“In a move that some experts say tests the bounds of election law, Valley congressional candidate and California legislator Jeff Denham has sent $175,000 from his state political account to a charity that has run advertisements that could benefit his campaign (”Denham funding to charity raises eyebrows,” by E.J. Schultz, John Ellis and Michael Doyle, Fresno Bee, May 31, 2010).

“We all know what’s going on, but it may not be illegal,” the article quotes Jessica Levinson of the Center for Governmental Studies, a think tank based in Los Angeles.

According to the Bee, Mr. Denham gave the organization $25,000 plus two loans totaling $150,000.  The nonprofit has a 2008 990 tax form on file (at Guidestar, registration required for the link to IRS tax forms), which shows total gifts, grants, and contributions in 2007 of $53,980 and in 2008 of $62,593.  So, as the Bee put it, “Denham’s loans and contribution appear to have been a huge boost to the group.”

We’ll find out after next Tuesday whether the state senator’s campaign, and the goodwill generated by the friendly nonprofit’s TV ads, provided a sufficiently huge boost to put Mr. Denham over the top in his bid for the GOP nomination.

(Image of Mr.  Denham from a video on his State Senate website.)

Philanthropy Today’s takeaway: Mr. Paletta sees evidence that “foundations are turning away from supporting programs to help those in need and enrich society toward a kind of political activism that Mr. Paletta finds worrisome and dangerous.”  Well, actually – a careful reading of Mr. Paletta’s commentary reveals more innuendo than assertion.  His commentary is mostly just an occasion to taunt liberals without forthrightly expressing just what’s wrong with the “greater levels of political engagement in philanthropy” he cites in his op-ed.

Here’s his lead: “It’s no surprise that President Obama, with a lengthy background in the non-profit sector, has made strong efforts to reach out to the philanthropic community. What may come as a surprise is just how exhilarated the philanthropic community is by the attention.”  If we take his words literally here, he is not so much worrying or fearing danger, as noting the (possibly surprising) measure of exhilaration “the philanthropic community” is experiencing.

An allusion (six paragraphs later) to a “brave new world” signals disapproval, without getting around to saying why:

“If you thought that philanthropy’s mission was simply to donate to areas in need, then you haven’t been paying attention. As Gara LaMarche, president of Atlantic Philanthropies stated: ‘Charity is insufficient unless there’s some alteration to underlying structures.’ Other panelists fleshed out the picture of a brave new world of ‘strategic philanthropy,’ in which goals such as ‘transformative change’ and political advocacy, including work with the Obama administration, become essential components of philanthropic work.”

He continues: “In fact, Constance Rice, co-director of the Advancement Project-Los Angeles, recommended that foundations place themselves ‘well beyond advocacy’ in a position of full-fledged activism. Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, cited ‘large scale protest’ as a central requirement for philanthropic impact. Just what sort of impact are they seeking? Panelists cited migrant rights, income justice, reproductive justice and climate change.” [Emphasis added.]

The Advancement Project was established by civil rights attorneys convinced that “sustainable progress can be made when multiple tools—law, policy analysis, strategic communications, technology, and research— are coordinated with grassroots movements,” while the Center for Community Change mobilizes grassroots groups on behalf of “low-income people, especially low-income people of color.”

Does Mr. Paletta regard that sort of impact as threatening?  This is left to the imagination of Wall Street Journal readers, because he never comes right out and says it.

With his intimation that blending “political advocacy” and “philanthropy work” is troublesome, Mr. Paletta finds himself in an awkward position – because he is an editor at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for the American University, which funds courses that “work against the thrust of programs and courses in gender, race and class studies, and postmodernism in general”  (”Conservatives Try New Tack on Campus,” by Patricia Cohen, New York Times, September 21, 2008).  The Institute boasts – and justifiably so – of its influence in “shaping political culture.”

Mark Schmitt’s “Philanthropy is My Co-Pilot,” which appeared a day before Mr. Paletta’s commentary (American Prospect, April 29, 2010), provides a useful counterpoint:

“The ‘philanthropic sector’ in the U.S. can be seen as a brilliant government-subsidized (by tax exemption) pluralistic research-and-development system for social policy (as well as for science, medicine, and arts). Leaving aside the vast number of philanthropies and nonprofits that simply provide services, most large foundations now understand that to make a real impact, they have to influence public policy in some way.”

Mr. Schmitt adds parenthetically: “Conservative foundations understood this long before centrist and liberal ones did.”  The link he provides is to Karen Paget’s “State of the Debate: Lessons of Right-Wing Philanthropy” (American Prospect, September 1, 1998), which references Paul Weyrich (featured recently at LA Philanthropy Watch – here and on video – advancing the view that it’s better if not everyone votes) in describing the “new conservative labyrinth.”

“This ‘labyrinth,’” Ms. Paget writes, “includes dozens of national and regional think tanks (Heritage, American Enterprise, Free Congress Research and Education, Cato, Hudson, Hoover, Manhattan, and so on), legal centers (Institute for Justice, Washington Legal Foundation, and the Pacific, Atlantic, New England, and Southeastern Legal Foundations), magazines (the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard), journals (the Public Interest, the National Interest), and an extensive communications and marketing capacity, including National Empowerment Television, a national television network that reaches more than 11 million households. ”

Conservatives have melded, with great success stretching back many years, philanthropy and politics.  Their objections to philanthropic funding for political advocacy – when others engage in it – lead to some awkward dancing.

Ht (for Mark Schmitt reference): connieboyd.

(Photo by Jonathan McIntosh in wikimedia.)

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.” )

NCRP researchers studied the activities and accomplishments of 15 community nonprofits in Los Angeles County.  These activities – advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement -  were supported by $75.5 million in funding; foundations provided more than three-quarters ($58 million) of this support.  The NCRP report documented the successes: policy changes resulting from efforts undertaken during the five years from 2004 through 2008.  Whenever possible, the NCRP report put a dollar value on those successes.  When affordable housing units are built or the minimum wage increases, for instance, benefits can be quantified.  How effective were these efforts?

Among the findings of the report:

• the aggregate dollar value (where it could be measured) of benefits conferred on the community was $6.88 billion;
• for every dollar of philanthropic funding received, $91 of benefits resulted; and
• non-monetary benefits included cleaner air, improved working conditions, and increased access to college prep classes, among others.

Increasing civic engagement and political participation gave people a voice.  Through that voice, they succeeded in influencing public policy outcomes.

NCRP, which bills itself as “an independent watchdog of foundations,” seeks greater openness, accountability and responsiveness by foundations.  For NCRP, public policy and advocacy are central to helping people in marginalized communities – with little visibility and less influence.  Organizing in their communities, becoming participants in the political process, advocating for policy changes that will make a difference over the long term are effective avenues to change.  Aaron Dorfman, executive director of NCRP, expressed the hope that foundations would consider devoting at least 25% of their grant dollars to efforts to bring about change through political and civic engagement (“Getting back more from giving,” by Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010).

“Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities,” which essentially puts politics – active engagement in the political process – front and center, is the fourth report in a series from the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.  The previous reports looked at community organizing, advocacy, and civic participation in New Mexico (December 2008), North Carolina (May 2009), and Minnesota (September 2009).

I’ll have more on the report in future posts.

Pool’s obituary reports that, in addition to the efforts of government officials – at the city, county, and state level – and the Integrated Recovery Network (a project of Community Partners), hundreds of readers made donations to assist the family, and a benefit was staged on their behalf at the Laugh Factory.

LA Philanthropy Watch posted on the LA Times‘ stories in October and on the Laugh Factory benefit in November.

Felix Salmon offers thoughtful dissent from this advice, suggesting that it is best – even with disaster related giving – to trust your chosen charity.  He notes that because of logistical “bottlenecks and obstacles involved in getting aid to Haitians who need it,” effective charities, which responsibly earmark donated funds, may not be able to spend funds earmarked for Haiti for many years.

He links to this message on the Doctors Without Borders website:

“We are incredibly grateful for the generous support from our donors for the emergency in Haiti.
MSF has been working in Haiti for 19 years, most recently operating three emergency hospitals in Port-au-Prince, and is mobilizing a large emergency response to this disaster. Our immediate response in the first hours following the disaster in Haiti was only possible because of private unrestricted donations from around the world received before the earthquake struck. We are currently reinforcing our teams on the ground in order to respond to the immediate medical needs and to assess the humanitarian needs that MSF will be addressing in the months ahead.
We are now asking our donors to give to our Emergency Relief Fund. These types of funds ensure that our medical teams can react to the Haiti emergency and humanitarian crises all over the world, particularly neglected crises that remain outside the media spotlight. Your gift via this website will be earmarked for our Emergency Relief Fund.”

Salmon continues: “The last time there was a disaster on this scale was the Asian tsunami, five years ago. And for all its best efforts, the Red Cross has still only spent 83% of its $3.21 billion tsunami budget — which means that it has over half a billion dollars left to spend. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s money which could be spent in Haiti, if it weren’t for the fact that it was earmarked.”

So, disregard the unfortunate headline on Salmon’s post (”Don’t give money to Haiti”), but take his advice:

• Do give to a trustworthy charity because of the tragedy in Haiti and because you want to help.
• Continue to give afterwords because other less-publicized disasters are equally tragic.
• But do not earmark your gift for the current disaster in Haiti.

Finally, for anyone who has read this far, you might wish to click on Salmon’s post to review the red flags about Yele, which lead him to conclude,  “Yele is not the soundest of charitable institutions.”

(Image of national and official flag of Haiti via Wikimedia Commons.)

Charity Navigator’s blog has several posts on giving wisely:

• Do your homework first – to avoid scams and telemarketers, find established charities, and evaluate email and social media appeals.
• Beware of scam charities – “… unfortunately, crisis situations … bring out the worst in some people.”  – and -
• Are text donations safe? Again: do your homework.

Finally, a couple of stories on humanitarian relief efforts coming out of Los Angeles:

“Search-and-rescue teams from Fairfax County, Va., and Los Angeles County, Calif., made up of members of Fire Fighters (IAFF) locals 2068 and 1014, are already in Haiti to aid in the rescue efforts. Other teams are likely to follow.” – from the AFL-CIO Now blog.

“March Air Reserve Base became a hub for Southern California’s Haiti earthquake relief effort when a team of approximately 75 U.S. Agency for International Development personnel reported to the base Jan. 13, for transportation to Port-au-Prince, Haiti.“  – from the official website of the U.S. Air Force.

Lisa Sonne, Victor’s wife and co-founder of Charity Checks, recalls their question, “Why don’t we have a universal charitable giving certificate?”  An idea was born: Charity Checks.

Essentially a Charity Check is a gift certificate – which can be redeemed at any of the roughly 1 million nonprofit organizations in the U.S.

Back in the day – the late ’90s – it was not unheard of to receive, in lieu of a gift (on a birthday, at Christmas, or on another special occasion), a card that said something to the effect: A gift has been given in your name to the Surfrider Foundation.  (You can still do this, of course.)  And that was (and is) a wonderful way to support the environment and to involve a friend or family member in giving. But, what if the recipient of the gift doesn’t share the giver’s passion for Surfrider Foundation?  What if s/he happens to have a commitment to another philanthropic cause?

When Charity Checks giving certificates are given as gifts, recipients can give to any nonprofit – 501(c)(3) – of their choice.  Not just the giver’s favorite group, not just organizations from a select list, but any nonprofit organization in the country.  Just complete the ‘Pay to the Order Of’ line on the Charity Checks giving certificate and send it to the charity of your choice.  The charity can deposit the giving certificate (as they would any other donation check) and put the funds to use right away.  It’s that simple.

Since Charity Checks is a nonprofit organization, purchases of their charitable giving certificates are tax-deductible.  Some people purchase the giving certificates for themselves because they don’t wish to receive solicitations by mail during the year.  They send the giving certificates anonymously to the charities of their choice, get their tax deduction through Charity Checks, and shrink the stack of mail solicitations they receive.

Some people like to give now, but decide later.  “Some people like to make donations this year by December 31 and get the tax receipt, but then choose their charities next year when they have more time.  Or use their drawer full of Charity Checks for gifts in the New Year – birthdays, graduations, and special occasions as they occur,” said Ms. Sonne.  “We call it ‘pre-paid philanthropy.’  One tax receipt, multiple options.”

Here’s the most astonishing feature of Charity Checks: there are no administrative fees.  They simply ask donors to cover mailing costs.  (PayPal charges a credit card fee for transactions completed online, but Charity Checks doesn’t take a cut for reimbursement like some groups or add additional processing fees.)  When you purchase a Charity Checks giving certificate for $25 or $100 or whatever you wish, every cent of the check goes to the nonprofit of your choice.

How do Mr. Dorff and Ms. Sonne manage this?  It’s a labor of love inspired by a spirit of charity. The expenses they incur are recovered whenever a supporter makes a contribution to Charity Checks.

The  Dorff/Sonne family has also developed charitable literacy programs at schools in the region.  A sponsor purchases giving certificates for students, who learn about the world of nonprofits, do research on charities, and chose an organization to support.

Finally, a quick story – a ‘6 degrees of separation’ tale (or perhaps 2 degrees in this instance) – about how the idea for universal giving certificates transformed into an actual nonprofit organization.  A family friend, a landscape architect who worked for Scott Cook (co-founder of Intuit), offered to deliver a package of materials to him.  After reviewing the materials, Mr. Cook decided that he’d like to try out the idea.  In what was essentially a pilot program, he purchased 42 giving certificates for senior executives at Intuit.  He made the gifts and his executives selected their charities.  Everything worked without a hitch and Charity Checks was on its way.

I learned about Charity Checks when Lisa Sonne posted a comment on “A Look at Charitable Giving As a Tough Year Comes to an End.”   A follow-up phone call led to an engaging conversation and her story about the inspiration for and history of Charity Checks.

As we race toward the New Year, there is still time in the current tax year to make charitable contributions via Charity Checks.