Conflicting Agendas.

Congress will pressure philanthropy 

There's been quite a bit of buzz and trepidation regarding President George W Bush's view of faith-based organizations taking on more of what government had previously handled for the nation's neediest citizens. The quick reaction has been, to paraphrase another Republican president, "There they go again."

The truth is that the possible additional work load is not what should concern the sector. And, blaming the new administration for an increased client load is wrong-headed.

The fact is that during the past eight years the sector has taken on unprecedented levels of service previously provided by the government. Nobody seemed to mind taking on a few more burdens when Bill Clinton asked them to do so. They shouldn't now just because there's a new occupant in the Oval Office.

If the rules of the game remain the same, and that includes dumping the idea of abolishing the estate tax, the sector will find a way to make it work. After all, Americans have always done so and this will be no exception.

The storm clouds sector leaders should be concerned with are moving from the Congress, not from the White House.

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) is talking about using American charities to handle the country's foreign aid, while. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is now chair of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee that deals with among other things, postal rates.

During 1998, the most recent year for which statistics are available, U.S. foundations gave $1.6 billion internationally. Rank and file nonprofits gave at least hundreds of millions more, particularly during crises such as Kosovo.

The philosophic problem is not the concept of providing aid. The issue is U.S. nonprofits acting as agents of the federal government, thus becoming a pawn in foreign policy matters. Such actions would tarnish the good reputations of many non-political relief and international development organizations. It also weakens defenses against intrusion by the government into the organization's work and mission.

Charitable nonprofits absolutely should not be an arm of the federal government. If aid is needed, obviously nonprofits would be more efficient than the government's Agency for International Development. But, that's not the point. Leaders from around the world have pointed to food and relief efforts as weapons of choice in many developing countries. Nonprofits don't need to be in the middle of both foreign interventions.

Nonprofit staff and volunteers are already at risk in the field. Representatives of different organizations have been murdered in hostile regions of Africa, for example, and the recent capture of a Doctors Without Borders coordinator in Chechnya attests to still-present dangers there. Nonprofit leaders need to ensure the sector does not become further embroiled with the administration's rewarding and punishing of regimes abroad.

The issue remains the same for the domestic side of the equation. The more the government contracts with nonprofits, the greater the likelihood of stricter regulation. That's where Rep. Istook comes in.

It wasn't too long ago that the sector found something to agree on. That issue was stopping Istook every time he attempted to attach his anti-lobby (re: free speech) amendment to every bill working its way through Congress. The sector mobilized and defeated it in every instance.

Well if it doesn't work legislatively, perhaps pricing the mail at a greater rate will have the same silencing impact. Nonprofits won a huge victory just a few months back when nonprofit postal rates were tied to commercial rates. Under Istook and his subcommittee, that can all come undone.

So, while Congress wants the sector to do more, it may also restrict the ability to raise the money to do so.

Leaders such as Neal Denton at The Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers and Lee Cassidy at the Direct Marketing Association Nonprofit Federation must keep a tight watch on that committee and be ready to mobilize opposition to any move to raise nonprofit postal rates.