Recently the IRS proposed new rules that are supposed to clarify which kind of political activity is legal for 501(c)(4) organizations. Note that detail: this is about (c)(4) organizations, not the (c)(3) religious and secular charities that serve the poor, provide schooling, spur community development, etc. The (c)(4) groups include “social welfare” organizations that have been very active in politics, from tea party groups to the League of Conservation Voters. Supposedly the groups have been too engaged in election activities, being favored by deep-pockets donors because there are no limits on how much anyone can donate to them and because the organizations are not required to reveal the names of the donors.

That’s an important discussion (see the links below to two useful commentaries, from opposite ends of the spectrum) but not central to IRFA. But there is this important aspect to consider: is “political activity” and even electioneering important to promoting social welfare and the common good?

This time around, it seems that (some) progressive forces are the ones wanting to limit the political activities of (c)(4)s–i.e., of tea party groups, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, etc. On the other hand, in the 1990s, when Congress was creatively working to reform welfare and there was a lot of talk about how to better engage faith-based and secular charities in the process, the suspicion of political activity by nonprofits came from the conservative side. At least one bill that sought to encourage greater financial support for poverty-fighting charities took pains to exclude political activity as a valid way of helping the poor.

And yet sometimes the common good does require political action, in two ways. For all the vital work done by service organizations, sometimes what’s needed is policy change: a change in education laws, new rules so that foster kids are more likely to be adopted, elimination of licensing restrictions so that the unemployed can create their own small businesses. And sometimes the service organizations themselves need political action so that they can thrive-e.g., the lifting of restrictions on institutional religious freedom.

Whatever the merits of the effort to refine the rules governing 501(c)(4)s, we shouldn’t forget that a thriving civil society requires good government, and for that, good political action is imperative.

Further reading:

Bradley Smith, “The Latest Power Grab,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 9.

Alliance for Justice, “Treasury, IRS proposal endangers citizen participation in democracy,” Nov. 27.