Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Philanthropy Roundtable spoke with Bill Ahmanson, president of The Ahmanson Foundation, about the Foundation’s support for organizations and institutions based in and serving the greater Los Angeles community and the vital role philanthropic freedom plays in making this work possible. The Foundation was founded by Howard F. Ahmanson Sr. in 1952. It focuses on capital projects supporting the arts, education, medical and health care services, low-income population and homelessness alleviation programs and various human services. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

Q: Before we get into how you and The Ahmanson Foundation address key challenges in your area, how does philanthropic freedom make it possible to meet your mission? 

Ahmanson: Being able to give, how, where and when is important to The Ahmanson Foundation because it gives us the ability to stay nimble and to better address areas of need. If individual giving is restricted, then needs are going to go unmet and that would not serve the community at large. Individual giving is the largest source of nonprofit support. 

One of the great aspects of America is freedom of association. Donor privacy is included in that as a constitutional right. Many people make donations anonymously because they want to be private. When we see legislation that says, “You must disclose who your donors are,” the first question we should ask is, “Why? What’s the goal?” Well, it’s really a fishing expedition to know who may have differing, contrary opinions. America is about the freedom to have differences of opinion and moving along peacefully.  

Q: Thanks to the freedom to give, what is The Ahmanson Foundation doing to meet its mission? 

Ahmanson: The foundation takes a unique approach primarily as a capital funder defined as “If you can touch it, we will fund it.” This strategy ensures organizations have the tools and environment necessary to make positive impacts on their missions. Our grants support projects ranging from HVAC and sewer systems to MRI machines and fine art in addition to traditional bricks and mortar grant making.   

Q: Why is funding the arts so important to the Foundation? 

Ahmanson: The Ahmanson Foundation is a major supporter of the arts in Los Angeles for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is Los Angeles is a mecca of emerging artists, and home to some of the finest museums in the world. Los Angeles has excellent schools that teach commercial artists who contribute the robust culture economy in Los Angeles. Another reason is how the arts can change the lives of those who create it and those who consume it. One of my favorite stories comes from an LAPD commander, who said “We’ve never arrested a child with a violin case.” The meaning of that story is when kids are involved in the arts, they’re less likely to choose alternative paths. 

Another story comes from CalArts. A young man, while addressing the board of trustees, held up a pair of drumsticks and said, “These drumsticks saved my life.” The young man continued, “I grew up in a gang area. Whenever somebody asked who I ran with, I’d hold these up and say, ‘I play drums.’” And amazingly the gangs would leave him alone. Kehinde Wiley was so inspired by the Huntington Museum’s Portrait Gallery as a young man he became a portrait artist himself, painting the official Obama portraits.  

I love these stories. These stories are why we support the arts. 

Q: Homelessness is a major issue in your area and around the country. What is the Foundation’s approach to this issue? 

Ahmanson: Homelessness is a big issue in every major city and The Ahmanson Foundation, like many others, is doing what we can. In Los Angeles, we are not particularly strong proponents of the housing first model, because we don’t see the underlying issues like mental health and drug addiction being addressed. More people are becoming homeless than there are getting out of homelessness under this model, which has caused concern about its efficacy. We support organizations that have a sobriety model. We find that when people become accountable for their actions, start new lives with recovery and sobriety, there are more incentives to finish the program and maintain their new lifestyle. 

Q: What role can philanthropy play in addressing crime in our communities? 

Ahmanson: Crime affects everybody and intimidates people in their own city, and we want to be part of the solution. I take a personal role with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and we’ve made grants to the LAPD to increase their technology that helps to combat crime.  

I think philanthropy can be a major player in crime reduction. Philanthropists can take a more active voice in the drivers of crime in the first place, specifically education. There are many studies that indicate nothing is better than a good education which can lead to a good job. If people have those two things they avoid crime, jail, drugs and a lot of other bad outcomes. So many of the problems in our society stem from a failing education system.  

That’s where philanthropy can become a major player because every societal ill, (including) crime, homelessness and the reliance on drugs, can be reduced with better education which leads to better opportunity. If you want to talk about equity, diversity and inclusion, nothing helps more than a good quality education. Philanthropists can step in to encourage an education system kids want to participate in and an environment they want to go to every single day. 

The post Serving Los Angeles: A Conversation with Bill Ahmanson appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about. 

In a new Philanthropy Roundtable video, Kim Dennis, president and CEO of the Searle Freedom Trust, says imposing restrictions on charitable giving will harm those most in need. Founded by Daniel C. Searle in 1998 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Searle Freedom Trust champions freedom of all types, including the freedom to give. The Trust provides funding for domestic public policy research that promotes economic liberty and individual freedom. Dennis is a long-time advocate of philanthropic freedom and defender against policies that would restrict such freedom.  

“If people cannot give to the causes they want to give to, they’re not going to give. Full stop. Philanthropy [will] cease to exist,” Dennis says. Throughout the video, Dennis emphasizes the danger facing those in need if the charitable sector is restricted and limited.  

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post Why the Freedom to Give Matters with Kim Dennis   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Philanthropy Roundtable recently had the privilege of interviewing a representative of No One Left Behind, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting former interpreters and U.S. government employees who qualify for the Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) programs. The Roundtable also spoke with Matt Watters, a former Green Beret with the United States Army Special Forces and current member of No One Left Behind’s Board of Directors, along with Sahil, Watters’s interpreter in Afghanistan. 

Founded by Janis Shinwari, a former Afghan interpreter who arrived in the United States by way of the SIV program, No One Left Behind has evacuated approximately 6,800 Afghans to safety and provided over $3.75 Million in resettlement assistance to approximately 6,630 newly resettled allies in the United States since 2021 alone. 

Watters and Sahil discuss the crucial role of our allies left behind under Taliban rule, and highlight the need for continued advocacy and support. No One Left Behind emphasizes how critical donor privacy and the freedom to give are to their mission. 

No One ​L​eft Behind estimates that 140,000 allies remain in Afghanistan fearing for their lives and waiting for America to fulfill its promise. 

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.  

Q: Matt, can you give us a quick history of your service and time in Afghanistan? 

Watters: I was deployed with the U.S. Army Special Forces as a Green Beret. My deployment in 2020 was during the wind-down of operations in Afghanistan. But it was highly kinetic with a lot of combat, which was unusual for that time. We were an expeditionary force out of Bagram, moving to wherever there was fighting in the country. 

Sahil was assigned as our interpreter along with a couple of others. As a weapons sergeant, I often worked closely with the Afghan Special Forces. Green Berets are unique in that we act as teachers, conducting complex missions often through allied forces. 

In Afghanistan, we trained the Afghan Special Forces in advanced techniques and conducted missions together. This collaboration was impossible without interpreters, as I spoke essentially no Pashto, the native language. A great interpreter like Sahil did more than translate; he helped us understand the culture and political landscape. For instance, he was able to learn from local kids where the Taliban or ISIS-K had placed IEDs (improvised explosive device), potentially saving our lives by avoiding those areas. 

Q: Sahil, we’re curious, what inspired you to become an interpreter?  

Sahil: I started working as an interpreter during my childhood. The American and Afghan soldiers and interpreters would come to the streets where we lived. The soldiers would talk to the kids and give them chocolates, water and such. I was very small and I thought, “I can be an interpreter someday.” When I grew up, I saw the Taliban and ISIS killing innocent students, people and teachers. I believe that the Taliban and ISIS were terrorists. I believed in democracy which is why I wanted to work with U.S. forces to help Afghan’s previous government resist the Taliban. So, I joined as an interpreter in 2019 and I met Matt in 2020. I worked for a year as an interpreter, and I went on almost 150 missions with those teams. 

Q: Matt, as a veteran, can you share why it’s so important to advocate for the interpreters who are still in Afghanistan or other countries?  

Watters: The first thing I would say is it’s incredibly dangerous for our interpreters like Sahil. You’re basically asking them to go on these missions with us without combat training. They’re walking into a gunfight with just a bulletproof vest on. Secondly, they’re flagging themselves to their community as being part of our effort. They could very easily face ramifications for that, should we not succeed.  

America promises safe passage to the U.S. for those who serve with us honorably. This promise matters for our ability to recruit future interpreters and help but also to the soldier who’s making that promise – there’s nothing more important than your word. There is an incredible bond when you go through trauma or combat together because you are so dependent on the people around you and interpreters become part of your team. So, when you leave you take comfort in the fact that you can help them through the SIV and come to America should they ever need it. 

Q: Can you expand on what it looks like on the ground in Afghanistan, Sahil? I imagine you still have family and friends there?  

Sahil: It is deteriorating and getting worse. Right now, our people don’t have freedom of speech. Nobody can say anything against those in charge or the media. I have friends there who cannot leave their homes after the Taliban took power. They were interpreters, laborers or mine detectors for the U.S. and they’re still hiding. So right now, their life is not safe. 

Watters: No One Left Behind keeps a roster of SIV eligible people. Not just interpreters, but people who could have been fixers or drivers for U.S. forces—we have more than 300 people on the list. Sahil mentioned friends who are not leaving their houses, but we know of others who have literally been hiding in a room because they don’t feel safe to get out and walk around because they were so visible to the community as being part of U.S. efforts. People have had to send their families to live in other places for safety and haven’t seen those family members for years. It’s just a tragic circumstance. 

Q: How is No One Left Behind filling the gap caused by the failure of our government to keep its promises to our Afghan interpreters by bringing them for resettlement in the U.S.? How has philanthropy stepped in to help America keep our promise to our allies? 

No One Left Behind: No One Left Behind is the nation’s oldest charitable organization dedicated to fulfilling America’s promise to our Afghan and Iraqi allies. As it stands today, 140,000 allies and their family members remain left behind in Afghanistan in fear for their lives. This reality is a national failure that spans administrations and Congresses of both parties. As an organization, we believe it is up to us collectively as a nation to do the right thing and stand true to our word. 

Because of generous donors, volunteers and our dedicated staff, we serve our allies by way of evacuation, resettlement and advocacy efforts. Since August of 2021 alone, we’ve evacuated 6,797, supported 6,629 here in the United States and played a role in passing critical legislation, including the largest addition of visas (12,000) in the program’s history. Philanthropy has made all of this possible and is the driving force in ensuring our work continues until every promise has been fulfilled. 

Q: Because of the work you do, how important is donor privacy to No One Left Behind’s mission? 

No One Left Behind: No One Left Behind maintains high standards of privacy. We always ensure that our allies’ information is kept safe from those that would do them harm. That ethos carries over to our donors whose privacy we protect. We are funded strictly by generous donors, not the government. Simply put, donors are the reason we’re able to do this life-saving work. We take pride in safeguarding our donors’ information and protecting their privacy at every stage of the donation process. We are honored by their financial contributions and feel it is our duty to safeguard their privacy. 

Q: Why do you believe protecting the freedom to give – the freedom of all Americans to support the charities and nonprofits they choose, and the right to do anonymously – is vital to the American charitable sector? 

No One Left Behind: Protecting the freedom to give is crucial for maintaining a vibrant and effective American charitable sector. It is not just about facilitating donations. It’s about upholding the principles of generosity, diversity, privacy and democracy that are fundamental to our nation’s charitable sector. Ultimately, protecting the freedom to give ensures that nonprofits, regardless of size, focus or history, can continue to make a meaningful difference in the world. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

Philanthropy Roundtable is grateful to all the men and women who have served our country. We owe you our freedom and will never forget your sacrifice and courage. For questions about the Roundtable’s work related to veterans or America’s founding principles, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Portfolio Director Clarice Smith. 

Photo source: SSG William Tremblay

The post No One Left Behind: Keeping America’s Promises to Our Allies  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Lawrence (Larry) Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies (PC) and Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute and formerly a senior research fellow at Stand Together, a large philanthropic community, where he identified and vetted potential grantees in the technology and innovation space.

We spoke with both to discuss the impact of PC’s policy research throughout the world. By focusing on rigorous, timely and effective legal and economic research, Spiwak and Chilson discuss PC’s principled advocacy in shaping public policy for the digital age and the critical role donor privacy plays in their mission.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Q: Larry, let’s start with some background info on the Phoenix Center. What do you do and where does the motivation come from?

Spiwak: The Phoenix Center is a nonprofit research organization that studies the law and economics of the digital age. We started the organization over 25 years ago when our Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford and I were both young staffers at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We saw the need for a think tank that could take a deep dive into the complex issues at stake and produce rigorous, timely and dispassionate legal and economic academic work that was relevant to the debate. No one had really done this before, and we are among the very few who are doing it now.

The Phoenix Center produces three types of papers of different lengths: Policy Papers, Policy Bulletins and Policy Perspectives. The Phoenix Center is unique in the policy space in that our research is often published in refereed academic journals. We also write op-eds and essays for major news and academic outlets such as The Hill, the Yale Journal on Regulation and the Federalist Society Blog.

Moreover, we have been privileged to be invited to testify in front of Congress and state legislatures, and we also frequently provide background briefings to members of the press or lawmakers about particular policy questions. Finally, the Phoenix Center often files amicus briefs before assorted courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions) when we believe our research would be helpful to the resolution of the case at bar.

All our academic work is available free on our website and the Social Science Research Network where both George and I are among the top one percent of authors downloaded each year. 

Q: What types of policies does the PC primarily focus on with its work and what type of impact have you witnessed your work have?

Spiwak: While our roots are in the tech and telecom sector, we have become very involved in both the antitrust reform debate and free speech debate because these topics are now intertwined. For the last 10 years or so, we have also developed a research agenda to protect intellectual property around the globe. We have also conducted legal and economic research on topics such as calculating the “cost per regulator,” the economic costs of raising the minimum wage, root causes of inflation, energy price surges and even railroad regulation. We are frequently cited by, among others, the FCC, the courts, members of Congress and in academic literature, and we very much appreciate that folks find our research helpful. The U.S. government, along with the governments of Brazil and Portugal, have also retained us for discrete research projects.

Q: What differentiates the Phoenix Center from other organizations like it and how do people get involved?

Spiwak: We’re academics at heart, so our research agenda is our own simply because we focus on the issue areas that interest us. For the very generous folks who financially support us, we are very clear about what we do and the issues we focus on. To that point, we are strong proponents of having an open and continuous dialogue with our patrons so that they know exactly what research their donations support.

But there is more to this dialogue: we view our patrons as our intellectual partners and not just people we try to connect with once a year to renew our grant. We do not have all the answers and very often our patrons have experience and ideas that present a fresh perspective. 

Finally, in these tight financial times, we like to think that we provide our patrons with a lot of value for their donations.  It is very gratifying when our patrons tell us that they are amazed by our output and that they are unaware of any other organization who produces the amount and sophistication of work that we publish every year.

Q: Recently we have seen increasing attacks on the right of charitable donors to give anonymously, even after two Supreme Court cases supported anonymity. Would potential attacks on donor privacy hurt your organization? Do you see this potentially hindering your donors from continuing to support your work if their personal information is disclosed to the public?

Spiwak: It most certainly concerns us. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, forcing organizations to disclose their donors is both pernicious and unconstitutional. I suggest that everybody read the Court’s original 1958 NAACP v. Alabama opinion as well as the relatively recent Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta opinion in 2021. In both cases, the Court explains—just from a public policy standpoint alone—why it is important to give charitable donors the option to remain anonymous, not to mention the fact explicitly holding that donor privacy is protected under the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Any efforts to disclose donor information is a direct attack and threat to our personal liberties. If any mandatory donor disclosure legislation gets passed into law, then it will absolutely hinder charitable donations across the country. I would argue it would hinder donations not just from those who are less insulated, but any donor for that matter. We’ve heard stories of donors getting doxed and having fake reviews posted online to kill their businesses. 

More disturbing, we have heard stories about donor harassment and outright threats of physical violence. Such behavior has no place in our society, and forcing donor disclosure will simply exacerbate the problem. It’s remarkable the number of people on both sides of the aisle who simply do not understand the likely repercussions of enacting this kind of bad legislation, and it falls on us to educate them.

Finally, issues of donor privacy present a unique wrinkle for the Phoenix Center. As I noted a moment ago, the Phoenix Center is in the business of producing detailed legal and economic analysis to answer very complicated public policy questions. This is not a simple task: it requires a significant amount of time, effort and expertise. But in public policy debates passions run high, particularly when billions of dollars are at stake. Thus, when the battle is pitched, we often find that people who disagree with us don’t attack the merits of our work but instead immediately go for the ad hominem argument and try to impugn our independent work, which, as mentioned, very often gets published in peer-reviewed journals, by attacking our donors.

In other words, rather than determining whether our work is right or wrong, people who disagree with us find it easier to cast aspersions by claiming that “so and so funded” our research. Quite frankly, these ad hominem attacks represent the height of intellectual laziness. While this type of attack is nothing new in our field and we are used to it by now, efforts to mandate donor disclosure requirements are just another disturbing trend in the “Death of Expertise” that harms our political discourse. We are—and will continue to be—vocal critics of such unlawful demands.

Q: Neil, as an advisor to an institutional donor to the Phoenix Center, can you tell us a bit about yourself and why you support this organization?

Chilson: My core job for the past 15 years has been technology policy. I am a lawyer, computer scientist and an author. I was also an attorney advisor to acting Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and worked on every major technology-related case, report, workshop or other FTC proceeding. I also served as the FTC’s chief technologist during Chairman Olhausen’s tenure. I work in technology policy because I believe that market-tested innovation is the primary source of widespread human prosperity—but it doesn’t just happen.

It requires a culture that embraces rather than fears innovation and a regulatory environment that enables it. I became familiar with the Phoenix Center’s principled, thoughtful and targeted advocacy while in private legal practice more than a decade ago. All of this to say, when we were looking for partners working on technology policy, it was clear to us that the Phoenix Center has a track record of delivering timely, principled and pointed advocacy effective in shaping public policy. And we appreciated that, along with their support of donor privacy.

Q: What role has donor privacy played in your ability to support the Phoenix Center’s great work?

Chilson: My former organization and its donor partners care a great deal about donor intent, including any desire for privacy. The Phoenix Center is much more protective of donor privacy than many other organizations with similar topical focuses. And while that was not a deciding factor (for) our organizational relationship, other donors can trust that the Phoenix Center cares deeply about preserving donor privacy.

Q: Why do you believe protecting the freedom to give, the freedom of all Americans to support the charities and nonprofits they choose, and the right to do so anonymously, is vital to the American charitable sector?

Chilson: The freedom to give is important for at least two reasons. First, the right to support causes and advocate anonymously is a fundamental part of our First Amendment rights. Secondly, anonymous speech is increasingly important in a world of increasingly abundant data. In a world of many voices, lazy critics and motivated reasoners too often reach for ad hominem critiques. But ideas are best advanced and combated on their merits, not through attacks on those who support those ideas. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org.

The post Phoenix Center: Objective Policy Research for the Digital Age appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

“How do I describe Fidel Castro?” muses Maximo Alvarez in his powerful interview with The Witness Project, a podcast by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC). “The guy was brilliant, but he had to be possessed. … He influenced so many people with that ingrained hatred.” 

In the early years of Communist dictator Fidel Castro’s regime, Alvarez, along with thousands of other unaccompanied children, escaped from Cuba to America with the help of the secretive Pedro Pan Operation. Alvarez’s powerful story is just one of the many VOC elevates. VOC’s mission is to educate future generations about the ideology, history and legacy of communism and to advocate for the freedom of those still held captive by communist regimes. 

Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, president of VOC, to discuss his organization’s mission through its many educational resources. These include the new Victims of Communism Museum in Washington, D.C., established to teach the truth, seek justice, remember the victims of communism and remind the world why American freedom is worth protecting. 

“It’s called the American dream because it happens in America, it’s the only country in the world where you can be free,” said Alvarez in closing. “Not only do you come to a country (where) you can achieve your God-given potential, but you also have the generosity of everyone in this country to reach that potential. That’s the American dream. That’s why we need to protect it.” 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: How was Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation started, and what is your mission? 

Bremberg: VOC exists to preserve the memory of communist destruction and oppose its expansion in the world today. This year marks our 30^th anniversary, as VOC was authorized in 1993 by a unanimous Act of Congress signed by President Clinton, and we were incorporated in August 1994.  

However, the idea for building the Foundation started a few years prior in 1990 when Lee Edwards and his family resolved that an organization was needed to memorialize all the victims of communism around the world and to educate Americans. Dr. Edwards and Dr. Lev Dobriansky co-founded the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and their first project was to erect the Victims of Communism Memorial, the world’s first memorial dedicated to every victim of communism. The Memorial is a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue constructed by peaceful pro-democracy student protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It stands in sight of the U.S. Capitol and was dedicated by President George W. Bush on June 12, 2007, the 20th anniversary of President Reagan’s declaration to Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” 

On June 8, 2022, VOC opened the doors to the Victims of Communism Museum, located two blocks from the White House, for Americans and foreign visitors alike to be reminded of those who have been lost to this ideology and the 1.5 billion people—one-fifth of the world’s population—who still suffer under communist regimes today.   

Q: According to your fifth Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism, Communism and Collectivism, more Americans have a favorable view of socialism and younger generations believe communism is a fairer system than capitalism.  

What factors do you believe contribute to this rise in favorability of socialism and communism particularly among young Americans?  

Bremberg: As our surveys consistently demonstrate, most young Americans do not know the basic facts about communism, a failure of education that is fueling the popularity of socialism and threatens the future of free society. The primary factor contributing to this rise is ignorance. Most students in the U.S. are not learning about communism, and we can’t blame the students for this massive failure to properly educate them about the destruction that caused it.  

To combat this gap in our education system, VOC provides professional development training to teachers around the country. We have a digital curriculum that is a free resource for teachers. We host in-person seminars in Washington, D.C., and in cities around the country, while also making this program available online. These tools are highly valuable to teachers, who, because they know and are trusted by their students, are best placed to reach them with the truth. 

Additionally, in 2022, VOC began partnering with state departments of education to formally build the VOC curriculum into public school classrooms. Currently, Florida and Arizona have adopted a requirement to educate about the history and horrors of communism, and several other states are in the process. 

Q: Currently, over one billion people are living under tyrannical communist regimes in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. How is communism impacting people around the world today, including the Uyghurs in communist China? How does VOC work to expose these human rights violations? 

Bremberg: We believe part of exposing communism is continuing to research what is happening around the world today and increasing our understanding of violent communist regimes throughout history. VOC maintains a deep bench of affiliated scholars who produce leading research. 

Our China Studies Program, led by renowned China scholar Dr. Adrian Zenz, brings the truth about the brutality of the Chinese regime to hundreds of millions of people in dozens of languages. 

Since 2015, our China Studies program has become one of the world’s foremost authorities promoting a fact-based narrative about the Chinese Communist Party, exposing its human rights atrocities and countering its propaganda and global efforts to undermine freedom and the rule of law. VOC’s research has been cited in nearly every prominent news outlet around the world and our fellows are regularly called to testify in congressional committees. Our work has led to direct policy impact including the U.S. government’s Xinjiang genocide determination and its ban on Xinjiang products due to forced labor. 

One of our largest reports to date has been the release of the Xinjiang Police Files. On May 24, 2022, we broke the Xinjiang Police Files global news story demonstrating the prison-like nature of Beijing’s re-education campaign, based on a cache of files hacked from Xinjiang police computers and passed to VOC by an anonymous third party, including nearly 3,000 images from inside the camps and evidence of instructions for police to “shoot” escaping detainees.  

Our research on the Files was published with 14 media outlets including the BBC, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais; made prime-time news in U.K., Germany and Japan; prompted condemnatory statements by six governments and a European Parliament resolution affirming a “high risk of genocide” in Xinjiang and was cited 15 times in the UN report on Xinjiang published in August 2022. 

Q: What are some of your education initiatives that teach the ideology, history and deadly legacy of communism, and advocate for the freedom of those still living in repressive communist regimes? 

Bremberg: In addition to our student curriculum and teacher trainings I mentioned before, one of our most impactful educational initiatives is our Witness Project. We tell the firsthand stories of victims of communism in compelling mini-documentary films and podcast episodes. From the Killing Fields of Cambodia to the labor camps of the Soviet Union and the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, the Witness Project brings the tragedies of victims of communism to life, putting a face—a real person—into the story of communist destruction. 

To date, our Witness Project episodes have featured the stories of witnesses from Albania, Cambodia, China, Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Poland, Romania and Venezuela, showing how communism not only impacted millions of people in former communist countries, but continues to impact more than 1.5 billion around the world today. 

Q: In 2022, you opened the Victims of Communism Museum in Washington, D.C., to commemorate more than 100 million victims of communism around the world. How did philanthropy play a role in this vision and the impact it’s making? 

Bremberg: The generosity of private donors, along with support from several former communist countries—Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia—was vitally important in allowing the Victims of Communism Museum to open its doors. Support from donors today is equally as important in allowing the museum to continue to operate. 

There are also many ethnic communities who are committed to seeing their stories presented to Americans who lack the lived experience and knowledge about how communism has affected the citizens of dozens of countries around the globe. 

Since the Museum’s grand opening, we have educated thousands of visitors through three permanent galleries, seven temporary exhibits and an educational center. The museum has been visited by teachers, dissidents, victims and diplomats, and we have hosted 42 school groups for a museum tour followed by a presentation and Q&A session with an expert/witness of communism. We host frequent events which draw a variety of audiences given the unique and informative topics of focus for each event, covering countries affected by communist regimes both past and present. 

This impact is made possible by our committed donors and partners who are as passionate about seeing the museum thrive as our staff and trustees. We truly value the generosity of each supporter. 

Q: As a nonprofit based on an appreciation of liberty, why do you believe in protecting the freedom to give, or the freedom of all Americans to support the charities and nonprofits they believe in?  

Bremberg: The freedom to give is at the core of our nation’s founding. We were founded based on the importance of private property. The first thing a communist regime does is abolish the right to private property. The regime does so because they want to control how all property is used, so they can have ultimate power over individual’s lives. By respecting one’s private property, we keep citizens free as both individuals and in their communities to decide how their property should be used, whether that is in business or in supporting nonprofits, religious entities or civic organizations. 

Q: VOC has many victims raising their collective voice against communist dictatorships because they now have the freedom to do so in America. Why is the ability of nonprofits like VOC who unite groups of people essential to counterweight government overreach? 

Bremberg: Change is so much more likely when people come together in community rather than attempting to conquer something on their own. It is important for us to collaborate in business and in civic society to accomplish shared goals. This is why nonprofits like VOC are crucial in bringing voices together. At VOC, for example, we are helping victims highlight their lived experiences which serves as an incredible and powerful warning to Americans about the real dangers of communism. 

Q: How do communist dictatorships use their power to isolate their victims and use that to strike fear in the right to associate?  

Bremberg: Communist dictatorships create a culture where the state controls all aspects of life through your relationships. Ethnic ties, religious ties, family ties, etc. are all broken down by the state so that the only relationship that exists is between the state and the individual. Communist regimes purposefully turn people on one another to break down the opportunity for community. Neighbors are made to report on neighbors, and children on parents, so one never knows who can be trusted. By isolating people in this way communist dictatorships create a culture of fear that allows them power over the individual. 

This is why for so many countries where communism has successfully been conquered, it was done by community-based resistance movements. Because when individuals living under a communist dictatorship decide to challenge the culture of fear, and do so as a community, in many instances it successfully breaks the regime because resistance is stronger together than separately. 

Q: We believe the freedom to give anonymously is a constitutional right. Why is it important for your donors to be able to give to you and other causes they believe in anonymously? 

Bremberg: China’s communist regime grows more alarming by the day. Xi Jinping has removed term limits and consolidated near-absolute power. He has doubled down on his oppression campaigns against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities through human rights atrocities like mass internment, forced labor, forced sterilization and forced organ harvesting. 

Chairman Xi’s treatment of his own people and China’s relentless propaganda machine is a present-day demonstration of the brutal, manipulative nature of communism and the threats it poses to a free world. 

Unfortunately, so many Americans, U.S. businesses and other foreign countries have economic ties with China and could come under pressure or persecution for supporting the important work of educating Americans about the dangers of communism today. People don’t want their business interests being retaliated against by the CCP, which is why it is very important for donors to be able to give to causes they believe in, especially one like ours, anonymously. 

Q: Favorability toward communism is at an all-time high in America. What is at stake for America if communism’s popularity continues to increase, and how can we instill a love for liberty in future generations?  

Bremberg: Communism is the greatest threat to freedom in the world today. There has never been a more critical moment for the future of our nation than right now. “A nation,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “cannot be both ignorant and free.” Our ignorance of communism threatens freedom at home and abroad. 

I think we best instill a love for liberty by educating future generations about the sacrifices of former generations, so they appreciate the freedom made possible in America. This goes hand-in-hand with educating people about the destruction caused by communist regimes, past and present, because nobody is free under communism.  

When I speak with student groups who visit our museum, I always explain to them that our system of government may not be perfect here in the U.S.—as there is no “perfect” system of government—but it is far better than that of any communist or socialist government. I always say to look to the country where the most refugees are fleeing to, and look at the countries from which people are trying to escape. That says a lot. 

The post Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation: Keeping the Flame of Liberty Alive appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Ahead of National School Choice Week, the Roundtable spoke with Kathleen O’Toole, assistant provost for K-12 education at Hillsdale College, about the institution’s K-12 Education Office. The office works with K-12 schools, parents and teachers to found and support a nationwide network of classical schools and revive the American tradition of K-12 education. Hillsdale also offers free resources for parents and teachers that focus on the liberal arts and sciences and teaching principles of moral character and civic virtue. In this conversation, O’Toole discusses the role of philanthropic donors in funding Hillsdale’s critical work and explains why philanthropic freedom and donor intent are integral to this mission. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

Q: Tell us about Hillsdale College, its unique K-12 department and the mission behind the institution. 

O’Toole: Founded in 1844, Hillsdale College was created with an extraordinary mission, which we have strived to remain faithful to ever since. An important part of that mission is to teach all who wish to learn. My role as the assistant provost for K-12 education is to lead the College’s K-12 Education Office, which educates people from coast to coast about tried and true K-12 education. We work with teachers, parents, and school administrators to recover the principles of excellent curriculum and instruction that our schools and students deserve.  

We believe America has a tradition of excellence in K-12 education—but we also know that our country is in danger of forgetting what it takes to run a school, what children should be learning and what it means to be a teacher. The work my office is doing is bringing the mission of Hillsdale College to K-12 educators, school founders and parents across the country.  

Q: Why does philanthropic freedom matter to your institution? 

O’Toole: There are so many phenomenal charities and organizations out there doing amazing work in their communities, and it’s always worrisome when folks want to limit the options available to charitable donors to support the work of nonprofit organizations and institutions. The people who have the generosity in their hearts to support our work should have the right and the opportunity to do so—and to remain anonymous in their charitable giving if they wish. When a donor chooses to give, they’re not just giving dollars, they’re saying something about themselves and their beliefs. It’s vital to us that donors can give how, when and to whom they choose as an extension of their values and legacy.  

Q: What sets Hillsdale apart from other institutions?  

O’Toole: The work of our affiliated schools, and the robust support that Hillsdale College provides to them, are simply unmatched with any other institution in the country. Not only do we have a nationwide reach, but we also provide the comprehensive training that school founders, board members and teachers need to do right by K-12 students. 

We offer a program called the Barney Charter School Initiative which helps charter schools get established by providing the classical curriculum, and comprehensive training for teachers, principals and board members. We launched this initiative in 2010 and it has yielded dozens of schools across the country and has helped tens of thousands of students. 

We also founded the Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence in 2000. Through the Hoogland Center, we expand the reach of the College’s curriculum and teacher training to a nationwide audience. With this center, we host training and educational conferences at Hillsdale and also take these trainings on the road to provide free professional development for any teacher in America, whether they are working in public, private or charter schools. This last year we’ve hosted Hoogland Center events on teaching mathematics, the sciences, children’s literature and American history, and they’ve been so popular we’ve had to create a waiting list for each event.  

Q: Can you discuss your American history and civics curriculum? 

O’Toole: Hillsdale’s American history and civics curriculum is a complete collection of lesson plans for teaching American history, civics and government to K-12 students. Last month, we released our final unit on recent American history, completing the sequence. The curriculum builds on itself, so as students move through it in their K-12 years, they will, for example, learn about American history from the colonies through the Civil War four different times. Each time they encounter these units, the lessons increase in depth. This curriculum is intended to be a resource for teachers, providing guidance on planning and teaching any given topic in American history, civics or government-related courses. To help teachers prepare their lessons, we suggest textbooks, online courses, content topics and stories that provide insight into the events and background of each era.  

The curriculum contains questions to ask the students, clarifies important points for teachers to keep in mind and includes student-ready primary sources along with sample assignments, activities and assessments. To ensure our students are learning the most important topics in the best possible way, we thoroughly vet every resource and recommendation. It’s our opinion that the best way to learn from history is to balance our thinking of the past and search for the truth in primary source documents, a stance reflected in the curriculum itself.  

Of our initial release, David Randall said “Hillsdale College’s 1776 Curriculum provides lesson plans aimed for intelligent, curious twelfth-grade students, and that no other institution provides curriculum anywhere near Hillsdale’s level.” Though we are excited to offer a complete series for both American history and civics, this remains an ongoing and transparent project which we consistently work to improve for our teachers and students. 

Q: What type of impact has your K-12 programming had on students? 

O’Toole: We’re changing the face of American public education. We’re helping recover the excellence that was once there in our public system. It’s our goal that one day many hundreds of thousands of students will have access to this tried-and-true curriculum and quality instruction. We want to set students up to be better educated, to be ready to pursue a better life and to serve this country of ours, with greater opportunities than have been afforded to previous generations.  

Q: In which ways are donors able to support your efforts, and how can people get more involved with your work? 

O’Toole: Because Hillsdale doesn’t accept any federal funding, all of our work is made possible by our many hundreds of thousands of friends who have entrusted us with their generosity. As a result of that, we care deeply about donor intent, and honoring the wishes of our donors by using their gifts where they have asked us to use them. Whether our donors give to our general fund, the K-12 Education Office’s endowment or the Hoogland Center, it is paramount to us to be faithful to their intent and to honor their legacy by doing so. We recognize that while we do not solicit a single penny, people have a desire to give, and we are moved by that generosity.  

To know that the work we are doing means so much to people that they’re willing to give their hard-earned dollars to support us is uplifting and extremely encouraging. And for those who want to get more involved, they can give on our website at https://secured.hillsdale.edu/hillsdale/charter-schools/. There are numerous ways to get more involved with us, whether you’re a potential teacher, school leader or if you’re interested in bringing a Hillsdale classical school to your community. We encourage you to visit k12.hillsdale.edu to learn more. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post A Conversation with Hillsdale College: “We’re Changing the Face of American Public Education” appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Ahead of Bill of Rights Day on December 15, the Roundtable spoke with David Bobb, president and CEO of the Bill of Rights Institute (BRI), to discuss the organization’s mission to provide classroom-ready lessons to students and teachers about the Constitution and the liberties we enjoy as Americans. Bobb passionately talks about why the freedom to give is vital in preserving a free and just society. 

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.  

— 

Q: You became president of BRI a decade ago. What stood out to you as you made the decision to lead the organization? 

Bobb: My entire background has been in politics, and the teaching of politics, policy and history. My impetus for coming to the Bill of Rights Institute was to help educate younger generations about American values, so they learn to cherish their American citizenship. It’s an honor and a privilege, and it should come with a sense of gratitude, responsibility and the knowledge that we all have a role to play in this country. 

As an organization that teaches civics, we’re taking the same message about America to teachers and students, regardless of their learning environment, political ideology or background. If history can tell us about the past, civics can guide us in the future. 

I’ve thought a lot about what our country will be like on July 4, 2026. On that day, our country will have its 250^th birthday. Are we going to be locked in conflict as we are currently, are we going to commemorate that date or will we celebrate it? For many young people, it won’t be a big occasion. What we want to do at the Bill of Rights Institute is impart the principles and the civic virtues of the American founding, and foster an understanding of America that translates into skills and informed patriotism.  

Q: What type of impact has the Institute had, and where do you see it heading in the future? 

Bobb: When I came to the Institute, we were working with a network of about 20,000 teachers, and now we’re at nearly 75,000. We’re on our way to seeing that number grow to 100,000 educators. Those educators will teach roughly 10 million students each year by America’s 250^th birthday in 2026.  

What we do has two dimensions. First, we publish top-tier classroom resources that teachers can take, curate and build into their classroom needs. Second, we wrap resources into that curriculum library, including videos, and textbooks in history and civics, which are then encompassed with professional development materials that allow teachers to dive deeper into the curriculum. Everything we do stems from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We ask our teachers and students to examine the story of our country and exercise the skills of being a citizen. 

Q: Why does your organization view philanthropic freedom as an important part of American culture? 

Bobb: It’s in our name. We’re the Bill of Rights Institute. The First Amendment is a cherished right and we believe the freedom to give — and the ability to do so anonymously, if one chooses — are core traditions and vital rights to the American philanthropic community. We’ve been challenged by state’s attorneys general over the years to reveal private information about our donors, the issue at the heart of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the 2021 Supreme Court case that resulted in a huge win for donor privacy.  

We at BRI strongly believe protecting the freedom to give for all charitable donors is necessary to preserving American culture. We should strive to help every person in every community, and attacks on the rights of charitable donors only negatively impacts those most in need throughout our communities.  

Q: Let’s chat about some of the initiatives you’re working on. What is the My Impact Challenge and what does it aim to accomplish?  

Bobb: The MyImpact Challenge is a contest where young students can earn scholarship money for identifying a solution to a problem or challenge in their local community. We award up to $40,000 each year to students and their teachers, including a $10,000 student grand prize. We ask students to read and write about the founding principles of our civic virtues and to apply that framing to their problem solving. We’ve been trained to believe the answer to our problems is the government, while in fact, the main engine of progress is civil society. The reality is the Constitution set it up that way by limiting the role of government. Through its content and project requirements, MyImpact Challenge teaches our younger generations that they have a vital place in our society, and that their problems are not going to be solved simply at the hands of the government.  

Q: For teachers and students who want to be a part of BRI, are you operating in every state? And for folks who want to support your work, how can they give?  

Bobb: We operate in all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C. We have a national teacher network, where each teacher reaches roughly 100 students every year. BRI is the largest organization in the country, with the greatest reach into classrooms nationwide, that bases our work on founding principles. While we have a 50-state plan plus D.C., education is a local issue, so there’s no national curriculum. BRI’s digital distribution platform delivers our lessons, handouts and primary sources nationwide, garnering millions of views and downloads every year.  

This Institute is singularly focused on helping and supporting teachers and their students in a nonpartisan, educational way. We challenge teachers and young people to live their lives being cognizant of the saving principles that Frederick Douglass spoke of. We want to make the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution an animating feature of our daily lives.  

In reference to our donors, we truly have the most supportive donors possible. In the last two years alone, over 14,000 donors and 35 foundations supported our Institute. When we have a prospective donor, we always invite them to have a conversation with us first, to learn about what they want to accomplish with their philanthropic gift and where their heart lies. We also want to discuss opportunities in each donor’s local community, so they can directly see how their donation is affecting lives.  

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post The First Amendment and Philanthropy: A Conversation with the Bill of Rights Institute appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about most. 

Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Dale Bannon, national community relations and development secretary for The Salvation Army, to discuss how the organization is uplifting people in need throughout our communities. One program Bannon highlights is Pathway of Hope, which confronts the ongoing problems of poverty in our society. Bannon also cites the organization’s long history as one of the nation’s most trusted charities to emphasize the critical role philanthropic freedom has played in achieving its mission. 

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Q: While The Salvation Army is a household name for many people, what is its specific focus and motivation? 

Bannon: In 2022, The Salvation Army helped nearly 24 million Americans overcome poverty, addiction and economic hardships through a range of social services including providing food, shelter, emergency relief and rehabilitation programs throughout the United States. This service is not something that just happens by chance; we are an organization that is motivated by the love of God.  

Our focus can be summed up in our mission statement: “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.” 

The Pathway of Hope program is one way we are helping to confront the ongoing struggles of poverty and homelessness. The program focuses on providing case management to families with children who desire to break the generational cycles of crisis and vulnerability and address the root cause of poverty through education and by empowering them by giving a hand up, rather than a handout in the process of reintegration.  

Q: What is the scope of your impact on communities here in America and across the globe?  

Bannon: The Salvation Army is unparalleled in its scope and reach as the largest private provider of social services in the United States. We have over 7,000 centers of operation and can reach every ZIP code in the country through our emergency disaster services. A prescient example is our Maui response. We have had a presence in Hawaii since 1894, and in Lahaina since 1896. Due to our long-term presence in the communities we serve, we are often first on the scene and our long-term recovery lasts well after most other charities leave.  

This same scope and reach encourages the need to recruit volunteers and donors who have like-minded desires to help those in need. In 2022, more than 1.4 million people volunteered with The Salvation Army nationally, making it possible to serve whole communities that have faced disasters, and meet unexpected needs.  

Q: What types of programs does The Salvation Army offer and how have you witnessed them benefit community members?  

Bannon: For seven years prior to taking on my current role, I was the chief operating officer in the Greater Washington D.C. area for The Salvation Army. One of the programs offered in that area, Turning Point, focuses on serving mothers with children, many of whom are already facing life’s challenges and disadvantages. While they are in the program, many young women transition out of the foster care system. The services received through the Turning Point program serve as a steppingstone by providing families with opportunities to flourish. 

The Pathway of Hope program is also a link to support those who are struggling. In addition to housing and counseling, Pathway of Hope program participants are assigned a case manager, attend financial and educational classes and receive any necessary legal services and job training that set them up for a better future. Success for this type of program is measured one family at a time.  

Watch The Salvation Army video below to hear from someone whose life was saved by Pathway of Hope:

Q: Your work is entirely made possible by the generosity of people giving their hard-earned money to you. How would potential attacks on donor privacy hurt your organization and potentially hinder support for your work if donors’ personal information is required to be disclosed to the public? 

Bannon: As you know, donor privacy has been a vital aspect of charitable giving for decades. It’s a cornerstone to the American way of life that is enshrined in a person’s First Amendment rights. The right to associate privately and contribute to organizations anonymously is our constitutional legacy that benefits every American. 

Q: How can people financially support The Salvation Army?    

Bannon: Donors have the freedom to give to us in a multitude of ways. Donations can be made to us from all the traditional stores of wealth, plus bitcoin. In addition to the usual forms of donation: stocks, bonds, funds, IRA rollover, DAF’s, planned gifts, wills and gift annuities, donors can also give their vehicles, their goods to our thrift stores and their time through volunteering opportunities. Along with specifying gifts to general assistance, which is preferred, we also provide the donor with broad freedom in specifying restricted gifts geographically and programmatically.  

We believe a donor’s freedom to give in this way increases personal ownership of our impact, right down to the community or program level. We find our most generous donors are very pleased with the investment they make in transformational impact. Our promise to donors to “Do The Most Good” is a commitment to faithfully steward their time, talent and treasure, and we take this commitment very seriously.  

Q: Why do you believe protecting the freedom to give, the freedom of all Americans to support the charities and nonprofits they choose, and the right to do so anonymously, is vital to the American charitable sector? 

Bannon: It is a long-held belief that individuals have the right to freely support the charitable organizations that are important to them, and part of that right of association is to do so privately.  

Privacy is important for a variety of reasons, and it has served organizations like The Salvation Army for decades. I think that the concerns are legitimate that if we gradually remove the right to donor privacy, it will lead to reduced giving and less public support.  

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post Charitable Giving Fuels the Salvation Army’s Mission to Help Americans Overcome Hardships appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the  causes and communities they care about most.  

Ahead of America Recycles Day on November 15, the Roundtable spoke with Chris Barnard, president of the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), about its efforts to build and grow a grassroots movement devoted to tackling environmental challenges through common sense, limited government solutions. From ideas like investing in nuclear energy and exporting cleaner American natural gas to empowering farmers and ranchers to naturally sequester carbon, ACC works to change the narrative on issues like conservation, clean energy and agriculture by informing voters of all ages, as well as policymakers, about the importance and effectiveness of pro-American environmental solutions.  

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.   

Q: The American Conservation Coalition is a new, fast-growing organization. What are you working to build with it?   

Barnard: At ACC, we’re working to build and grow the conservative environmental movement. The movement has  and continues to be dominated by left of center politicians and groups focusing on big government solutions. Our belief is that we can protect our environment and find common-sense, limited government solutions to these problems that are important to the left, the middle and the right of center voters. Our mission is to re-engage these individuals on environmentalism and climate change issues and to give them a pro-innovation, pro-American market-based alternative to things such as the Green New Deal.  

Q: In your tenure as an organization, what type of impact has your work had on the public? What type of  feedback have you received from lawmakers?  

Barnard: We’ve been very successful at changing and shaping the narrative on these issues. We currently have over  30,000 members across the country at over 100 chapters. We’ve helped create and champion the Conservative Climate Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, and we’ve worked with organizations, members of Congress and allies across the country to identify common-sense limited government solutions to our climate and environmental issues, like expanding nuclear, hydropower and geothermal energy, investing in nature, deploying adaptation tech and lowering barriers for clean trade. 

As a result of our work, the vast majority of the right is no longer focusing on climate denial, but on limited government solutions we can put forth, rather than those ushered in by proponents of big government solutions, such as the Green New Deal, which would cost roughly $93 trillion over 10 years. This costly and ineffective “solution” would empower the feds to control how people produce and consume energy, harvest crops, raise livestock, build homes and even drive cars. We don’t just stop there, we’re working on protecting our national parks, enhancing our forest management and more in our six big ideas. Seeing the narrative shift and bringing the conservative side back to the table on these issues has been immensely gratifying.  

Q: Many would say the environmental issue is mostly a partisan topic. What’s the strategy behind discussing environmental issues and bipartisan solutions with lawmakers who don’t agree with your positions on global warming and climate change?  

Barnard: The right of center has truly ceded this conversation to the left in detrimental ways. They have been afraid of the big government solutions that the left has proposed, and rightfully so. However, just because you disagree with the solutions put forth, doesn’t mean you need to reject the problems we’re facing.   

The reality is, we do have environmental challenges, and we need to do something about them. The open secret here  is that our solutions will tackle the problems at hand, while growing the economy, minimizing the role of government and strengthening our national security. None of these things are mutually exclusive, and so what we’re doing is informing people that we can have solutions that benefit the economy and the American people while  protecting our environment.  

Environmental issues are one of the top concerns of younger voters. They’re overwhelmingly voting against the right and with the left when it comes to these issues, but these shouldn’t be partisan problems. If we can truly work to find the right solutions with limited government and pro-American ideals we can reshape the playing field not just with these younger voters, but everyone. The environment has an effect on all of us, the rich, the poor, the young and the old.  

Q: As an organization with a younger staff, yet a robust fundraising operation, do donors ever express concern about the lack of experience within your leadership? If so, how do you address that?   

Barnard: We see our youthfulness as an immense and unique strength since we’re able to better understand and engage with our own audience. When we’re working on our grassroots movement, posting things on social media  or chatting with folks around the country, we know we are talking to our peers. We have donors who support us for this precise reason. With that said, we’ve been in operation for six years and have proven we can handle a multi- million-dollar budget and employ dozens of full-time staff all while creating a strong grassroots movement with over 30,000 members. By creating meaningful change, initial worries have been quickly put to rest with our proven track record. 

Q: What makes ACC unique? Why should people give their hard-earned money to your organization over others?  

Barnard: Frankly, we’re the only organization building a conservative grassroots climate and environmental movement. ACC’s unique role is to grow the movement and influence minds while we’re at it. One of our current goals is to reach over 100,000 members by 2026. At the end of the day, it’s that energy and critical mass will allow us to identify and implement the right solutions, but to also win back the younger population with these common-sense beliefs.   

We’re leading a fundamentally innovative movement for conservatives based on optimism, innovation and logically  sound solutions. We’re not gluing ourselves to roads or throwing soup at paintings in protests. We believe that by taking a positive, forward-focusing approach, it will help us find real solutions that are proven to work.   

We pride ourselves on focusing on the things that will create a positive effect on our world, including prioritizing nuclear energy, ensuring industry is part of the solution and focusing on proper forest management. Solutions that are data-driven and evidence based are paramount. We understand donors like the flexibility of donating in unique ways, from donor-advised funds to donating directly at www.acc.eco or by donating though their own foundations. There are several ways donors can get involved with us.  

Our work has only just begun, and seeing the success we’ve already had tells us this was a strongly needed cause and we’re thrilled to be championing these important issues. At the end of the day, none of what we do would be possible without the generous support of our donors. The impact they have had on us is uplifting to say the least, and that is all thanks to the freedom we all have as Americans to give to the organizations and causes most important to us.   

Q: From state legislatures to the halls of Congress in Washington, D.C., we are consistently seeing attacks on  the constitutional right of charitable donors to remain anonymous in their giving. You briefly touched on the  freedom to give, but to dive deeper, what is your message to those working to hinder people from donating to  charitable organizations important to them?  

Barnard: The sole reason we can continue the work we’ve been doing is because of generous support from our donors. There are so many incredible organizations across the country that are able to focus on the important work  they do because of that generosity.   

Today, more than any time in recent history, we are living in a divisive political climate. If anti-donor privacy legislation gets signed into law, we are certainly going to see charitable giving significantly decline. Whether a donor wishes to remain anonymous for humility, or religious reasons, maybe even out of fear of being harassed for  supporting a controversial cause, or even so the attention isn’t taken away from the organization’s work, it frankly is their right guaranteed to them under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The highest court in America made it clear with the 1958 NAACP Supreme Court ruling and more recently in 2021 with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta case that donors are guaranteed this right to privacy.  

We must ensure nothing we do hinders charitable donors and their support of the organizations and causes closest to  their hearts. At the end of the day, philanthropy will always serve the good of the people much more effectively than  the government. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post Tackling Environmental Issues through Limited Government Solutions appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

The Roundtable recently spoke with Bob Eitel, co-founder and president of the Defense of Freedom Institute, and Jim Blew, the Institute’s co-founder. During this conversation, Eitel and Blew discussed why private philanthropy and local solutions can be more effective in improving education than government agencies like the Department of Education. They also reiterated the importance of the freedom for Americans to give privately, without fear of harassment or intimidation, to causes they care about.  

This interview originally appeared in American Habits and has been edited for length and clarity.  

Q: Why did you start the Defense of Freedom Institute and what role does it serve?  

Blew: At the Defense of Freedom Institute (DFI), we are fighting to protect and enhance our nation’s education system. Both Bob and I had the privilege to work in the Trump administration under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, as part of her leadership team, and while we were at the Department of Education, it became very clear to us that there were many forces trying to expand the reach of the federal government. When we left the department, we saw the need to consistently push back against that overreach and to put standards in place for the next administration to expand educational opportunities. Here we are, just over two years later, running DFI.  

Q: What type of impact are you aiming for the organization to have in the future?  

Eitel: Our goal is to re-envision the federal government’s role in our education system. We believe federal K-12 funding should shift to grants given directly to the states with no strings attached, for instance. We would also create an entirely new system of post-secondary financial aid for graduating high school seniors, whether that’s for a two or four-year institution or those who prefer to work in vocations or apprenticeships versus attending college. Our current federal policy does not sufficiently serve the needs of the latter two.  

Q: For donors who want to get more involved, what differentiates DFI from other organizations? 

Blew: Behind every federal policy is much more than op-eds and white papers. It involves deep legal work around the regulatory process. That’s where we excel, and it’s what sets us apart. We dive headfirst into the grueling policies of the Department of Education, and we can do that because we have significant experience in the department. We know how it works, how things get done and why things are the way they are. We have been organizing efforts to influence the federal regulatory and guidance process. Our track record proves we’re the best at it and the only organization exclusively focused on it.  

Q: Funding is always a vital aspect for nonprofits to continue doing great work, yet there are folks in Washington, D.C., who are advocating for requirements that force charitable organizations to publicly disclose their donors’ private information. This could open the door to potential harassment in our increasingly polarized society. Does this at all concern you?  

Eitel: The supporters of anti-donor privacy laws are taking aim at the free marketplace of ideas. We should be doing everything we can to protect charitable organizations and the generosity of people who are supporting them. It’s a fundamental aspect of American philanthropy that some wish to destroy simply to further a political agenda.  

Q: Do you believe that removing the right to remain anonymous could chill charitable giving? For example, a donor might fear getting fired from a job if he or she gives to a controversial cause or organization, without the opportunity to remain anonymous.  

Eitel: We’re at a point where employers are afraid of saying the wrong thing at work and being canceled. We see this all too often in the education system. From students thinking they’ll fail a class or receive a poor grade because they have differing opinions from their professors, to even losing out on educational opportunities. It’s a significant part of the problem that we need to fix. We should be embracing diversity of thought in our society instead of shaming people for it.  

Q: After the recent Americans for Prosperity Foundation v Bonta Supreme Court decision, do you foresee any donor privacy threats on the horizon?  

Eitel: Unfortunately, this issue appears to be a never-ending problem. We are seeing opponents of this decision still fighting it. They don’t care that what they want is unconstitutional. We’re already seeing this dynamic in several state legislatures, with lawmakers attempting to pass anti-donor privacy laws. The cultural context for these discussions has also changed in recent years. The notion of free speech simply doesn’t exist for some anymore.  

Q: As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, what do you say to people who believe that, because your organization is focused on policy issues, you shouldn’t have a nonpartisan tax status?  

Blew: Let’s be clear. We are nonpartisan in every aspect of what we do. Our policy stances are consistent with those of the U.S. Constitution. As a country, there needs to be civil discourse, public discussion and an array of ideas and thoughts. That’s how we flourish as a country, not by shutting people down if they don’t agree with us.  

Q: Lastly, why do you believe protecting the freedom to give is important?  

Eitel: The freedom to give to charitable organizations is a core American value. We need to do everything we can to protect the generosity of those willing to give and to protect philanthropic freedom for generations to come. DFI relies on the generosity of our donors to pursue agendas that seek to improve American society, culture and government and to enhance freedom and liberty. Without the freedom to give, we would not be able to fulfill our missions, and this republic would be worse for it.  

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post Why Expanding Local Education Opportunities is Vital to Growing a Robust Society appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Some foundations and individual donors wish to remain anonymous because they prefer the attention stays focused on the work of the nonprofits they support. 

That’s true of the Colorado-based Anschutz Foundation. In a new Philanthropy Roundtable video, the foundation’s Executive Vice President Ted Harms discusses the importance of the right to give freely to causes and communities – and why preserving donor privacy is crucial.  

“We don’t try to … publicize what we do. We prefer that those doing the work get the credit for the work being done. We are merely there to help, assist in getting them the resources they need to actually conduct the work in an effective way,” Harms says.  

After all, he says, that desire to help others philanthropically is rooted in our nation’s founding. 

“Everyone that came here to form America … [had] a desire to be free, to make better decisions and do things differently,” he says. “Entrepreneurs, solving problems, making things better, kind of goes with philanthropic freedom. Once you make things better for yourself, don’t you have an obligation to do things for others as well?” 

But Harms says the causes and communities people support can be used against them, as donors have faced threats, harassment and intimidation for supporting controversial causes. That’s one reason he says donor privacy is crucially important for those supporting charities, noting that negative attention can dissuade donors from helping people. 

“We definitely believe philanthropic freedom and privacy are an important factor that should be maintained,” he says. 

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org. 

The post Why Donor Privacy is Key to America’s Unique Charitable Tradition appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Free to Give campaign elevates the voices of everyday Americans who have dedicated their careers to supporting those in need. Their work is made possible by the freedom of all Americans to give to the causes and communities they care about.  

The Roundtable recently sat down with Aaron Withe, chief executive officer of the Freedom Foundation, and Charlie Conner, chairman of the Foundation’s board. The conversation centered around the Foundation’s mission to educate public sector workers about their rights, particularly concerning unions.  Withe and Conner also explained why supporting organizations like the Freedom Foundation uplift communities across America.   

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.   

 
Q: Tell us about the Freedom Foundation and your mission.  

Withe: We are working to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government. We strongly believe there is no path forward to realize those goals without removing the long-standing influence of government unions from our politics. These unions have taken money from teachers and other public employees and funneled it into the campaigns of politicians who are pursuing the union’s agenda at all costs. They then extort even more union dues from their members to fund more political races. This has been an ongoing cycle for decades in America.  

In the 2020 election cycle alone, government unions spent over $1.6 billion in politics – more than any other special interest group in the nation. The scandal here is that this money belongs to public, hard-working employees. The Freedom Foundation is working to empower and uplift every public employee across the United States, within their rights, to get out of their union and put that money, roughly $1,100 per year in dues, back into their pockets.   

 
Q: How can people who are interested in this cause help support the Foundation’s work?   

Withe: There are a multitude of ways for people to support our work. We are extremely grateful to have over 5,000 donors across America, people who give donations directly to us, and others who give through their own family foundation or through foundations in their communities. Some donors also choose to use donor-advised funds, which specifically allow them to give freely to organizations like the Freedom Foundation.   

 
Q: As you said, people have the ability to give to nonprofit organizations through different means. Yet there are policymakers in Washington, D.C., who are trying to limit the tools donors can use to give charitably. Does this concern the Foundation?   

Withe: Ultimately, people should have the opportunity to give however they please. The reason we’re seeing an appetite from certain congressmen to limit the ways people can give is because charitable giving hasn’t benefited them. These are the same politicians that have benefited from the very existence of government unions. They don’t have to make more than 5 to ten campaign calls to different government unions to have their campaigns fully funded.  

What we’re seeing from certain politicians is they don’t like that donors generally have been able to give donations anonymously, whether through donor-advised funds or by other means. This is their way of trying to fight back. It’s not good policy, though it doesn’t concern us because the type of people who support the Freedom Foundation and other like-minded organizations will always give through any mechanisms that are available, because they know just how important our mission is. And thus, I believe the Freedom Foundation will continue to thrive because of the generosity and will of our donors.   

 
Q: You’ve faced much controversy over your bold mission, and as we consider donor-advised funds and the right to give anonymously, what role has donor privacy played in the Freedom Foundation’s ability to do great work?   

Withe: Charlie is a great example here; as the chairman of our board, we are required to disclose him on our IRS 990-tax form each year, so people have become aware of who he is. Opponents of organizations like the Freedom Foundation not only attack us as an entity but they publicly attack anyone associated with us. People have sent hate mail to Charlie’s home, and to his neighbors as well. They’ve protested his business. They set up a website to discredit Charlie in his industry. They’ve also doxed Charlie and encouraged union members to visit his home. Their goal is to intimidate and inevitably make people like Charlie stop supporting what we’re doing through fear tactics.  

Any donor who publicly identifies with the Freedom Foundation is liable to become attacked by these government unions. Fortunately, it hasn’t worked, and I believe these attacks have only strengthened their support of the Foundation. But that’s the goal, to eliminate them from supporting us. In fact, we have a filing cabinet in our office with all of the attacks we’ve received.  

Conner: The Northwest “Un”Accountability Project, as I like to call them, a group that claims to promote social welfare, has gone so far as hand-delivering things to my mailbox to show that they know where I live. It makes me wonder; will they go beyond that? Letters have been sent to charities I support, saying you shouldn’t accept money from Charlie Conner. The things that have been sent out to try to destroy me and my reputation are ludicrous. I’ve got thick skin and I’m not afraid to fight, and that’s why I’m still here!   

 
Q: Do you think all those damaging attacks could deter others from giving, particularly those who are worried they might get fired from their job if they donate to certain organizations?   

Conner: I think so. Some of my friends who run corporations with union laborers would be very concerned if their giving became publicly known. In fact, we lost one board member because he believed his business would disappear if people found out he was on the board here. My main fear is younger people will be more reluctant to give, out of fear they’ll get fired for supporting certain organizations. Most of corporate America doesn’t understand economics and how the world works. They just think we can go down this utopian path and they don’t understand why things are operating so badly.  

 
Q: The Freedom Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) in the Supreme Court case regarding California’s donor disclosure mandates. Why is donor privacy important to your mission, and after that decision, do you foresee any further threats to donor privacy?   

Withe: The AFPF case is important because groups like the Freedom Foundation are the receiving 501(c)(3)s, and in my opinion, they should not have to disclose their donors to a government agency. It is completely wrong for the government to have that information, and I believe we shouldn’t be required to file Schedule B’s (a tax form that reports contributions of the greater total of $5,000 or more than 2% of revenues from any one contributor) to the IRS.  

State governments have shown they have no interest in keeping that information confidential. I also don’t trust the IRS in keeping the information confidential, and we’ve seen several wealthy people’s tax documents disclosed in leaks. It’s great to see the AFPF case resolved, but the issue of donor privacy is still concerning because some politicians continue to go after donors to discourage them from giving. That is their goal, to discourage giving to organizations they disagree with. The organizations they do agree with, however, are often funded by unions. They have enough money and power to fund whatever organization they want to. Meanwhile, groups like the Freedom Foundation rely on the support of many tens of thousands of donors across America.  

 
Q: Why do you believe protecting the freedom to give is important?  

Conner: I believe it’s important because it preserves our right to freedom of speech. There are people who, for various reasons, don’t want the social pressure of having supported one organization over another. They simply don’t want to complicate their lives more, they’re private people. When others find out the organizations you support, people will work to target you, and they wouldn’t be able to if you were able to remain anonymous. It’s important we understand and cherish each of our individual freedoms and do what we can to preserve those rights for future generations.  

Q: How has the Freedom Foundation made a lasting impression on you?  

Conner: We’re out here fighting a battle. Some organizations, even political ones, take in a lot of money and have a lot of staff, but what are they accomplishing? There is certainly an opportunity to persuade people by putting out factual information, but the government continues to confiscate wages to keep themselves in power. It’s awful.   

Q: How do you personally like to give to the Freedom Foundation?  

Conner: My favorite now is donating stocks to the Foundation. I have appreciating assets, and I’d rather not pay taxes on them, so I donate them directly.   

View more stories about the importance of philanthropic freedom at FreeToGive.org.  

The post Why Private Giving is Essential to Educating Public Sector Workers  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.