LA Philanthropy Watch

The first page of the LATExtra section of this morning’s Los Angeles Times reported the killings of two workers at medical marijuana dispensaries five miles apart on the same afternoon.  [“2 pot shop killings probed” by Joel Rubin and Paloma Esquivel, June 26, 2010]  The Higher Path Holistic Care Collective (see photo) is on Sunset Boulevard in Echo Park; Hollywood Holistic 2 is below Hollywood Boulevard, just west of Gower.

“The killings rattled medical marijuana collective operators and patient advocates,” according to the story, which highlights the breadth of the nonprofit community in Los Angeles: California law permits nonprofit collectives to raise and distribute medical marijuana.  (Among the more than 400 illegally operating marijuana dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles, many are not nonprofit operations, while few are collectives that distribute marijuana to members who have grown it.  They are retail outlets in a marketplace that, until recently, has been saturated – much to the displeasure of many neighborhoods.)

The story illustrates, as well, special challenges faced by organizations within this nonprofit niche.  ‘Pot shops,’ as the Times’ article puts it, operate with large amounts of cash – making them an attractive target for robbery.  But Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca suggested an even scarier possibility.  Noting that armed robbery differs from “assassinating the person you’re robbing,” he said that the vicious nature of killings suggested that drug cartels could be involved in the violence.

Note: both these homicides occurred in the City of Los Angeles, which is outside the Sheriff’s jurisdiction.

(Photo of Higher Path Holistic Care Collective on Saturday morning.)

All right, this post has nothing to do with the nonprofit sector in Los Angeles.  Perhaps it’s because I’m an avid runner, but during Thursday’s morning commute I was cheered by a story I heard on NPR’s Morning Edition.

Sacha Pfeiffer of WBUR reported on a women’s fitness center, run by the nonprofit Healthworks Foundation, in a working class neighborhood (Boston’s Codman Square).  Membership fees (up to $30 a month) are on a sliding scale, based on income; one woman featured in the report pays only $10.

The story (”Nonprofit Gym Helps Low-Income Community Get Fit,” June 17, 2010), which began by noting an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in many low-income neighborhoods, featured a quote by Bill Walczak, who helped raise the money to build the gym.

“In middle-income communities, there’s somehow an expectation that you’re going to have access to gyms,” he said. “When you’re in a low-income community, that stuff doesn’t exist.”

Perhaps this inequity isn’t what immediately comes to mind when we think about issues of social justice – but good health bestows such a wealth of benefits that providing access to an affordable gym for 700 women, and after-school programs for children, is an eminently worthwhile endeavor for a nonprofit organization.

In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate spending in ‘independent expenditure’ campaigns; the 5-4 ruling was a continuation of the high court’s relentless assault on campaign finance reform.  Legislation introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, to require greater disclosure of the sources of the campaign money (which are often shielded from public view under current law), has met with opposition from corporations, unions, trade associations and nonprofit advocacy groups.

On May 25 (“Proposed Donor Disclosure Requirements Worry Some Nonprofit Experts”), I noted the objection of Michael B. Trister, an attorney assisting the Alliance for Justice, to proposed Congressional legislation.  “Some nonprofits are engaged in controversial work, and their donors wouldn’t want their support plastered over the airwaves.”

The Alliance for Justice is a national group (with offices in Oakland and Washington, DC) representing more than 100 nonprofit organizations – including civil and women’s rights, environmental, consumer, and senior citizen’s groups – engaged in progressive political advocacy (which I enthusiastically support).  More than 30 of these groups have a strong California presence (mostly in the Bay Area).

Nonetheless, I found myself staking out a position in support of the DISCLOSE Act, which relies on transparency – the public’s right to know – to counter the effect of streams of money into political campaigns.  AFJ, while wary of the proposed legislation (as Mr. Trister’s comments suggest), had not – until this week – taken a public position on the issue.  That changed yesterday, after House Democrats amended the proposed legislation to exempt the National Rifle Association.  (Yes, you read that right.)

Here is the AFJ statement in its entirety:

As you probably know by now, the US House of Representatives is poised to take up the DISCLOSE Act later this week.  Introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court’s unpopular decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allows unlimited independent spending by corporations in support of or opposition to candidates for federal public office, the DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to mitigate the impact of the Court’s decision.  Unfortunately, new language in the bill will create an exemption from the Act’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements for large, powerful organizations, which, given the amendment’s language, in reality only applies to one entity, the National Rifle Association.  See yesterday’s CQ Politics News article for more information about this dangerous exception.

Consequently, we have no choice but to oppose the passage of the DISCLOSE Act as it currently stands.  Regardless of your position about the legislation in general, we think you will agree with us that this special carve-out is undemocratic and dangerous.  We urge you to sign on to the below letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing our profound disappointment and anger about the special treatment provided to those least in need of special treatment.

If your organization would like to sign on, please email Lauren.bohdan@afj.org by noon (Eastern) tomorrow, Wednesday, June 16.

Thank you,

Nan Aron

President, Alliance for Justice

**********************************************

Dear Madam Speaker:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which allows unlimited independent spending by corporations in support of or opposition to political candidates, has derailed many of the most important campaign finance reform reforms enacted over the past several decades. Many organizations committed to the preservation of fundamental principles of American democracy agreed with President Obama when he used the occasion of the State of the Union address to call on Congress to write legislation that would overturn the most egregious ramifications of the Citizens United decision.

We strongly believe that the Citizens United decision poses a threat to the integrity of the electoral process and we support legislation that provides for effective disclosure, while at the same time protecting free and independent speech and promoting active participation in elections by individuals and organizations.
However, we must respectfully express our profound opposition to the effort to create an exemption from the disclosure requirements for large, powerful organizations, which, given the amendment’s language, in reality only applies to one entity, the National Rifle Association.

It is unconscionable to create a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protections, one for the most powerful and influential and another for everyone else. There is no legitimate justification for privileging the speech of one entity over another, or of reducing the burdens of compliance for the biggest organization yet retaining them for the smallest.

We urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with the sponsors to remove the offending language and restore the integrity of the bill so we can continue to participate in efforts to craft legislation that achieves the goal we all share to undo the damage of Citizens United and restore the integrity of our democratic system. In its current form, however, we have no choice but to oppose the passage of the DISCLOSE Act.

Respectfully,

[Sign here]

Saturday’s Los Angeles Times featured an article by Marc Lifsher on Propositions 16 and 17 (“Propositions 16 and 17 could pave the way for more company-backed initiatives”), which provides a follow up to my previous post.

“Tuesday’s California primary election represents a first — two initiative measures that were conceived and financed by individual companies. The fate of these propositions, analysts say, could determine whether other companies follow suit,” begins the Times’ article, which includes dollar figures on spending for and against each initiative:

Proposition 16: Pro – $46 million (98% by PG&E); con: $50,000.  That’s $920,000 $920 in favor of the initiative for every $1 in opposition.  So not quite a million thousand to 1.

Proposition 17: Pro – $16 million (99% by Mercury Insurance); con: $1.3 million.  This represents a more modest 12 to 1 disparity in pro and con spending – but still pretty good odds in a campaign to bamboozle 50% +1 primary voters.

As Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog explained – as noted in my previous post – this imbalance in spending is a direct result of PG&E and Mercury’s strategies: each initiative is narrowly targeted to change a single aspect of the companies’ business models – so no other special interests with deep pockets would be tempted to oppose the initiatives.

There is a long history – going back decades – of special interests hijacking the initiative process in California to bamboozle the public. Jamie Court, writing at Consumer Watchdog’s blog (“Corporate ‘smart initiatives’ will test California voters’ smarts Tuesday”), suggests that in funding Propositions 16 and 17, PG&E and Mercury Insurance, respectively, have crafted strategies that represent a new model in this cynical business.

She refers to Propositions 16 and 17 as “smart initiatives.”  What’s smart about them?

Each would benefit their corporate sponsors – who are funding them with tens of millions of dollars – at the expense of the general public (while you have to read in very small print at the end of the TV ads where the money is actually coming from).  These multi-million dollar budgets have paid for deceptive advertising campaigns – especially TV commercials – to fool the public into thinking that saving taxpayers’ money or lowering auto insurance rates would result.

So far, this is familiar territory.

But these initiatives add a clever element: they are narrowly targeted – to make a single change to the corporations’ business models – so their passage would not harm any other interest groups with deep pockets.  Thus, there is no special-interest money on the other side fighting back.  One reason that California voters reject more than 6 in 10 ballot initiatives is because finger-pointing by both sides raises doubts about the wisdom of the initiatives – and so a wary public usually votes ‘No.’

The ‘No’ campaigns against Propositions 16 and 17 are anemically funded.  PG&E and Mercury Insurance have the airwaves virtually to themselves.  Granted that a number of consumer groups – such as Consumer Watchdog – have entered the fray against one proposition or the other, as have other nonprofits and newspaper editorial boards, but funding television campaigns throughout California is expensive.  There is no one who can go toe to toe with these corporate giants – challenging the fraudulent claims made on behalf of Propositions 16 and 17.

Jamie Court offers details about each initiative, and why each deserves a ‘No’ vote, at the link.

Monday’s Los Angeles Times featured an article on plastic grocery bags (“The question is still in the bag: Paper or plastic?” by Catherine Saillant, May 31, 2010).

“When San Francisco adopted the nation’s first ban on plastic grocery bags three years ago, euphoric supporters predicted that California’s addiction to the flimsy throwaway carriers was finally coming to an end.

But since then just one other city — Malibu — has enacted a ban. Attempts by two dozen other cities and counties to adopt their own regulations have been stopped cold. State legislation has failed three times.”

Grocery store lobbyists and lawsuits by plastic bag manufacturers have stopped the progress cold.  The article quotes Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay:

“It’s hugely frustrating,” he said.  ”A lot of us thought San Francisco was showing us the way to change. But these are well-funded industries and the stakes are high.”

This afternoon, the San Francisco Chronicle’s website reported that the California Assembly passed a bill banning plastic grocery bags statewide (”State plastic bag ban gaining support,” by Marisa Lagos, June 2, 2010); the bill would also require shoppers to bring their own bags or pay five cents for paper bags composed of at least 40% recycled materials at the counter.  AB 1998, written by Julia Brownley of Santa Monica, was sponsored by Heal the Bay; it passed by a vote of 41 to 27.

Governor Schwarzenegger has pledged to sign the bill if it gets to his desk.

Mark Gold’s Spouting Off blog had a brief post about the proposed ban on plastic bags (“Bagging a Win”) on April 14, after the bill passed out of the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee.

The Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council met last night for the first time since February (”Surpise! The Echo Park neighborhood council is back in business,” The Eastsider LA).

A majority of board members of the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (a number of whom had just lost an election) failed to show up at the April board meeting – thus delaying the swearing in of new members by a month.  At Echo Park, the situation – what The Eastsider LA describes as “boycotting board members” denying the council a quorum – was drawn out for much longer because (according the the president of the Echo Park neighborhood council) election challenges had kept the new members from coming on board (”Echo Park neighborhood council goes missing in action“).

Following the GGPNC election, opponents of the Los Feliz Forward candidates filed challenges with the Office of the City Clerk – Elections Division, which declined to accept them as valid.  Thus, the challenges didn’t keep newly elected members from taking office this month.  On page two of this link – Challenges Under Review and Results by Region, you’ll find: Region F – Greater Griffith Park – None Accepted.

“A new campaign-finance bill pending in Congress aims to lift the curtain on who is paying for advertisements and other communications that could influence elections,” writes Suzanne Perry in yesterday’s Chronicle of Philanthropy (from which I’ve borrowed the headline: “Proposed Donor Disclosure Requirements Worry Some Nonprofit Experts”).  She reports that some nonprofit leaders have concerns about the bill, which is wending its way through the House of Representatives.  The House bill and a companion bill in the Senate were proposed in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, which struck down a number of rules restricting corporate funding of “independent expenditure” campaigns (as distinct from direct funding of candidates).  The ruling, in effect, allows the laundering of campaign funds – blocking disclosure of big donors who seek to influence our elections.

To understand how this works, consider the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has aggressively fought financial reform legislation and, before that, aggressively fought health care reform legislation.  Literally tens of millions of dollars of corporate cash (from Wall Street firms and big insurance companies, respectively) were funneled through the Chamber, so we – the public – couldn’t identify the sources of the funding.  If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks to influence the election of a President or a U.S. Senator, shouldn’t we know where the money is coming from?

As Ms. Perry notes, Common Cause and Public Campaign praise the Congressional effort to uncover the sources of special interest money.  But nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations – as well as corporations and unions – would be affected by the legislation; some nonprofits object that they don’t wish to identify their donors.  The Chronicle article quotes Michael B. Trister, a Washington (DC) attorney assisting the Alliance for Justice (a coalition of nearly 100 progressive organizations), who objects “Some nonprofits are engaged in controversial work, and their donors wouldn’t want their support plastered over the airwaves.”

By my count at least 30 of the groups affiliated with the Alliance for Justice have a strong presence in California – and virtually all, by my lights, are engaged in virtuous activities.  I understand why nonprofits – especially advocacy groups battling the status quo – would want to protect their donors from public scrutiny.  Why invite controversy for the folks committed to your causes?

But there is a bigger issue involved.  Campaign finance is central to the health of our democratic institutions.  Sunlight – since an activist Supreme Court keeps knocking down restrictions on special interest money – is an imperative.

I have often voted against well-meaning propositions on the California ballot endorsed by Common Cause and other good government groups.  I may do so next month, as well.  But Common Cause is assuredly right on this issue.

(Image of U.S. Supreme Court from Wikimedia Commons.)

The Save the Peak campaign to raise $12.5 million dollars has succeeded.  Trust for Public Land, which announced an extension of its deadline to April 30 (after missing the initial April 14 deadline), announced yesterday that “it has raised enough money to buy and protect the 138 acres behind the world-famous Hollywood Sign, as Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner stepped forward to close the gap with a $900,000 donation toward the $12.5 million needed.”

TPL will deed the land to the City of Los Angeles as an addition to Griffith Park.

TPL’s press release has all the details.  I’ll just pass along the comments of my City Council Member (and perhaps Griffith Park’s most enthusiastic fan), Tom LaBonge, who – along with a number of others – was instrumental in raising the visibility for this project:

“This is a great day for all of us,” he said. “I have climbed Mt. Hollywood every morning for over 30 years and look forward to hiking Cahuenga Peak with anyone who wants to join me. This would not have happened without The Trust for Public Land, the Hollywood Sign Trust and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. And a very special thanks to a man who, like me, loves nature, loves people and provided great strength to bring us to this point, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

An earlier story, with a Q&A with TPL Director of Media Relations Tim Ahern plus a photo of the Save the Peak banner that covered the Hollywood sign for a week, was featured in LA Philanthropy Watch on March 1, “Trust for Public Land Seeks to Save the Cahuenga Peak.” )

There are Worst Dressed awards, Ig Noble Prizes, and Golden Fleece Awards – but, until now, the nonprofit sector had no such impertinent, tongue in cheek prizes.  Some observers might have thought this a good thing – or at least not something in need of remedy.  But in the spirit of making a serious point through humor, Blue Avocado and Nonprofit Online News have teamed up to present the Just Awards.

The award for Narcissism in Philanthropy went to the Rockefeller Foundation, for “overwhelming and relentless promotion” of the foundation’s president, Judith Rodin, while the award for Abominable Press Coverage was presented to Stephanie Strom’s December 5, 2009 story in the New York Times, “Charities Rise, Costing U.S. Billions in Tax Breaks.”  A more complete account of the awards can be found at Blue Avocado, as well as a justification for “tweaking the minor-but-aggravating behaviors of foundations.”  Nominations were submitted by the public; a distinguished panel of judges – a Baker’s dozen, listed at Just Awards – made the selections.

Readers of LA Philanthropy Watch may be more interested in the runners-up than in the winners.  A California community foundation was a runner-up for the Narcissism in Philanthropy Award.  The judges noted that the foundation, which makes $4 million in grants annually, is constructing a new headquarters costing twice that much.  “They are openly touting the building and have architects’ plans displayed in their offices for nonprofit grantees to see as they grovel for grants of $5,000 and $10,000.”  A second runner-up in this category was a large bank that makes decisions about awarding grants based on American Idol-inspired contests.

The runner-up for Abominable Press Coverage was awarded to “all of journalism” for its coverage of ACORN over the past several months.

I think it’s only fair to note that receiving an irreverent award – whether or not it is well-deserved – doesn’t mean the recipient hasn’t also done good work.  Sandra Bullock, for instance, received both a Golden Raspberry Award and an Oscar the same weekend.  Another for instance: I have relied on the reporting of Stephanie Strom (and the Just Awards’ judges noted that she is “generally a very good reporter”).

(Photo of Kodak Theatre – and a huge Oscar wrapped in plastic – the week before the March 2010 awards ceremony.  Click on the photo for a larger image.)