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.

Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in our society, addressing various social, environmental and humanitarian needs. More fundamentally, nonprofits represent the long-standing tradition of Americans joining together voluntarily in associations outside of government to meet the needs of our communities.  

A constitutionally protected right to associate is part of the fabric of our society. However, recent proposals, such as those outlined in a Tax Foundation report, have suggested taxing nonprofits’ net income and investment earnings.  

Recommendations like these overlook the distinct mission-driven focus and reinvestment practices of nonprofits. Imposing broad tax burdens on the nonprofit sector could disproportionately harm smaller organizations and diminish their capacity to serve communities effectively. Punishing American citizens by taxing their constitutionally protected right to freely associate is the wrong way to address government’s rampant overspending.  

Unlike for-profit businesses, nonprofits are mission-driven entities focused on benefiting the public interest or specific causes. Their primary goal is not to generate profits for shareholders but to reinvest any surplus funds into supporting the mission. This fundamental difference sets nonprofits apart from commercial enterprises and shapes their financial practices.  

As the report states, there are large, successful nonprofits that operate similar to for-profit entities. That’s how nonprofits can compete in a landscape where individual donations to charities are down. But the revenue does not flow back to shareholders’ bank accounts, as it does with for-profits.   

Nonprofits are legally obligated to serve the public good and operate exclusively for exempt purposes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This designation ensures revenue generated is used to sustain and expand programs that benefit society at large rather than enriching private individuals. 

How Nonprofits Can and Cannot Use Net Income 

It’s important to note nonprofits face strict regulations on how they can use their net income. For example, they are prohibited from distributing income to individuals. Nonprofits cannot distribute any of their income to officers, directors or other individuals connected with the organization. 

Nonprofit organizations typically use their net income, or surplus, in several ways: 

1. Building reserves: Many nonprofits allocate surplus funds to build operating reserves, providing financial stability and helping them weather unexpected expenses or revenue shortfalls. Experts recommend having sufficient reserves to cover six months of operating expenses. 

2. Reinvesting in programs: A significant portion of net income is often reinvested into expanding or improving existing programs that further the organization’s mission. This could involve upgrading equipment, launching pilot projects or investing in research and development. 

3. Upgrading infrastructure: Net income can be allocated to improve facilities, technology or other infrastructure that supports the organization’s operations. 

4. Staff development and retention: Some surplus may be used for staff training, professional development or improving compensation to retain talented employees. 

5. Debt repayment: Nonprofits may use net income to pay down debts and reduce interest expenses, freeing up cash flow for charitable expenditures. 

6. Future growth: Organizations may set aside surplus funds for planned future expansion or long-term strategic initiatives. 

7. Compliance with donor restrictions: Some net income may be restricted by donors for specific purposes and must be used accordingly 

A More Balanced Approach 

It’s clear there are some questionable nonprofits that compete with for-profit entities and may not be following the laws and regulations designed to ensure they are operating to further their missions. Perhaps there is reason to look deeper into the small minority of entities that generate over $1 billion in revenue each year, for example.  

But it’s crucial to keep in mind the Tax Foundation found 325 groups of this size – out of nearly two million groups. Those of us concerned with the overreach of a muscular central government surely cannot support a new tax on nonprofits to target 0.02% of the groups that may raise eyebrows. Rather than implementing sweeping tax changes, a more nuanced approach is needed to address specific concerns without jeopardizing the invaluable contributions of the charitable sector.  

Why, for example, would the government continue to fund these large nonprofits at staggering levels, only to turn around and take some of their funding back through a tax on all nonprofits? Such a scheme would make our current system even less efficient, and only serve to further grow the bureaucracy needed to administer a tax.  

Instead of punishing Americans by making association more expensive, some potential areas for review include: 

1. Examining federal funding practices for large nonprofits, particularly those with substantial endowments. 

2. Strengthening enforcement of community benefit standards, especially for large nonprofit hospitals. 

3. Reviewing overhead funding caps for federal grants to nonprofit organizations. 

4. Ensuring large nonprofit hospitals are meeting charity care standards commensurate with the value of their tax exemption. 

Nonprofit organizations play a vital role addressing societal needs and fostering innovation in service delivery. While it’s important to ensure accountability and proper use of resources in the nonprofit sector, broad tax reforms risk undermining the essential work of countless organizations. There are legitimate questions about organizations receiving substantial government funds.  

This raises fundamental questions about whether such groups are in fact outside the realm of government. But taxing a dog shelter because it sells flying discs at a farmers’ market is not going to get to the root of the problem: government is spending too much money.  

By preserving the autonomy and financial health of nonprofits, we can ensure continued innovation and impactful service delivery in addressing societal needs. A balanced approach that focuses on specific areas of concern while recognizing the unique nature and contributions of nonprofits will better serve both the sector and society as a whole. 

The post Let’s Not Tax a Constitutional Right   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn a legal doctrine called Chevron deference marks a significant shift in how federal regulations will be interpreted and applied, with potentially far-reaching implications for donors and the nonprofit organizations they support.  

This doctrine, established in a 1984 decision, compels courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws, essentially giving federal agencies leeway to fill in the gaps in U.S. law. The Court’s decision to overturn this doctrine will help curb the unchecked power of the administrative state and is likely to have wide ranging impact across all economic sectors, including philanthropy.   

The Chevron doctrine grants broad power to the IRS and Treasury Department, both of which shape the rules and regulations that govern the tax-exempt space.   

In overturning this doctrine, Chief Justice Roberts summarized: 

“Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. The Framers, as noted, anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment.” 

Roberts added that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires independent judgment by the courts, not government agencies: 

“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. … But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” 

Three Takeaways for Philanthropy:  

1. This decision weakens role of the federal bureaucracy: The majority opinion argued that Chevron grants undue power to unelected bureaucrats, allowing them to craft policy through opaque regulations rather than the deliberative legislative process. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said Chevron “curbs the judicial power afforded to courts, and simultaneously expands agencies’ executive power beyond constitutional limits.”  

2. This decision paves a path for regulatory stability: Justices concurring with the majority opinion also noted how Chevron created a regulatory environment of uncertainty. Roberts argued that “Chevron fosters unwarranted instability in the law, leaving those attempting to plan around agency action in an eternal fog of uncertainty.” Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with this opinion, noting “Rather than promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law, Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change.”  
   
   In the context of foundations, nonprofits and other tax-exempt entities, this can translate into an ever-shifting regulatory landscape, rife with ambiguity and uncertainty. For groups navigating a complex maze of IRS pronouncements and rulings only to find the ground shift with the next interpretation, such unchecked administrative power stifles innovation. It also makes it difficult for nonprofits to focus on meeting their missions and serving their local communities.  

3. This decision defends against biased rulemaking: Another important point to note in this ruling is without robust judicial oversight agencies can regulate beyond the scope of law or become susceptible to lobbying pressures, potentially skewing interpretations in favor of certain groups over others. Thomas said “Chevron deference guarantees ‘systematic bias’ in favor of whichever political party currently holds the levers of executive power.” In the world of nonprofits, this could mean regulations crafted to benefit certain organizations or punish those that fall into disfavor with the politicized bureaucracy in Washington D.C.  

For four decades, the regulatory litigation system has leaned too heavily toward agency control, leaving many tax-exempt groups struggling in a sea of ambiguity. The overturning of Chevron could usher in a new era of transparency and accountability. For organizations fighting for a regulatory environment that empowers communities to thrive, this decision represents the opportunity to remove barriers of an overreaching administrative state. 

The post Chevron Doctrine Overturned: What this Means for Philanthropy   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.

In 6-3 and 6-2 rulings today, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave federal agencies unchecked power at the expense of the legislative branch and the American public.

Philanthropy Roundtable Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan responded to the Court’s decision:

“In today’s landmark decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court sent a clear message: federal agencies have too much power,” says Philanthropy Roundtable senior vice president Elizabeth McGuigan. “While we won’t know the true impact of this decision on philanthropy for quite some time, we do know this will go a long way in curbing the power of the administrative state, preserving the freedom of Americans to give to causes they support without government intervening. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine has the potential to impact rules and tax regulations governing nonprofits and we look forward to being part of the conversation.”

More from Philanthropy Roundtable on this topic: How A Supreme Court Case about Fishing Could Impact Nonprofits

### 

The post Roundtable Applauds SCOTUS Chevron Decision: Federal Agencies Have Too Much Power appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Last month, the IRS held a hearing on potential donor-advised funds (DAF) regulations. Various members from across the charitable sector, including Philanthropy Roundtable’s Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan, testified about their concerns. The hearing centered on the key definitions and the proposed implementation date for the rules.   

DAFs are personal charitable giving vehicles that allow any American to invest thoughtfully and strategically in the charities and causes they care about most. DAFs offer donors flexibility in their grantmaking approach. Some donors choose to distribute most of their contributions within the initial years of the account, while others opt to allow the charitable funds to accumulate before disbursing them. Importantly, every dollar contributed to a DAF is irrevocable and entirely committed to charitable giving.  

The Roundtable is chiefly concerned with three elements of the proposed IRS regulations: the short implementation timelines, the limitations of how investment advisers can support clients with their DAFs and the overly broad distribution rules that appear to penalize essential expenses like legal counseling or accounting necessary to DAF operation.  

In a letter released shortly before the IRS hearing, 33 members of the House Ways and Means Committee expressed concerns to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that the proposed regulations could have harmful consequences on our nation’s philanthropic sector.   

Both the Ways and Means letter and testimony at the IRS hearing said more restraints on DAFs would mean fewer dollars for those in need. Criticisms also rightly identify a pattern of overly broad definitions within the regulations. Muddling the definitions of both “donor-advised funds” and “taxable distributions,” is “confusing for donors, expensive for sponsors and [will] lead to less money getting to end-use charities” according to the Ways and Means letter.  

DAFs are uniquely positioned to allow donors to build a longer-term strategy or a rainy-day fund for the charities they support. Data suggest DAFs are particularly impactful during periods of crisis and necessity such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, proposed regulations should not hinder the effectiveness or adaptability of DAFs.    

It is encouraging to see bipartisan congressional support united behind the charitable sector in its fight to protect charitable giving and our most vulnerable communities.   

The post Congress and Charitable Sector Unite to Support DAFs appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In a guest blog published by Georgia Center for Opportunity, Philanthropy Roundtable’s Director of Government Affairs Megan Schmidt applauds the recent passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act and the Personal Privacy Protection Act by Georgia lawmakers. Schmidt details how both bills encourage charitable giving in the Peach State.  

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “Two News Laws Bring Good News for Charitable Giving in Georgia”:       

“There are over 64,000 nonprofit organizations in Georgia, and in 2021 Georgia donors gave $9.4 billion to charity, according to the IRS. These generous donations to charitable organizations are about to get important protections under two bills passed by the state legislature in 2024. 

“Gov. Brian Kemp signed the Donor Intent Protection Act and the Personal Privacy Protection Act into law. Both pieces of legislation offer donors and charities new avenues to ensure the proper use of donations, while safeguarding donors’ right to privacy in giving. 

“The two bills offer legal protections for donors and nonprofits to ensure charitable giving can continue freely and effectively in the state. When donors are free to give where and how they choose without fear of their information being unfairly released or their donations being misused, charitable organizations are better suited to help those who need their support.” 

… 

“Georgia is primed to move forward with a healthy charitable giving environment with the passage of these two bills so communities in need around the state can benefit from the generosity of Georgians.” 

To read the complete article, please visit Georgia Center for Opportunity.   

The post Schmidt at Georgia Center for Opportunity: Two New Laws Bring Good News for Charitable Giving in Georgia appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled in Moore v. United States that the 2017 Mandatory Repatriation Tax is constitutional. By declining to address the question of whether such a tax is an unconstitutional tax on unrealized income, the Court side-stepped the broader threat of proposed wealth taxes and the negative ramifications a tax on unrealized gains would have on charitable endeavors.   

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan responded to the decision: 

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow decision in Moore is a missed opportunity to slam the door closed on future taxes on assets, including resources set aside for charitable activity. Americans’ strong and effective tradition of generosity relies on a fair and predictable tax code, and this decision undermines the transformative, nationwide work of nonprofits that private charitable giving supports. It’s disappointing that the Court declined to address the issue of whether a tax on unrealized income would be unconstitutional. The Roundtable will continue to fight wealth tax proposals that punish success and impede Americans’ abilities to support those in need.”   

The case of Charles and Kathleen Moore centered on an investment the couple made in a company empowering small-scale farmers, which left them with a $15,000 tax bill. Referred to as the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), the tax obligated the Moores to declare additional taxable income based on gains that had not been distributed to them as shareholders. They petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the tax, and Philanthropy Roundtable submitted an amicus brief in support of the Moores. 

As the Roundtable has written before, charitable giving “is most effective when donors are free to give to the causes and communities they care about most. It spurs generosity and allows nonprofits to focus on their core missions.”  

Today’s decision leaves open the possibility for a future wealth tax, which is often proposed as a tax on assets rather than on income.  

More from Philanthropy Roundtable on Moore v. United States: 

• Amicus Brief: Philanthropy Roundtable Urges Supreme Court to Overrule Unconstitutional Tax on Wealth 

• Moore v. United States Oral Argument: The Slippery Slope of Taxing Unrealized Gains 

• National Review: A Tax on Unrealized Gains Would Hurt Philanthropy  

• The Hill: A Constitutional Overreach with Dire Consequences for Philanthropy 

To schedule an interview with Philanthropy Roundtable, contact media@philanthropyroundtable.org. 

### 

The post Supreme Court Skirts Key Question in Moore Decision 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.

WASHINGTON – Philanthropy Roundtable published “How Tax Policy Affects Charitable Giving” today, new research that finds for every $1 the U.S. Treasury forgoes in potential revenues, the charitable tax deduction results in $1.30 making its way to public charities.  

This study examines 50 years of research on how tax policy affects charitable donations, noting that raising taxes, likewise, shows a reduction in charitable giving. Currently, Capitol Hill lawmakers are debating several expiring tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that would have significant implications for charitable giving. The research highlights how the TCJA’s tax incentives, when combined with a thriving economy, translates to increased charitable generosity and funds available for nonprofit services. 

“Philanthropy forms the bedrock of a vibrant civil society, and the research proves it,” said the paper’s author, Philanthropy Roundtable Director of Policy Research Jack Salmon. “When America’s tax policies encourage more giving to charity, those dollars go further toward helping communities in need than when those same dollars are sent to the IRS. Policymakers should keep that in mind as they construct laws and regulations affecting giving.” 

Americans donate over $400 billion annually – $300 billion as individuals and over $100 billion through private foundations. As the paper explains, “Within this altruistic landscape lies a crucial economic reality: charitable giving is not immune to the economic impact and behavioral incentives of tax policy. Indeed, a fundamental question resonates – to what extent does the cost of giving, as influenced by tax incentives, sway the magnitude of charitable donations? This intricate relationship between tax policy and charitable behavior lies at the heart of the concept of tax elasticity of charitable giving.” 

Key Findings: 

1. For every $1 the Treasury forgoes in potential revenues, the charitable deduction results in $1.30 making its way to public charities.  

2. Charitable giving is sensitive to changes in the tax price, meaning individual donors respond to changes in the “cost” of their contributions, as influenced primarily by tax policies. 

3. For every 10% increase/decrease in income, a donor increases/decreases their charitable giving by 7%. 

As Salmon writes, “Taxpayers demonstrably respond to shifts in policy, and the benefits of the charitable deduction for individual donors and the communities they support, undeniably outweigh any potential loss of revenue.” 

Read “How Tax Policy Affects Charitable Giving”. 

The post New Research: Philanthropy Roundtable finds Tax Incentives Lead to More Money for Charities and Communities in Need appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Over the past several years nonprofit organizations and individual donors have confronted the threat of their private information being leaked online or to reporters with little reprimand, despite donor privacy being a First Amendment right.  

Philanthropy Roundtable supports the PCGA because it provides a much-needed update to laws aimed at protecting donor privacy and the free speech of all Americans. This legislation enforces the constitutional right of donors to support causes they believe in by knowing there are now suitable penalties and increased prosecutorial options should their information be leaked. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this right in 2021 in the AFPF v. Bonta decision. 

There are three specific changes this legislation would implement: 

1. Increases the maximum penalty for leaks of schedule B donor information from $5,000 to $250,000 
2. Increases the minimum penalty from zero to $10,000 
3. Expands the prosecutorial venue to the victim’s (individuals or organizations) primary residence, or organization’s place of business 

While 501(c)(4) organizations are no longer required to submit 990 schedule B forms, this legislation would protect previous submissions and organizations that choose to submit by choice.  

Additionally, the bill requires the IRS to issue a report of any disclosure of form 990 schedule B information and make recommendations to prevent future leaks. Modernizing current donor privacy laws will not only update penalties that haven’t been changed since 1976, it will reaffirm the importance Americans place on the freedom of association. This signals to states like New York and California, where we have seen a recent erosion of donor privacy, that these rights shall not be infringed.    

See the press release from the Roundtable on the introduction of this bill here.  

The post Senate Emphasizes Importance of Donor Privacy with Introduction of Protecting Charitable Giving Act appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

WASHINGTON – Philanthropy Roundtable commends Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) for introducing the Protecting Charitable Giving Act. This legislation strengthens and reinforces the constitutional right to donor privacy by ensuring suitable penalties for criminals who leak Americans’ private information. Further, it expands the options for organizations and individuals to pursue criminal prosecution if their private donor information is leaked. 

The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed donor privacy and the constitutional right to anonymous giving in 2021 in the AFPF v. Bonta decision. This legislation updates current law by increasing criminal penalties for those who may seek to target Americans based on their donations to charities.   

“Philanthropy Roundtable thanks Senators Todd Young and James Lankford for their tireless efforts to preserve and strengthen America’s federal donor privacy laws that protect the rights and freedoms of generous Americans to support the causes and communities they care about most,” said Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera. “The Protecting Charitable Giving Act makes much-needed updates to the laws that protect charitable donors, and it grants new recourse to those whose private donor information has been leaked. The right to associate with others who share one’s values and beliefs—and to do so privately—is vital to preserving the freedom that lies at the heart of the American experiment.” 

“Anonymous giving has long been a way for Americans to support philanthropic organizations that rely on generous charitable contributions,” Young said. “In recent years, donor privacy has been threatened on too many occasions. This legislation will address the disclosure of donor data to better protect both charitable organizations and their donors.”

 “Nonprofits and their donors are an essential safety net for our communities—providing food, housing, and care to those who need it most,” Lankford said. “Oklahomans shouldn’t worry about their identities being made public after they provide a donation to a charitable organization. Millions of donors want to do something good without being recognized. We should honor their privacy as they care for others.”

The post Philanthropy Roundtable Applauds Senate Introduction of Protecting Charitable Giving Act appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.