Does non-profit have to mean apolitical?

Non-profit, 501(c)(3) organizations are a mainstay of American life. In 2001, non-profits employed 9.5% of the American labor force. We give generously to well-known non-profit organizations, such as the United Way, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and the ASPCA. And as a society, it seems that Americans increasingly trust non-profits (including religious organizations) more than the state or industry to address the "most pressing issues of our time."

So if we Americans like non-profits so much, why can't 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations donate to political campaigns? And since 501(c)(3)s are really just corporations, doesn't Citizens United mean that they can?

Answer to the former: I've got some ideas. Answer to the latter: the tax code.

As to why non-profits can't currently participate in elections, there are symbolic reasons and there are more practical ones. First, symbolically, non-profits are an idealized reflection of ourselves. Non-profits, we believe, operate only to serve their clients, and to improve life in our communities. In some ways, doesn't this put them above politics and therefore the citizenship the Citizens United court was oh-so-worried about?

On the other hand, this conception of non-profits ignores two realities: 1) that non-profits, like for-profit corporations, have to keep the lights on and make payroll; and 2) political action may be a more effective means than individual service delivery of improving life in communities. As employers of nearly 10% of the American workforce, oughtn't non-profits have the same opportunities as for-profit corporations to donate to candidates who support beneficial employment law? And surely it would be a good idea to allow powerhouses like the Susan G. Komen Foundation to support candidates who would vote to remove carcinogens from consumer products so we'll have fewer cases of breast cancer to begin with?

More practically, Americans decided long ago to trade the political potential of non-profits for a tax write-off. The tax deduction which 501(c)(3)s offer to the their donors may or may not actually encourage giving, however. Some commentators contend that it only affects the timing of gifts, while, on the other hand, others ask whether a wealthy person would really create a foundation at all were it not for the tax benefits. Still, the Freakonomics guys suggest that, in a situation of perfect information, the guy in the 40% tax bracket sure as heck isn't going going to give away $100,000 for a $70,000 tax deduction, since he's still out $30,000.

The tax write-off is important for one simple reason: the state will not provide the tax incentive and Citizen United corporate political rights at the same time. It's just not going to happen. The grant of tax benefits to non-profits was in some ways predicated upon non-profits' apolitical nature. Revision of the tax code to allow political activities by the 501(c)(3)s (and not just the limited advocacy and education activities allowed 501(c)(4)s) just doesn't fit in that scheme.

All this could lead one to question the American policy of providing tax incentives for charitable giving. If the tax write-off isn't a huge motivator of donations, and political action promises a more effective means of remedying society's ills (big assumptions, I know), then wouldn't it make more sense to revise the tax code and bring 501(c)(3)s into the big old citizenship tent the Supreme Court pitched in Citizens' United?

Just a thought.