Saturday, November 29, 2014
Last month I had the opportunity to attend the NYU National Center on Philanthropy and the Law's Annual Conference. The conference was titled Regulation or Repression: Government Policing of Cross-Border Charity and provided an eye-opening overview of restritions imposed by many countries on foreign funding of charities and other NGOs. What made the conference particularly timely was the fact that only a month earlier a prominent member of Congress had publicly attacked foreign donations to think tanks - in the United States. This concern led to a bipartisan legislative proposal to require disclosure of foreign funding from scholars who testify on Capital Hill. The timing was particularly ironic, as at almost the same time the Economist ran two articles raising concerns about autocratic and illiberal governments placing limits on such funding: Donors: Keep Out and Uncivil Society. That said, whatever concerns charities and other nonprofits may have in the United States (including members of Congress criticizing them for accepting foreign donations), they pale in comparison to the concerns that the legal restrictions on both funding and activities raise for NGOs in many other parts of the world.
Oonagh B. Breen (University College Dublin) has posted Long Day's Journey: The Charities Act 2009 and Recent Developments in Irish Charity Law, Charity Law and Practice Review (forthcoming). Here is the abstract:
It is now twelve years since the Irish Government committed in its Agreed Programme for Government to the introduction of a modern statutory framework for the regulation of Irish charities. Twelve years on, in 2014, the promise of reform to ensure “greater accountability and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud . . . [and increased] transparency in the sector has never been more necessary and yet still remains to be delivered. Despite the passage of the Charities Act 2009, its non-implementation has created a regulatory void into which allegations of charity maladministration and misfeasance have filled the public consciousness.
In his seminal work on the formation of public policy, John Kingdon provides a persuasive theory to explain the opening, operation and outcomes of so-called ‘policy windows.’ According to Kingdon, at any given time, a ‘problem stream’ exists representing all the issues that are wrong in a given system. Running (often) parallel to the problem stream will be a ‘solution stream’ containing all of those suggested fixes to make a system work better. It is only when there is a convergence of those two streams within a third ‘political stream’ that policy change occurs. The nature of the political stream within which this convergence occurs can take many forms. In the words of Kingdon, it can comprise “public mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distributions in Congress and changes of administration.” The collision of problem and solution streams within this political stream results in the temporary opening of a policy window, allowing policy change to occur. The form of such resultant change may be shaped further by coincidental influences or agenda issues hovering in the vicinity of the window which attach themselves to the coat tails of the newly minted policy outcome. This conception of the policymaking process is useful, providing as it does some insight into how certain policy solutions come to be expectations or have other unintended consequences.
In an Irish context, Kingdon’s framework provides a useful lens through which to analyse the ‘fits and starts’ approach to charity law reform. Against the backdrop of the recent revelations concerning the Central Remedial Clinic and the Rehab Group charities and the catalytic effect of these scandals on the Irish charity sector and charity regulation more generally, this article reviews the current progress in the implementation of the Charities Act 2009, recent moves towards the establishment of the long awaited Charities Regulatory Authority and the prospects and challenges for better charity governance ahead.
Part I of this article reviews the existing Irish ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ streams in the context of charity regulation and outlines the political catalysts that are now instrumental in driving reform. Part II outlines the pending changes to be introduced over the coming months and the implementation challenges that will face the new Charities Regulator. Part III attempts to align the recent shortfalls in charity governance with the forthcoming statutory requirements and assesses whether the policy changes that the public are so desperately seeking will be delivered by the much anticipated commencement of the Charities Act 2009.
Kathryn Chan (University of Victoria) has posted The Co-Optation of Charitable Resources by Threatened Welfare States, 40 Queen's Law Journal (forthcoming 2015). Here is the abstract:
This paper addresses the emerging issue of the governmental co-optation of charitable resources, considering to what extent modern pressures associated with the retrenchment of welfare states are undermining the charitable sector’s traditional independence from government. It pursues this goal by advancing a theoretical contrast between ‘independent’ and ‘co-opted’ charities, and by identifying and contrasting certain legal and institutional mechanisms that either encourage or limit the co-optation ofcharitable resources by governments in England and in Canada.
The paper proceeds in the following way. I begin by advancing an argument in support of the value of an “independent” charitable sector, and the perils of allowing a nation’s charitable resources to be co-opted by the state. I proceed from this argument to articulate two indicia of a “co-opted” charity, relating these indicia to an important body of Anglo-Commonwealth law on the functional public law-private law divide and thus to debates over whether charities should bear human rights obligations and the other special responsibilities of the state. In part four, I distinguish three broad categories of co-optation that are applicable to charities: definitional (or existential) co-optation, managerial co-optation, and contractual (or fiscal) co-optation. I then examine several modern phenomena that tend towards the co-optation ofcharitable resources by government: the exertion of government influence over the legal definition of charity, the creation of statutory charities that are controlled by government or directed towards its purposes, and the exertion of influence over the administration of charitable resources through the negotiation of funding agreements or the appointment of government authority trustees. I consider how, in their response to each of these phenomena, English and Canadian laws and institutions either assist or obstruct government efforts to make charities comply with particular public welfare goals. I conclude that English law does far more than Canadian law to prevent charities from coming to function as agents of government policy, and may thus be regarded as a source of ideas on how Canada might manifest a stronger political commitment to the charitable sector’s independence.
Lilian V. Faulhaber (Boston University) has published Charitable Giving, Tax Expenditures, and Direct Spending in the United States and the European Union, 39 Yale Journal of International Law 87 (2014). Here is the abstract:
This Article compares the ways in which the United States and the European Union limit the ability of state-level entities to subsidize their own residents, whether through direct subsidies or through tax expenditures. It uses four recent charitable giving cases decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to illustrate the ECJ’s evolving tax expenditure jurisprudence and argues that, while this jurisprudence may suggest a new and promising model for fiscal federalism, it may also have negative social policy implications. It also points out that the court analyzes direct spending and tax expenditures under different rubrics despite their economic equivalence and does not provide a clear rule for distinguishing between the two, adding to the confusion of Member States and taxpayers. The Article then surveys the Supreme Court’s Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, under which the Court analyzes discriminatory state spending provisions. The Article concludes that although both the Supreme Court and the ECJ prioritize formalism over economic equivalence, the Supreme Court’s approach to tax expenditures is more defensible than that of the ECJ due to the different federal structures of the two jurisdictions.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
A concept that I have introduced through scholarly writing and blogged about here is the need for a more efficient charitable market. In August, I commented upon a Vanguard Charitable study that found millennials are more likely to see their charitable giving as a form of investment and thus promote a culture of giving that demands more transparency and accountability, two hallmarks of a more efficient charitable market. A recent NPR broadcast that examined the work of Scott Harrison’s nonprofit, Charity: Water, confirmed just that.
In the segment, Harrison spoke about his dual purpose in forming Charity: Water. First, he wanted to provide clean water to the almost 800 million people globally who lack access to it by building wells. Second, he sought to make an example of how a nonprofit could do its work in a way that would resonate with the next generation of givers. He recounted his own experience of being hesitant to give to charities prior to starting Charity: Water, which stemmed from the absence of information on how a charity would use the funds. Today the nonprofit world is concerned with how approximately 80 millennials make their decisions about giving, and not surprisingly, it is different from the prior generation(s). As stated in my prior post, it is widely accepted that millennials want to view their “donation” as “investment,” and at least one commentator recommends that nonprofits refer to the latter. Another salient point is how technology intersects with millennial giving. Millennials value their time, and as a result, any form of technology that makes it easier for them to invest is preferable. Moreover, the Ice Bucket Challenge that swept through social networks over the summer shows that the desire of millennials to share the details of their lives extends to their giving. In response, Charity: Water is utilizing a birthday campaign where donors can ask their network to donate one dollar for each year celebrated, i.e., $25 dollars to celebrate a 25th birthday. Charity: Water is also placing sensors on its wells, so donors may interact with the impact of their investment in a novel manner. Charity: Water’s innovative approaches are proving successful. They have helped over 4 million more people in twenty-two countries gain access to clean water. Millennials and nonprofits like Charity: Water may just help move giving into the next century and towards a more efficient charitable market.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
In PLR 201438032, the Service considered whether donations to a nonprofit public benefit corporation that engages in transactions of funds with its foreign subsidiary are tax deductible and whether such transactions would harm its 501(c)(3) status. The PLR confirms aspects of how a transaction between a 501(c)(3) and a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary should be structured to secure a favorable tax result. One question the IRS still has not resolved is whether a donation to a wholly-owned foreign single-member LLC is deductible. The nonprofit world will be waiting.
In the ruling, the subsidiary in question is a foreign nonprofit foundation whose activities, namely seeking to aid foreign orphanages, are carried out internationally. The governing board and governing officers are under the control of the public benefit corporation. The stated purpose of the subsidiary is to carry out the purposes and objectives of the public benefit corporation. In terms of board overlap, at least three of the five board members of the subsidiary are members of the public benefit corporation’s board. In terms of governance, it is clear that the public benefit corporation is involved in each area and ensures that the subsidiary complies with U.S. tax rules and regulations regarding tax-exempt entities, e.g., restrictions regarding private inurement and lobbying expenditures. The public benefit corporation also has the ability to expel members from the board of directors and to dissolve the subsidiary. Under the “Proposed Transaction,” the public benefit corporation may vote to transfer funds to the subsidiary. There are also mechanisms in place to ensure a type of expenditure responsibility-like accountability for the maintenance and use of funds. Finally, the public benefit corporation disallows earmarking, and its board maintains the requisite discretion and control over funds, i.e., does not have an obligation to transfer funds to the subsidiary.
Both of the public benefit corporation’s requested rulings were granted. First, the Proposed Transaction was deemed not to jeopardize the public benefit corporation’s tax-exempt status. Second, donations made to the public benefit corporation were deemed deductible under Code section 170(a). In reaching this ruling, Treasury stated that the Proposed Transaction is consistent with the anti-conduit rules of Rev. Ruling 63-252 and the discretion and control requirement of Rev. Ruling 66-79. Moreover, it looked to Revenue Ruling 68-49 which states that a 501(c)(3) organization does not jeopardize its tax-exempt status by contributing funds to non-501(c)(3) organizations as long as it can show the funds were used for 501(c)(3) purposes. Ultimately, Treasury found the public benefit corporation’s actions congruent with this ruling. In terms of the second ruling, Treasury found that since the public benefit corporation is an organization described in Section 170(c), contributions to it are deductible under Section 170(a).
Monday, October 13, 2014
As the Ebola threat looms, many observers are considering whether the responses of the U.S. government, the CDC, and the World Health Organization, inter alia, are appropriate. Similarly, nonprofit commentators are considering whether private donations of funds and resources from the U.S. are adequate. As one commentator reports, there have been several U.S. private foundations that have made large-scale contributions to the fight against Ebola; in addition, the experience of two U.S. Christian organizations operating in West Africa evinces that publicity helps generate more donations. The U.N. has estimated that $1 billion is necessary to effectively combat the Ebola virus.
A recent article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy has predicted that the first confirmed case of Ebola in the United States will lead to greater charitable donations to stop a further outbreak of Ebola abroad. Several U.S. private foundations have already made multi-million dollar gifts to combat a spread of the virus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has decided to contribute $50 million to U.N. agencies and other organizations. The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation donated $9 million to the CDC, $2.8 million to the American Red Cross, and $100,000 in the form of matching funds to Global Giving. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation contributed $5 million to various international health organizations. Moreover, the U.S. government has provided numerous resources, including, inter alia, individuals to build treatment units and training for health-care providers. The USAID has expended over $100 million in an effort to quell the outbreak and is on record for the contribution of an additional $75 million.
At the same time, commentators have denounced U.S. donors as not donating enough. The Director of International Communications at the Red Cross has stated that the Ebola outbreak is not “top of mind as a place to donate” precisely because of the involvement of the U.S. government, the CDC, and the World Health Organization. Nevertheless, SIM USA, a Christian mission organization who had two health-care workers infected with Ebola in Liberia late in the summer, has received sizable donations to support its work in West Africa. SIM USA has seen an increase in volunteers, and although these actions are later than anticipated, they show promise for a mobilization of donors and volunteers to fight the deadly virus. Additionally, Samaritan’s Purse, also a Christian organization working in West Africa, experienced a 13% increase in cash contributions (when compared to last year’s donations) after one of its doctors was infected with Ebola and successfully treated at Emory University Hospital. (For more on Samaritan’s Purse, see JRB’s insightful post). Thus far, $4.4 million of its donations has been designated for fighting the Ebola outbreak. As the speculation about a U.S. outbreak grows, the public’s attention has become more focused on donating to assist with the global efforts already underway, e.g., see the following article on UK donations. For a complete list of non-governmental organizations responding to the Ebola outbreak, see here).
Friday, September 26, 2014
Reuters is reporting that over 120 Islamic scholars from around the world have issued an open letter denouncing Islamic State militants and refuting their religious arguments. Many of these scholars are themselves leading Muslim voices in their own countries.
The 22-page letter, written in Arabic and heavy with quotes from the Koran and other Islamic sources, strongly condemns the torture, murder and destruction Islamic State militants have committed in areas they control.
The Reuters report states in part:
"You have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder," the letter said. "This is a great wrong and an offense to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world."
[The letter's] originality lies in its use of Islamic theological arguments to refute statements made by self-declared Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani to justify their actions and attract more recruits to their cause.
The letter is addressed to al-Baghdadi and "the fighters and followers of the self-declared 'Islamic State'", but is also aimed at potential recruits and imams or others trying to dissuade young Muslims from going to join the fight.
Nihad Awad of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which presented the letter in Washington on Wednesday, said he hoped potential fighters would read the document and see through the arguments of Islamic State recruiters.
"They have a twisted theology," he said in a video explaining the letter. "They have relied many times, to mobilize and recruit young people, on classic religious texts that have been misinterpreted and misunderstood."
Reuters describes the 126 signatories as "prominent" Sunni men from across the Muslim world -- from Indonesia to Morocco, and from other countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Belgium.
Among those who signed are "the current and former grand muftis of Egypt, Shawqi Allam and Ali Gomaa, former Bosnian grand mufti Mustafa Ceric, the Nigerian Sultan of Sokoto Muhammad Sa'ad Abubakar and Din Syamsuddin, head of the large Muhammadiyah organization in Indonesia. Eight scholars from Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the highest seat of Sunni learning, also put their names to the document."
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
The Globe and Mail reports that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has told Oxfam Canada that its mission statement is too broad in that it provides the organization's purpose in that it includes preventing poverty, which might benefit people who are not already poor. CRA therefore concluded that preventing poverty is not an acceptable goal when asked to approval Oxfam CAnada's application for renewal of its non-profit statuts with Industry Canada. Oxfam Canada eventually conceded the point, by using the term "alleviate" instead of "end" or "prevent" in its revised mission statement. The newspaper report notes OxFam Canada has proven to be a thorn in the current Canadian government's side, and cites (not directly related) allegations that CRA is selectively auditing charities that have criticized government policies.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
According to findings of the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), UK consumers want businesses to be more open and transparent about their philanthropy. See today’s Guardian article entitled “New Survey Shows FTSE 100 Companies Have Increased Charitable Giving.” Over half of the 2,000 British people CAF interviewed commented that they would be more likely to purchase a product if part of its price was donated to charity. In addition, those aged 18-24 increasingly express a desire to work for businesses that are ethical. Job seekers within this age range see working for a company that allows one “to give back” to be a major selling point.
As a result, UK businesses seeking to have a social impact are taking on more sustainable approaches, are re-thinking their purpose, and are marketing their products in the context of how they help solve social problems. Klara Kozlov, head of corporate clients at CAF, urges businesses to adopt a “framework for reporting their philanthropy activity and …. measur[ing] and report[ing] the impact of their giving.” She emphasizes that the public reporting of social impact is essential.
The impact investing sector in the US serves as a relevant model for these businesses. Like the nonprofit sector, the impact investing sector has social impact as goal, but it also has profit earning as an aim. In other words, it is a growing sector for those consumers and investors who are increasingly making their choices based upon their “personal, social, and environmental values”, and thus demand that businesses have a double bottom line: profit and social impact. In sum, a double bottom line means that a business will both earn a profit for investors and produce a benefit to society or social impact. (For more on impact investing, see “Impact Investing: The Power of Two Bottom Lines”). Since impact investors also expect a financial return, the sector has had to bring a level of rigor commensurate with the financial markets to bear upon the measurement of both elements of their return.
Monday, August 11, 2014
A recent opinion piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy urged the media to stop making a big deal over big donors. See "America's Press Needs to Stop Fawning Over Big Donors." According to Eisenberg, the danger is that the media praises a giver as good based upon how much he/she has given rather than upon what impact his/her dollars have had. The real danger is that the most urgent global problems of our times are not being addressed effectively despite the number of dollars donated annually. There is adequate funding but inadequate progress. The UN has stated, “Millions still live in extreme poverty, yet the world has enough money, resources, and technology to end poverty.” Donations of wealthy donors often end up in the hands of US and non-US charities, and no one is asking systematically what these charities are accomplishing.
Earlier this summer, I had a conversation with Eric Thurman, CEO of Geneva Global, a firm that provides research and grant management for philanthropists internationally, about who should be considered the best givers. He remarked that buying a lot of stock does not make one a great investor. If someone owns stock, they look to see how their stock is performing. In the nonprofit world, often the givers who have contributed the largest amounts are the most celebrated regardless of the social impact achieved from their donations. If donors treated their donations more like investments, progress could be made toward ameliorating some of the most pressing humanitarian and global problems of our times. (For more information on Thurman’s viewpoint, please see "Performance Philanthropy," Harv. Int’l Rev., Apr. 2006, at 18).
A problem with the charitable market is that funding does not flow toward effective charities and away from ineffective charities. In an efficient market, private sector investors use information available at the time of investment to receive returns; these returns generally do not exceed average market returns because the same information is available to all investors. Succinctly stated, it is difficult for an investor to beat the market. In the inefficient charitable market, the market is easily beaten; the donor simply gives to a charity that a reputable rating organization recommends. A donor will receive more measurable social impact for his/her buck in giving to a recommended charity versus a non-recommended one. However, pervasive questions still linger. How many donors are using a thorough rating organization? Are the rating organizations asking charities the right questions?
In a forthcoming series of articles, I have set forth the concept of an efficient charitable market or one where collective charitable investment ends up in the hands of charities that will put it to its most productive use. One of the reasons inefficiency exists in the charitable market is because donors currently cannot easily differentiate between effective and ineffective charities. Granted, it is no easy task to make this distinction, but it is possible. If this became a crucial question for charities and donors, perhaps the media would report on the good accomplished rather than on the number of dollars donated.
Restrictions on Political Activity as Government Turf Protection -- not because Charity is non-partisan!
Over on TaxProf you can get a daily rundown -- "Day X of the IRS Scandal" -- of the faux scandal regarding Lois Lerner and conservative social welfare organizations. The President's opponents assert that the government is using the restrictions on political activities to weaken his political opponents. Meanwhile, in Canada, the charitable sector is up in arms because the conservative Harper government has ordered the Revenue Agency to audit charitable organizations' political activity. Its funny how different contexts demonstrate the same ultimate truth. In this country, talking heads and bloggers are working feverishly to uncover an alleged secret government conspiracy to crack down on conservative social welfare organizations critical of government. In Canada, commentators allege that the government became indignant because some environmental charities opposed certain energy initiatives and, as a result, the government very explicitly and unabashedly ordered the tax agency to determine whether those charities were engaging in illegal political actifity. Charities are sometimes conceptualized as a "separate sovereign" often acting in competition with other sectors (business and government). Under this conception, government uses its tax laws to ensure its dominate role in the lives of citizens by strategically taxing that other sovereign when necessary to maintain government's superior role. Business may use its influence over government to get the government to enact laws -- the unrelated business income tax, for example, -- to help in business' competition with the charity. Thus, when private foundations were thought to control too much money and power, the government imposed a whole range of private foundation taxes. Likewise, restrictions on political activity are not imposed, necessarily, to protect charitable beneficiaries or in pursuit of some other notion of "good works." Rather restrictions on political activity are imposed to decrease the "Independent Sector's" willingness and ability to speak out against the government. If we admit this to be the real reason for restrictions on political activity, we might make progress with regard to whether the restrictions or bans should even exist. We ought to ask ourselves whether political intervention and activity bans are worth the costs and trouble of enforcment. Regardless, the American and Canadian experiences both help prove the underlying reason for political acitivity bans as well as the deleterious effects of indulging the bans. According to The Toronto Star:
The Conservative government has stepped up its scrutiny of the political activities of charities, adding money for more audits, and casting its net well beyond the environmental groups that have opposed its energy policies. Canada Revenue Agency, ordered in 2012 to audit political activities as a special project, now has also targeted charities focused on foreign aid, human rights, and even poverty. The tax agency has also been given a bigger budget — $5 million more through to 2017 — and is making the special project a permanent part of its work. With 52 political-activity audits currently underway, some stretching out two years and longer, charities say they’ve been left in limbo, nervous about speaking out on any issue lest they provoke a negative ruling from the taxman. And their legal bills are rising rapidly — in some cases adding $100,000 to already strained budgets — as they try to navigate often-complex demands from CRA auditors. “It’s nerve-racking,” said Leilani Farha, executive director of Canada Without Poverty, a small charity based in Ottawa that had to turn over internal emails and other documents to auditors looking for political activities. “We’ve been under audit for more than two years, and it just goes on and on, with no communication . . . It’s a huge drain on the resources of our organization.” The blitz began with the 2012 federal budget, shortly after several cabinet ministers — Joe Oliver, now finance minister, among them — labelled environmental groups as radicals and money launderers. The groups, able to attract donations by virtue of their charitable status, have sharply opposed the Harper government’s oilsands and pipelines policies. The government tightened rules and initially earmarked some $8 million over two years for CRA to create a special team of auditors to closely scrutinize the political activities of charities. A landmark policy statement from 2003 allows charities to spend up to 10 per cent of their resources on political activities, such as advocating changes in government policies. Partisan activity — endorsing a candidate or party — has always been forbidden and remains so.
The Independent Sector is not necessarily passive in this competition. Charities seek help from non-incumbents, for example in the competition with government. In Canada, a group of larger international charities are pushing back, complaining that the government is using strong arm tactics and that those tactics have created an environment of fear and uncertainty.
Some international aid charities are joining forces to challenge the Canada Revenue Agency’s increased scrutiny of the sector, saying onerous new demands are draining them of resources that are badly needed overseas. A dozen such groups conferred last week about a joint strategy to present to agency officials next month, a reversal from the last two years, when many charities refrained from speaking out for fear of aggravating the taxman. The new initiative is being quarterbacked by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, representing some 70 groups who funnel charity dollars abroad to alleviate poverty and defend human rights. The move is a belated reaction to a wave of political-activity audits ordered by the Harper government in 2012, but which only began to hit the international aid sector in the second year after several environmental groups were swept up in the first round.
As the New Zealand Supreme Court implied last week, politics and charity are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, politics and charity are just the opposite. Governments only pretend the two are mutually exclusive to protect themselves from challenge.
Friday, August 8, 2014
My life as a military brat, particularly in Germany, taught me that the world does not begin and end on the shores of North America. So if you clicked on this post expecting to hear that the U.S. Supreme Court did us all a favor by eliminating the restrictions on political activities by charities, well . . . sorry about that. But in a throughly written, wonderfully informative and well-reasoned opinion regarding the meaning of "charity," and making references to the very same Statute of Charitable Uses, Pemsel, and ALI Restatment of Trust generally relied upon as the source of U.S. law on the topic, the New Zealand Supreme Court recently held that political activity, in and of itself, can be "charitable" and therefore is not presumptively precluded from the purposes for which tax exemption may be granted. Prior to Wednesday's decision, New Zealand law allowed for charitable tax exemption status only when an organization's political activity was "ancillary" or "subordinate" to a charitable purpose, implying that political activity itself is not charitable.
In Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated, (Aug. 6, 2014) the New England Supreme Court discussed the matter of political action -- including campaign intervention, I think (the Court is not entirely clear and the facts of the case relate to lobbying) -- stating:
We do not think the development of a standalone doctrine of exclusion of political purposes, a development comparatively recent and based on surprisingly little authority, has been necessary or beneficial . . . Even in the case of promotion of specific law reform, an absolute rule that promotion of legislation is never charitable is hard to justify. . . . A conclusion that a purpose is "political" or "advocacy" obscures proper focus on whether a purpose is charitable within the sense used by law. It is difficult to construct any adequate or principled theory to support blanket exclusion. . . . As well, a strict exclusion risks rigidity in an area of law which should be responsive to the way society works. it is likely to hinder the responsiveness of this area of law to the changing circumstances of society.
The High Court's press release can be found here and includes a history of the litigation and a discussion of the relatively brief dissenting opinion:
The Supreme Court by majority (comprising Elias CJ, McGrath and Glazebrook JJ) allowed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that a political purpose cannot be a charitable purpose.
The majority held that a political purpose exclusion should no longer be applied in New Zealand. They concluded that a blanket exclusion of political purposes is unnecessary and distracts from the underlying inquiry whether a purpose is of public benefit within the sense the law recognises as charitable.
They rejected the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that s 5(3) of the Charities Act enacts a political purpose exclusion with an exemption if political activities are no more than “ancillary”. Rather, s 5(3) provides an exemption for noncharitable activities if ancillary.
The minority (William Young and Arnold JJ) concluded that s 5(3) codifies the position that advocacy in support of a charitable purpose is non-charitable unless it is merely ancillary to that charitable purpose. They further took the view that the rule that political advocacy is not charitable is defensible not only on the basis of the authorities but also as a matter of policy and practicality and that there is accordingly no requirement to depart from the ordinary language approach to s 5(3).
The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that purposes or activities that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status. The Court held that an illegal purpose is disqualifying and that illegal activity may disqualify an entity from registration when it indicates a purpose which is not charitable even though such activity would not justify removal from the register of charities under the statute.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a remarkable speech regarding the indispensable role of Civil Society in democratic societies at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. "Trust is the heart of governance," he said. "And that trust begins with a strong and vibrant civil society . . . a movement of people who reacted to their felt needs." You can find the agenda for the summit here. Here is an just a blip from the summit regarding the portion devoted to Civil Society:
The "Civil Society Forum" Signature Event will be convened on the morning of August 4 by Secretary of State Kerry and will bring together U.S. and African government leaders, members of African and U.S. civil society and the diaspora, and private sector leaders. The Forum will focus on leveraging the knowledge and experience of citizens and civil society to solve the key challenges of our time, and will highlight the importance of civic space to social entrepreneurship, civic innovation and development. The Forum will also highlight the importance of safeguarding civic space in order to spur social entrepreneurship, civic innovation, and development. The Forum will consist of three components: a set of thematic breakout sessions on key issues, including governance and transparency, trade and investment, and an afternoon session on labor issues; a keynote address; and a Global Town Hall with African Leaders moderated by Secretary Kerry. In addition, interested parties will also have the opportunity to submit short video questions via YouTube and Twitter in advance of the Forum.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Third Sector reports that the Charities Aid Foundation has issued a report criticizing several countries for introducing legislation or taking other steps aimed at preventing nonprofits from criticizing their governments. Titled Future World Giving: Enabling an Independent Not-for-profit Sector, the report highlights six countries that have introduced such legislation and several others where government critics, including the leaders and members of NGOs, face prosecution and other government persecution. The report also highlights how governments often use their funding of NGOs to impose conditions on those groups that effectively silence them, an issue that recently reached the Supreme Court here in the United States.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
In an interesting example of government transparency, Third Sector reports that the Charity Commission for England and Wales has issued its Annual Complaints Review showing that complaints made against the Commission increased in 2013/14 over a third from the previous year and that the proportion of complaints fully or partially upheld almost doubled (from 19 percent to 34 percent). More specifically, the Commission received 152 "Stage 1" complaints, with about a third of the complaints moving to Stage 2 consideration (because the customer was dissatisfied after the Stage 1 review). To put the number of complaints in context, the Commission during the same period received 6,681 applications for registration as a charity (or about a tenth of the § 501(c)(3) applications the IRS receives annually). The most common issue raised (and some complaints raised multiple issues) was insufficient regulatory intervention by the Commission.
While I realize that the National Taxpayer Advocate may to some extent gather similar information with respect to the IRS, it is telling that when the Advocate's office reviewed the exempt organization application process last summer it began by stating that "[i]In addressing the exempt organization (EO) issues, the Advocate’s office does not have investigative authority and did not seek to duplicate other ongoing investigations." The existence of this type of detailed information in the UK may be another argument for a national exempt organizations regulator that is not part of the IRS, as Marc Owens has proposed.
Monday, June 23, 2014
As reported in the Boston Globe, India’s Home Ministry has required the Reserve Bank of India to hold all foreign contributions to domestic Indian charities until the ministry says otherwise. A governmental report allegedly asserts that the charities “are costing the country up to 3 percent of its gross domestic product by rallying communities against polluting industries.” The story continues:
The national Investigative Bureau’s report — a copy of which was obtained Thursday by the Associated Press — also accuses the groups including Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Action Aid of providing reports ‘‘used to build a record against India and serve as tools for the strategic foreign policy interests of Western Governments.’’
The Home Ministry said Thursday it would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the report, which has sparked a firestorm of debate in Indian newspapers and on TV news channels.
The governmental report, says the story, criticizes the charities for stirring protests against nuclear power plants, uranium mines, coal-fired power plants, genetically modified crops, and electronic waste.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is well known for its efforts to help eradicate diseases from the developing world. But achieving this goal has in the past encountered a significant problem: eradicating diseases often requires immunization, which relies on keeping vials of vaccine cold until they can be administered. The vials have to be kept at exactly the right temperature — too hot or too cold, and the vaccine could lose its effectiveness. That is a significant problem for places that do not have consistent access to electricity.
The foundation may have found a solution: the Sure Chill Company in Wales has announced receipt of a $1.4 million grant from the Gates Foundation to develop a vaccine cooler that will help advance efforts to eliminate preventable diseases worldwide.
The grant will enable the company to take the cooler from the proof-of-concept stage — which had been supported by a previous $100,000 grant from the foundation — to field trials over the next year in eastern and western Africa. The firm's technology harnesses a unique property of water to create a constantly chilled environment within the unit, enabling the cooler to operate for thirty-five days without power.
If the trials are successful, the development of these "super" coolers will represent a giant step in the eradication of diseases in the developing world.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice today ruled that Internet companies can be made to remove irrelevant or excessive personal information from search engine results. In a case pitting privacy campaigners against Google, the European Union's highest court upheld the complaint of a Spanish man who objected to the fact that Google searches on his name threw up links to a 1998 newspaper article about the repossession of his home.
The case highlighted the struggle in cyberspace between free speech advocates and supporters of privacy rights who say people should have the "right to be forgotten" - meaning that they should be able to remove their digital traces from the Internet.
Here in the United States, today's NonProfit Times is pondering the ruling's impact on international nonprofits.
In its ruling, the court reasoned that "An [I]nternet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties. Thus," the court continued,
if, following a search made on the basis of a person's name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results.
Moreover, the court ruled, the search engine operator is, "in certain circumstances, obliged to remove links to web pages that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a person from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person's name," even if "the publication in itself on those pages is lawful."
The Times notes that the impact of the decision on nonprofits is unclear. For example, it is unclaer whether the decision, which is based on a 1995 data protection directive, will affect requests for deletion of donor histories in nonprofits' databases. Fielding Yost, president and founder of database software producer Saturn Corporation in Cheverly, Maryland, stated: "Right now we don't know precisely what the law says. we just know that Google lost. We've never been faced [with a situation] where someone would say remove my donation history, unless they sent in a delete [request] from the charity. I don't think we're in the same application that Google is. Maybe it'll broaden and extend [to] that."
In the final analysis, Yost does not believe the law requires charities to scrub their donation history as Google must scrub links.
But Steven Shattuck, vice president for marketing at Bloomerang in Indianapolis, Indiana, believes the law will require nonprofits to scrub donor records. Said Shattuck: "Probably in Eurpoe, folks would have the right to be scrubbed. It is the electronic idenitification of a person's personal records. I think it sets a precedent, for sure."
The ruling's impact on international nonprofits will unfold as the days, weeks, and months go by.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Damian Alexander Bethke and Jędrzej Górski (both Chinese University of Hong Kong) have posted Rethinking Social Ventures in Hong Kong (Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, Spring 2014). Here is the abstract:
Hong Kong has experienced a significant transformation in its understanding of business, which concerns the phenomenon of social ventures that attempt to combine a make money and do good approach and to apply business skills to address social needs. Social ventures live a mystical existence, as they are fully ignored from a legal perspective despite the recent reform of laws on charitable activities. This causes problems as to their general understanding, which the authors try to address with their own typology, systematically characterizing social ventures. Then the authors examine the legal environment of social ventures in Hong Kong and identify the challenges they face. Hong Kong’s company law and related public/administrative law issues are considered. The answer searched for is: what is the appropriate legal vehicle for social ventures, and what are the practical legal questions when a social venture wants to structure its make money and do good business? As to the first problem, the legal non-existence of social ventures results in coupled privileges — meaning a system which favors traditional business forms such as for-profit and not-for-profit companies and discourages doing good approaches by social ventures. The authors identify instances where privileges crediting charitable activities are coupled with not-for-profit status, and propose solutions under which social ventures could be registered and have tax privileges efficiently assigned by a one-stop supervision body. As the second problem, the situation of social ventures abandoning their mission of doing good poses further challenges to the legal system, and the authors propose a regime under which business organizations can easily adopt or abandon a social mission based on a partial application of the cy-près doctrine. The authors come to the conclusion that the social venture sector bears immense potential for Hong Kong as well as for all of Asia. But in order to use this potential, Hong Kong has to show a more refined understanding and has to be open to a profound discussion.