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.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
The Economist earlier this month commented on the growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in China ("Enter the Chinese NGO"). It estimates that there are approximately 2 million NGOs currently operating in China, about three-quarters of which are not officially registered, with many more likely to form in the near future. The communist party's plan appears to be to try to keep them small and local, and therefore presumably not a challenge to the party's authority or power. In a relatd, more detailed article ("Beneath the Glacier"), the Economist explores the reasons for the growth in Chinese NGOs and the wary response of the government to them (UPDATE: and quotes our blog's own Karla Simon).
Thursday, February 6, 2014
The Economist reports that Britain's mutually owned, not-for-profit banks are increasingly converting to shareholder owned, for-profit institutions or collapsing. These "building societies," which dominated the residential mortgage market in the 1970s, have suffered from a variety of ailments, including poor management, high-risk lending, and a push for demutualization. Interestingly, the Economist appears to regret this development, noting the continuing success of Nationwide Building Society and commenting that "The model is worth preserving. Mutuals have tended to offer better customer service; on average, they generate fewer complaints than other lenders. The fate of British mutuals notwithstanding, studies by the Bundesbank and the IMF suggest that, overall, mutual banks are more stable than their more commercial counterparts."
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Zhaohui Long (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Xiaoling Hu have posted Research on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations of Non-Monetary Assetsby Chinese Corporations, 3 Journal of Chinese Tax and Policy 21 (2013). Here is the abstract:
Corporate donations form a substantial part of social charitable donations in China. Corporate non-monetary asset donations are important in this regard as they bring goods and materials to areas where they are desperately needed. However, the current scope and scale of corporate donations are narrow due to a lack of tax incentives. This paper will explain the incentive effects of the current tax regime by analyzing how asset donations are treated by Chinese taxation laws, from the perspective of macroeconomic policies and market demands. It particularly focuses on the relatively heavy tax burden and limited scope for tax exemptions on corporate asset donations in China. In light of this, we propose some pragmatic suggestions on incentivizing policies that are more suitable for China’s current situation, such as increasing the exemptions before tax and allowing exemptions to roll over to future years, developing incentive policies on indirect and property taxes, and establishing the mechanism for third-party price evaluation and equity donation regulation, etc
Martina Rechberger, Sandra Stoetzer, and Dennis Hilgers (all Johannes Kepler University Linz) have posted Designing New Ties: Public Governance by Outcome-Based Contracting in Austria. Here is the abstract:
Due to the growing relevance of output and outcome orientation in the public sector, contracts are becoming more important in public sector networks. Especially the core objects of cooperations between the public sector and non-profit organisations (NPOs) are to obtain a certain outcome, which is mainly due to fixed arrangements pointed out in contracts. What are the requirements for outcome-based contract design? How are outcome-based objectives implemented in contracts? What is the status of implementation of outcome-based contract management in Austria?
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Ninth Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting ended in New York City on Thursday with an emphasis on optimism and mobilizing for action to address the most pressing global challenges. Over the three days of the meeting, Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) members made over 160 new Commitments to Action, expected to impact nearly 22.2 million lives and valued at more than $10.8 billion when fully funded and implemented.
According to a press release issued shortly after the meeting ended,
Through the CGI commitments announced this year, nearly 27 million metric tons of CO2 will not be released into the atmosphere, more than 2 million girls will be reached by efforts specifically targeting female enrollment in schools, more than 11.6 million children will have a better education, nearly 4 million people will have increased access to health services, and more than $7 billion will be invested in or loaned to small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Former President Clinton noted that "this year’s commitments highlight the enthusiasm, creativity, and general characteristic of CGI members. They also reinforced our theme of ‘mobilizing for impact.’ So many partners have come together, to increase their impact by drawing upon each other’s strengths and creating new partnerships to truly put ideas into action: this is what CGI is all about. I am so grateful to everyone who joined us this year, whether in person or online, and who continue to work with us to create a better world.”
The CGI announced two major Commitments to Action focusing on health and on animal preservation. First, Former President Clinton, joined by Don Thompson, President and CEO of McDonald's, and Dr. Howell Wechsler, CEO, Alliance for a Healthier Generation, founded by the Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association, announced a partnership to increase customers' access to fruit and vegetables and help families and children to make informed choices in keeping with balanced lifestyles.
Former Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and African government leaders including the Presidents of Burkina Faso, Cote D'Ivoire, Gabon, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ministers from Botswana and Zambia made an announcement with leaders of the Wildlife Conservation Society, the African Wildlife Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Save the Elephants, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the Jane Goodall Institute regarding Partnership to Save Africa's Elephants, a new Commitment to Action aiming to end poaching by addressing poaching, trafficking, and international demand.
These are good plans. I wish the CGI all the success possible.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
I thank May 2013 Texas Tech University School of Law graduate, Ibukun Adepoju, for bringing this story to my attention. Originally from Lagos, Nigeria, Ms. Adepoju now lives in Lubbock, Texas.
According to a report appearing in News Afrique Informations, the World Bank Group has announced that it plans to invest at least $700 million by the end of 2015 to help developing countries reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for women and children's health.
Financing will be provided by the bank's International Development Association (IDA) and Health Results Innovation Trust Fund. The funds will be used to develop successful reproductive, maternal, and child health projects in developing countries. The announcement comes almost a year to the day after World Bank Group president, Jim Yong Kim, announced that the bank would provide funding to help scale pilot projects for women's and children's health as part the UN's Every Woman Every Child global partnership.
Hats off to the World Bank Group for this initiative.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The N.Y. Times reports Russian prosecutors have stated that 215 nongovernmental organizations are in violation of a new law requiring them to register as "foreign agents" if they receive funds from outside of the country and engage in political activity. As the N.Y. Times previously reported, many of the groups that are allegedly subject to the new law have vowed to defy it by refusing to register. The United States also withdrew from a US-Russia civil society working group, apparently in part because of Russia's adoption of this law. The human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe has called for the suspension of the new law in the wake of the prosecutors' statement, according to Reuters. It is not yet clear how Russia, which is a member of the Council of Europe, will respond to this call, if at all. The prosecutors' statement comes in the wake of raids by Russian police and tax inspectors on the offices of Russian human rights groups.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Lilian V. Faulhaber (Boston University) has posted Charitable Giving, Tax Expenditures, and the Fiscal Future of the European Union. Here is the abstract:
paper focuses on several cases decided by the Court of Justice of the
European Union in recent years. In these cases, the CJEU struck down
geographic limitations on tax expenditures for charitable giving,
thereby leaving Member States with a choice. Member States that chose
not to eliminate their tax expenditures entirely would have to extend
them to beneficiaries across the European Union. Those that did not
want to extend these benefits to the rest of the European Union,
however, would have to eliminate their tax expenditures and perhaps
replace them with direct subsidies.
The Court has thus effectively forced Member States into either subsidizing each other’s charitable sectors or no longer using their tax systems to encourage charitable giving. This paper shows that most Member States have chosen the first option, meaning that they are engaged in a web of horizontal subsidization. In the absence of any supranational taxing authority in the European Union, this horizontal subsidization represents a new model of fiscal federalism, where taxing and spending decisions are spread between Member States, rather than assigned vertically to a centralized government. This new model could arguably allow the Member States to retain the benefits of both centralization and decentralization, with Member States now paying for benefit spillovers yet still retaining the competition and representation of political preferences generally associated with decentralized systems.
However, horizontal subsidization should raise significant concerns because of the way that the Court reached its decisions in cases considering tax expenditures. In order to arrive at horizontal subsidization, the Court ignored both the economic equivalence of tax expenditures and direct expenditures and the fundamental regulatory and cultural differences between Member State charitable sectors. By prioritizing formalism over functionalism and overlooking the remaining differences between Member States, the Court distorted Member State policy choices, favored certain types of charitable organizations, and created incentives for Member States to increase barriers to entry to their charitable sectors. This paper suggests that the CJEU’s tax expenditure jurisprudence is thus more likely to be a cautionary tale than a model for future integration.
The New Zealand Herald reports that Family First NZ, which identifies itself as a pro-framily organization, has announced that it received a notice that the New Zealand Charities Commission plans to deregister the organization as a charity because it supports a view of the family that was not in the public interest. Among its many positions, Family First opposes same-sex marriage and a law that apparently criminalizes any form of corporal punishment for children. A later article indicates that the deregistration is based at least on part on the assertion that Family First's main purpose is political and therefore not charitable under New Zealand law. The final resolution of the situation will be decided by the courts, as Family First has already filed a High Court appeal.