkd.in/gyRjNcYy
Since government already controls much of nonprofit work with underfunded and overscrutinized contracts, this legislation is to nail down academic freedom supported by tuition and endowments. It also threatens activity based on charitable gifts. The wealthy on both sides of the aisle like it.
Advocate for the Nonprofit Workforce
2moThank you Glen Galaich for addressing this. Too many foundation leaders are keeping their powder dry and not speaking out publicly against this, or at least educating their representatives of the risks. Not only could funders’ grantees be besmirched and destroyed (a big loss for the communities they serve), but the foundations themselves could be directly targeted themselves. Since hundreds of nonprofit leaders have been willing to stick their necks out to oppose this bill publicly, funders could show the same courage. This is a moment that calls for foundations to lobby in “self defense” - which private foundations clearly, legally have the right to do. For now.