As the president of a nonprofit public policy organization which emphasizes making government at all levels more transparent, I’m often asked if we reveal our donors.
“No,” I respond.
“Why not?”
“It’s none of your business”
Unlike Joe Biden and his administration, I not only allow follow-up questions, but I also refuse to limit their content and welcome anyone to ask them while embracing these scenarios as teaching moments.
Ask away.
Jim Waters
“Aren’t you inconsistent (some use less-diplomatic adjectives) by claiming to champion transparency while also refusing to disclose your own group’s supporters?”
Again, “no.”
I was invited a few years ago to participate in a panel discussion of the Bluegrass Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists that included such conservative stalwarts as Tom Eblen (pardon the sarc!) and national New York Times correspondent Campbell Robertson.
While the topic was “Finding real facts in an alternative fact world,” some progressives just can’t pass up an opportunity to attack an organization like the Bluegrass Institute, which I’ve led in “finding real facts” for more than a decade.
During Q&A time at the end of the session, a snarky questioner asked if I would reveal the institute’s donors.
“No.”
Then, I patiently tried to explain to the gentlemen that there’s a significant difference between making government more transparent versus providing someone the names of individuals and groups who support a private institute.
It’s none of my business or yours or anyone else’s who voluntarily donates to a private nonprofit organization. However, we all have the right — actually the responsibility — to demand our government tells us what it’s doing with our money.
There’s still accountability; if the Bluegrass Institute isn’t a good steward, donors can stop contributing.
Donors can choose which charities to support, or give to none at all.
And no one has a right to force them — or organizations to which they donate — to reveal that information.
Don’t pay your income taxes, however, and you’ll likely be seeing one of the 87,000 new agents the IRS wants to hire.
Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Fruit Hill, filed legislation protecting the rights and privacy of groups and the donors who give to them by prohibiting state agencies from requiring an individual or nonprofit organization — or contractors who may work for them — from being forced to reveal their contributors.
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this issue as far back as 1958 when it decided Alabama couldn’t force the state’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to hand over its membership rolls — states like California have still tried to pull such shenanigans.
Which led to the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule California’s courts and uphold citizens’ privacy by protecting their First Amendment rights of association in Americans for Prosperity v Bonta, which challenged the Golden State’s policy forcing nonprofits to disclose their major donors.
The fact that California would try to force free-market conservatives to reveal their financial supporters even after past high court rulings contrary to its actions proves there’s no such thing as doing too much to protect the First Amendment right of association for citizen-donors and their preferred charities.
“We think the protections ought to be here just out of an abundance of caution — to make sure no one tries, whether through law or through some administrative act by executive order or any other means, to go after nonprofits that that particular executive officer doesn't like,” Westerfield said while testifying about Senate Bill 62 before his chamber’s State and Local Government Committee.
Which, in fact, is quite possible in the “alternative fact world” found in government’s bureaucratic labyrinths.
By the way, right during my conversation with that scolding attender’s question that night, a generous donor to the Bluegrass Institute walked in, sat down and joined the conversation.
“Who was it?”
It’s none of your — nor your government’s — business.
Jim Waters is president and CEO of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a free-market think tank. He can be emailed at jwaters@freedomkentucky.com
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the e-mail address listed on your account.
Thank you. Your purchase was successful.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Ends: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
Post a comment as anonymous
Report
Watch this discussion.
(2) comments
“As the president of a nonprofit public policy organization which emphasizes making government at all levels more transparent, I’m often asked if we reveal our donors.“
I agree that transparency for private organizations is significantly removed from government agencies, but that doesn’t include political contributions, which should be totally transparent, but “thanks” to people like Jim Waters, is in the dark!
I think that considering the radical Republican dark money special interest organizations and super PACs that the BIPPS is affiliated with, that Waters and associates are really stretching it to hide behind the mantle of “nonprofit”. Everything that they’re lobbying for is predicated on maximizing profits for special interest. Sure, these billionaire donors who run major corporations have plenty to hide and don’t want to be associated with the radical right wing agendas that hurt the average hard working citizens. It will hurt their business. So, they get people like Waters and his “nonprofit think-tanks” (oxymoron) to lobby for things like Citizens United, where SCOTUS jury-rigged the campaign finance laws to make giving money to politicians equal to free speech. Whoever heard of such a preposterous idea, allowing rich people to buy political influence to benefit their narrow economic self-interest, and try to convince us it is a civil liberty. What possibly could go wrong, Jim Waters?
I’d like to see so called valid proof of any documentation that PIBB’s is a nonprofit, investigated by a honest judge . According to Council of non Profits it’s a Myth that nonprofits can’t earn a profit .
Nonprofit is a misnomer , the non profit business pay as in Mr Waters case $$compensation for his services.
Where I see the gray area is where he lobbies for partisan political activity which is illegal in a nonprofit business - according to the National Council of Nonprofits .
Non profits are formed to benefit the public not private interests according to Inurement/ Private Benefit- Charitable Organizations within the IRS .
As you already know Mr Waters has done nothing but advocate for privately owned Charter schools in a partisan drive to get the taxpayers to fund said schools. According to my studies that’s illegal.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
State-Journal.com’s comments forum is for civil, constructive dialogue about news topics in our community, state, nation and world. We emphasize “civil” at a time when Americans, in the words of the current president, need to “turn down the temperature” of political debates. The State Journal will do its part by more carefully policing this forum. Here are some rules that all commenters must agree to follow:
Absolutely no attacks on other commenters, on guest columnists or on authors of letters to the editor. Our print and online opinion pages are sacred marketplaces of ideas where diverse viewpoints are welcome without fear of retribution. You may constructively critique the ideas and opinions of others, but name-calling, stereotyping and similar attacks are strictly prohibited.
Leeway will be given for criticism of elected officials and other public figures, but civility is essential. If you focus your criticism on ideas, opinions and viewpoints, you will be less likely to run afoul of our commenting rules.
Keep comments focused on the article or commentary in question. Don’t use an article about the Frankfort City Commission, for example, to rant about national politics.
Hyperpartisanship that suggests anyone on the other side of an issue or anyone in a particular particular party is evil is not welcome. If you believe that all Democrats are socialists intent on destroying America or that all Republicans are racists, there are lots of places on the internet for you to espouse those views. State-Journal.com is not one.
No sophomoric banter. This isn’t a third-grade classroom but rather a place for serious consumers of news to offer their reactions and opinions on news stories and published commentary.
No consumer complaints about individual businesses. If you’ve had a bad experience with a private business or organization, contact the Better Business Bureau or the government agency that regulates that business. If you believe the actions of a private business are newsworthy, contact us at news@state-journal.com and we will consider whether news coverage is merited.
Absolutely no jokes or comments about a person’s physical appearance.
No promotion of commercial goods or services. Our outstanding staff of marketing consultants stands ready to help businesses with effective advertising solutions.
If you state facts that have not been previously reported by The State Journal, be sure to include the source of your information.
No attacks on State Journal staff members or contributing writers. We welcome questions about, and criticism of, our news stories and commentary but not of the writers who work tirelessly to keep their community informed. Corrections of inaccurate information in news stories should be sent to news@state-journal.com rather than posted in the comments section.