Craig Kennedy: Congressional Proposals re Foreign Donors are Good for Civil Society
Most countries, including India, fear Trojan Horse charities
Craig Kennedy has a lot of interesting reads in the Giving Review. That publication provides “independent analysis of and commentary about philanthropy and giving.” All by a bunch of nonprofit eggheads. Kennedy is the former president of the Joyce Foundation and the German Marshall Fund. This week he has an interesting opinion piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy in favor of current, politically motivated bills seeking to shut Civil Society up. That is not his goal but he still favors the bills. Readers might know that I am generally suspicious of war-time legislation designed to “fix” civil society. The timing of those efforts suggest that proponents are motivated by a desire to punish than to help, and all for personal political gain. A lot of the proposals coming from Republican controlled Ways and Means, and even by one of the Vice Presidential candidates, are silly political grandstanding at best, outright viewpoint retaliation at worst. But Kennedy’s experience and background gives him enough credibility so that when Craig Kennedy speaks, people should listen.
Kennedy’s support for rules mandating disclosure of foreign donors doesn’t appear at all rooted in the current efforts to muzzle or punish Civil Society. He is a veteran think-tanker and has supported transparency in Civil Society for quite some time. In a November 2023 article he pretty much argued that the nonprofit think tank establishment — progressive, conservative or in-between — is wildly overreacting to calls for donor disclosure. Here is a bit of his characteristically nuanced commentary from that article:
The lack of donor transparency has also stymied the ability of non-governmental watchdog groups to provide oversight. Without greater disclosure, it’s almost impossible to trace the flow of money from (c)(3)’s to (c)(4)’s or to figure out how DAF dollars help organizations engaged in lobbying and election-related activities.
Greater disclosure of foreign donors should be an easy place to start remedying the situation. No one is proposing a ban on such giving— just that it be disclosed. When the head of a think tank testifies before Congress on a foreign-policy issue, shouldn’t we know if a non-American entity, government or otherwise, is funding that institution? And if a foreign donor is supporting a nonprofit involved in voter mobilization, doesn’t the public have the right to know?
Transparency involving American donors is more complicated. Donors to controversial groups have received verbal and even physical threats. Laws, however, are in place to protect people from abuse of this kind. In other words, disclosing donor names is not the real issue here—it’s enforcing the laws against those who make such threats.
In the absence of donor disclosure, mechanisms should be available to ensure nonprofits and their donors are adhering to lobbying and election laws. Congressional hearings would be a good first step to both identify the problem and devise potential solutions. In the 1960s, hearings were essential to creating a framework for regulating the charitable sector.
I haven’t read a lot of Kennedy’s opinions but he appears most concerned with the integrity and independence of Civil Society. He wants us to think that when Civil Society speaks, it speaks from logic not partisanship. Or that when Civil Society is funded by partisans, we know should that too. I haven’t always agreed with his prescriptions, but if we can ignore the fact that Beavis and Butthead on Ways and Means are the current proponents his advocacy is persuasive. We might even agree with the proposals regarding foreign donor disclosures if we can just get beyond the disgusting political posturing. Here is some of his latest persuasion from this week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy:
In many ways, this is not a new issue. In 2014, a New York Times investigation showed how Norway and other countries use their largess to hold sway over the agendas of large think tanks. Revelations that the Brookings Institution had accepted millions of dollars from Qatar led to the resignation two years ago of its then-President John Allen and accusations that he had tried to influence American policy on behalf of that country. Allen was eventually exonerated of those charges, but such incidents created a heightened sensitivity in the think tank community about foreign funding.
Attention has since expanded to academia. The Chinese government was investigated for trying to influence university research and academic freedom, particularly through the funding of Confucius Institutes throughout the United States. And Qatar and other Gulf countries have been accused of fueling antisemitism at universities such as Columbia, Cornell, and Yale through their large donations. Current law requires universities to report to the Department of Education contributions exceeding $250,000 a year from a foreign source, but that doesn’t always happen.
Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss is the poster boy for foreign donations in support of U.S. policies and politics. Wyss has asserted his influence through his strong ties to the left-leaning philanthropy consulting firm Arabella Advisors and the Center for American Progress, as well as his foundation’s active support of national and state policies related to climate change and criminal justice reform. Testimony at House hearings in December suggested that Wyss and possibly other wealthy individuals from abroad donate to nonprofits that then move the money from 501(c)(3) organizations to 501(c)(4)s and political action groups that have more flexibility to engage in retail politics.
Legislative Response
Congress has responded to these developments with legislation that would require greater transparency from nonprofits about the sources and amounts of foreign contributions.
. . .
I won’t give away the ending. Just that it’s a pretty good read.
darryll k. jones