Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Did Trump Funnel Money Intended for Kids with Cancer into his Own Business?

President Donald Trump allegedly funneled money from his son Eric’s children cancer charity into his own business. Eric Trump has held a golf tournament to raise money for his charity for the past 10 years. As the event takes place at his dad’s golf course, he said the charity could use the course for free, allowing all the donated money to go straight to the children’s fund. However, according to Forbes, the costs quickly soared over the years, making it clear that the golf course was not free.

It just cannot get worse than this: pocketing money from a kids’ cancer charity. https://t.co/8qXpxxdpgQ

— Tina Jordan (@EWTinaJordan) June 6, 2017

“The Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament,” Forbes states. Roughly $100,000 of the donations were funneled into revenue for the Trump Organization, and more than $500,000 were donated to other charities, often benefiting Trump family members. This does not look good for the Trump family, and obviously, a lot of people are outraged.

“Morality is just gone,” says Eric Trump, who Forbes earlier today reported used a charity to (literally) steal money from kids with cancer. pic.twitter.com/4XyZZOdZcw

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) June 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

TPO–which stands for “The People’s Operator”–gives 10 percent of your bill to a cause you care about, at no additional cost to you. It’s perfect for someone transitioning from their family’s plan to their own, or anyone looking to switch carriers and make a positive impact on the world at the same time. So, if you’re looking to save some dough and make a difference, check out five reasons you should consider a TPO Mobile prepaid plan:

Lots of Choices–For Both Plans and Causes

When you step away from your old phone plan, you have a world of options in front of you. You don’t want to restrict yourself, you want choices. TPO offers those choices for both its plans and the causes that your 10 percent can go to benefit.

TPO offers nine distinct prepaid cell phone plans, with a range of data, talk, and text limits. TPO also offers tablet plans, to ensure that you’re connected from all your devices.

TPO customers have directed funds to thousands of causes, including the ASPCA, Pencils of Promise, Grassroots Soccer, Girls on the Run, UNHCR, Planet Water, and New York Restoration Project. When you sign up with a TPO plan, you get access to the cause partner database, and get to choose the one that you connect with. Then, 10 percent of your bill is automatically donated to that cause partner.

Not sure what cause you want to support? TPO sometimes offers the ability to split your money between multiple causes. TPO has just launched the Power2Students pack, allowing you to split your money between three amazing education charities. Join today and split your 10 percent between Pencils of Promise, Urban Dove, and Scholarship America.

Having a hard time picking a cause? Take our quiz to see which organization is the best fit for you!

It Makes Giving a Good Habit From the Start

It’s easy to think to yourself: “I’ll give to charity when I have a larger paycheck, or when I’m more settled down.” But if you make a habit of giving when you’re young, it’s more likely that you’ll donate throughout your life. If that’s important to you, it may be time to start now. And what easier way to do so than making giving part of a bill you have to pay anyway?

There’s also a ripple effect when it comes to charitable giving, particularly for millennials. Your 10 percent is going to charity courtesy of TPO, but it probably won’t stop there. Millennials are significantly more likely to be influenced by their peers than other age groups when it comes to giving. And that’s a good thing, because with TPO Mobile…

….Friend and Family Referral Rewards Help You Rack up the Savings

If you refer a friend or family member, you can choose between a $10 credit to your account, or $5 in cash. It’s as easy as that. And of course, the more people you get to use TPO’s services, the more money ends up going to your favorite charities. It’s a total win-win.

via GIPHY

Great Value Rates

TPO offers service on the fastest nationwide 4G LTE network, and covers about 97 percent of the American population. You get to use whatever phone you choose, as long as you can insert a TPO SIM card. And you can keep the number you’ve always had–you won’t have to go through the pain of updating everyone with your new number. In today’s financial climate, when so many of us are saddled with massive amounts of student loan debt and less relative income when compared to our parents’ generation, it makes a lot of sense (and cents) to shop around for the best deal.

Currently TPO is offering up to 35 percent off per month for the first three months on selected prepaid plans, and a free SIM card.

Awesome Customer Service

Listen–we’ve all been stuck on the phone with a service provider, pressing one for more options, and attempting to finally speak to a human. You won’t have to worry about that with TPO. TPO has a team standing by ready to help seven days a week, including the weekends, so you won’t miss a minute of your life. Here’s what a couple of millennial TPO customers had to say about their experiences. Taylor Cash said:

I’m not very tech-savvy for a millennial. I wanted more data but I wanted to upgrade my plan too, and was confused about how it all worked. Everyone I have talked to was very kind and helpful and took the time to explain how it worked to me. I think it’s more personal—I didn’t ever feel like they were ‘reading from a script’ without really knowing the answer. I feel like they knew exactly what I was asking and how to solve it and explain it to me.

And Evan Taylor pointed out the importance of a personal touch:

The mere fact that they aren’t one of the telecom giants that are impossibly infuriating to deal with is huge. Also, they seem to care about social causes and community. It’s important that someone out there is providing affordable service and not taking advantage of people with obscure contracts.

via GIPHY

As millennials, we place a high priority on charitable giving. We’re more likely to want to work for companies that give back to the community; as a group we give to charity at high rates; and we love talking about the charities we care about, and getting other people to give too. TPO understands that. Jimmy Wales–also the founder of Wikipedia–is the executive chairman of TPO Mobile. He was inspired to join the team because of its emphasis on those very values that millennials hold near and dear to their hearts. He explained:

Millennials are increasingly supporting causes based on personal connection–that’s what the studies are showing. TPO Mobile provides millennials a way to keep in touch with their friends and family whilst making a positive change. This empowers them to drive their own change, and encourages more and more companies to let customers support causes they care about with everyday technology. People want to give back, so why not give them a way to do it?

And that’s exactly what makes TPO such a good fit for millennials. The company was founded with those ideals in mind–that there’s a way to use business for good. Check out TPO to learn more.

TPO Mobile

TPO Mobile was founded on the idea that mobile could be used to change lives for the better. Customers with TPO not only get great value prepaid plans, a high quality mobile service, and great customer service – they can also direct 10 percent of their monthly bill to the cause of their choice, at no extra cost to them. TPO launched in the U.K. in 2012 and expanded to the U.S. in 2015. Since its U.K. launch, TPO customers have directed funds to hundreds of causes including The Trussell Trust, Emerge Poverty Free, and the British Heart Foundation. In the U.S., TPO has also partnered with a range of great causes. Furthermore, TPO has developed the TPO Community, an online community to expand the global network of mobile phone customers who share in the common belief of supporting causes and TPO Giving, a not-for-profit donation platform. Connect with TPO at www.facebook.com/tpous and @TPOus, or find out more at www.tpo.com TPO Mobile is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden launched their new charitable foundation, the Biden Foundation. This will be a continuation of the couple’s work on equal rights, which they focused on during their years in office. The new organization will prioritize fighting cancer, ending violence against women and children, supporting military families, and achieving equal rights for all.

The fight against cancer became particularly important to the Biden family after Joe’s oldest son Beau passed away from the disease in May 2015. The foundation will continue to support the Cancer Moonshot Initiative–the White House anti-cancer effort that Biden headed–which aims to find the cure. Jill Biden is a college professor and will keep working on her longtime goal to increase people’s access to affordable, high-quality education. In a video promoting the new foundation, the former vice president said, “As long as we have a breath in us, we’re going to be working on it.”

Joe and Jill Biden announce The Biden Foundation in new vid, plan to focus on cancer research, violence against women, foreign policy issues pic.twitter.com/z6296Cp8wi

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2017

The foundation’s executive director will be Louisa Terrell, who used to work for Facebook, Yahoo, and for Joe Biden when he was a senator. The board will also consist of several former Biden aides and advisers. It will accept donations from private foundations, donor-advised funds, and corporate foundations, but not from foreign citizens, entities, or any other foreign sources. In a statement the Bidens said:

We look forward to this new chapter where we will continue our work to ensure that everyone—no matter their income level, race, gender, age, or sexuality—is treated with dignity and gets a fair shot at achieving the American Dream.

In the promotional video, Biden also said he has high hopes for the millennial generation, calling it the most open, most tolerant, and most generous generation in American History. He said that we now have the power to change the culture, “Just as we did when we spoke up and said that the only criteria for who you marry should be who you love.”

From fighting cancer to changing the culture on domestic violence — we’re just getting started. Join us: https://t.co/QHaFokMnrZ

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 1, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Joe and Jill Biden Launch Foundation for Equal Rights and Cancer Research appeared first on Law Street.

The locks left in the chain links of Paris’s iconic Pont des Arts bridge have long been contentious–they were seen as an eyesore, a tourist trap, and a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge, as the weight of hundreds upon hundreds of metal locks weighed down the balustrades. Romantics see the love locks as a symbol of commitment, but locals see them as a form of littering. The city began removing the locks en masse last year but the “love lock trend” still exists across Paris and has spread to practically every major city with an attractive set of bridges. Yet as of this month, the Parisian locks will take on a new identity–they are being bundled together and auctioned for charity, specifically to raise money for refugees living in Paris.

The auction is slated for the spring of 2017 and Bruno Julliard, first deputy mayor of Paris, expects to raise approximately 100,000 euros for the refugee community–but there have been no specific plans released for which organizations will receive the profits. Nor has there been a clear outline of what specifically the money would go toward. Refugees are in need of shelter, food, medical care and supplies, legal representation, job training and placement–which of these efforts will be prioritized when the love lock funds roll in?

Julliard has essentially two options before him: donate a massive sum to a single organization, or donate multiple small amounts to the various charities working to secure housing and employment for the thousands of refugees living in Paris. The general statement Julliard released made a vague reference toward funding “organizations” (plural not singular) working to support refugees in Paris but gave no information about whether that means local, neighborhood organizations or larger, international charities. If several different organizations are going to receive funding, then orchestrating the auction becomes a much more challenging task. What if those bidding on the locks only want to give to certain charities that are benefitting from the funds and not others?

While several small donations to multiple causes can help with immediate issues like purchasing supplies, there is an economic argument that a one-time large donation to a single organization will be more impactful in the long run. However, the true efficacy of the donation has more to do with how the organization spends it money than the sum itself. The websites Givewell and CharityNavigator  only exist because we have seen charities mishandle funds time and again, making us wary of where we donate our money.

At the moment, the sale of the love locks may read as a feel-good publicity stunt but if the auction truly does raise the money that Julliard expects, the funds will become an object of public debate, with every non-profit that even tangentially works with refugees looking for a grant and every anti-refugee National Front supporter arguing that the funds should be spent elsewhere. Unless there is a clear plan of which charity the money is going to and how it will be spent when it gets there, the love lock auction will be, at best, a shallow gesture that does not effectively help Paris’s refugees.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Auctioning the Love Locks: The Challenges of Charity appeared first on Law Street.

The issue of political spending is one that has garnered a lot of attention this election cycle. Both candidates are associated with 501(c)(3) organizations and have faced scandals recently regarding how they collect and spend charity money. Clinton faced allegations that she granted access to the State Department to wealthy Clinton Foundation donors. Trump was fined by the IRS for his use of Trump Foundation money to fund the campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, allegedly to encourage her office not to pursue further investigation of Trump University. The two scandals are fundamentally different, but are two sides of the same coin. Clinton’s scandal is about the possibility that she was selling political access to raise money for a charity. The charges against Trump involve using money that was raised for charity to buy political access for himself. The Trump Foundation has some additional issues, ranging from allegations of self dealing and an investigation by the New York Attorney General, who recently ordered the foundation to stop accepting donations.

But the Bondi allegations against Trump raise more questions than just whether Trump is fit to serve as president. They bring up the issue of what exactly the difference is between a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4), a 527, and a myriad of other institutions that can blur the lines between a charity and a political organization. The IRS has rules governing these categories but the rules are not always clear. And while the purpose of these rules is to keep donations to charities tax deductible to encourage that behavior, while not providing the same benefit for political speech, it is not always clear whether the rules are doing an effective job. We want to encourage both charitable donations and political speech, but we only use the tax code to incentivize charitable donations.

How exactly do we draw distinctions between what is charitable and what is political, and how do tax incentives come into play?

Distinctions Without Much Difference

There are several main flavors of tax-exempt organizations that may engage in what a lay person would think of as either political spending, charitable work, or both. They are each referred to by their section of the tax code and the differences are fairly technical but important to understand.

The first type of organization is a 501(c)(3). Both the Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation are examples of this type of group and the purpose of a 501(c)(3) is supposed to be purely charitable. Meaning that this group has the greatest restrictions on it in terms of what kind of political activity it can engage in. This doesn’t mean that they can’t engage in ANY political activity, because they actually can. But their ability to endorse a candidate is curtailed. They also can’t spend money on a campaign. They are still able to do some lobbying and political advocacy, as long as that advocacy is not promoting a specific legislative agenda or candidate but rather is educating the public.

In exchange for complying with these rules, 501(c)(3)s are permitted to accept unlimited donations from benefactors whom they do not have to disclose and those benefactors can claim the donations they give as tax-deductions.

A 501(c)(4) has slightly different trade-offs. These groups can engage in political activities as long as those political activities are not their primary purpose. And they can endorse candidates, lobby, educate the public on their issue, and accept unlimited anonymous donations. However, because of their increased political activity, those donations are not tax deductible.

A 527 is the most political of the three. Political spending is in fact the entire purpose of these groups, which means they come with added strings such as only being able to accept limited donations that are non-deductible and the donors can no longer be anonymous. They can’t “lobby” but they can endorse and even exist for the purpose of electing certain candidates. And although the donations made to a 527 are not tax deductible the organizations themselves pay limited taxes—501(c)(3)s or 501(c)(4)s pay none. That is why even if your donors can’t deduct what they give to you from their taxes it is still very beneficial for these organizations to comply with the rules to keep their tax-exempt status. (And why the IRS fined Donald Trump for his donation to Pam Bondi from his 501(c)(3)).

To see the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) more clearly check out this video:

Facts and Circumstances

To summarize, a 501(c)(3) is what you would think of when you think of a “charity.” And a 501(c)(4) is a “social welfare” organization. While not a charity per se, they are supposed to be serving the public good through their advocacy. We want to encourage political behavior, particularly from diverse viewpoints, and promote political speech. Granting tax-exempt status to social welfare organizations, or 501(c)(4)s, is one way to facilitate that. The only question is how do we determine what is a social welfare organization, and therefore worthy of these benefits?

The rule for what qualifies as a social welfare organization is very vague. The standard is whether the organization is “primarily engaged” in social welfare activities. The IRS does not give a bright-line rule regarding what percentage of activity is required to be social welfare versus political in order to qualify. It may be a 51/49 split in terms of how they spend their funds, or essentially whatever the IRS deems appropriate. According to the IRS, deciding this issue is a “facts and circumstances test.” A very vague standard indeed, which opens the door to making determinations about which groups qualify based on something other than numerical data and the appearance of, if not actual, favoritism for different political viewpoints.

But if these organizations are doing good work (which may depend on your political point of view but let’s go off the assumption that all political speech is a social good) then why should we care so much about a 501(c)(4) getting tax exempt status to encourage it?

The key issue is actually part of a multi-step process that revolves around the size of donations and the disclosure involved. A 501(c)(4) can accept an unlimited amount of donations and also does not need to disclose its donors. By contrast a Super PAC is required to disclose who donates to it. But when the donor to the Super PAC is a 501(c)(4)–and these organizations often ally with each other so that one cause will have a whole string of different arms that have different tax-statuses and abilities–all they need disclose is the name of the 501(c)(4). So a billionaire who wants to influence electoral politics can donate $100 million dollars to a 501(c)(4), which doesn’t have to tell anyone where that money came from. The Super PAC attached to that group then takes that donation from the group, and does disclose that it came from the group, but that doesn’t let the public know that our billionaire friend essentially donated $100 million dollars to that Super PAC. We therefore have no way of tracing whether an organization or politician allied with that Super PAC ever paid back that favor.

Kim Barker from the Washington Post does a good job of explaining this line of reasoning in why we should care about the 501(c)(4) designation and its uses.

Conclusion

It makes sense that we would want to structure a policy that allows organizations for political advocacy to not pay taxes. It lets organizations form that otherwise might not be able to afford to do so, which enables minority viewpoints to be more easily heard by the public. Regardless of what those viewpoints are, that’s a healthy thing for the republic. Granting tax-exempt status to 501(c)(4)s, even if the IRS definition of social welfare is not that clear, might therefore be a good idea.

The trouble occurs when other organizations can then manipulate the special rules given to social welfare organizations to siphon money into campaign funding and electoral politics. That kind of political speech, the support of a specific candidate, is not the same kind of social good and is not currently what we want to give incentives to. If it was, then we would grant the exact same tax privileges to 527s and other political groups that we do to 501(c)(4)s or to charities.

The ability to do this is in part because the rules of engagement and alliances between these organizations have gotten very complicated and very fuzzy. If there is no rule as to what “education” is versus “advocacy” versus “lobbying” then the distinctions between these groups lose much of their meaning. But the greater problem is the concept of anonymous donations. In a political system that depends on the open and vigorous exchange of ideas keeping donations to any kind of political organization, whether they are merely engaged in “advocacy” or in direct electioneering, is counterproductive. If we are going to equate money with political speech, the public needs to be able to know who is saying what, which means knowing exactly where all political spending comes from.

Rather than eliminating various tax benefits to organizations we want to encourage (such as charities and social welfare organizations) we could instead require the disclosure of donors for all groups. Then if a billionaire donates to a 501 (c)(4) and that group donates to its sister Super PAC we can easily trace the funding of the Super PAC back to the original donor. It does not take care of the concern about the amount of money that an individual can give to a political cause, which is a separate problem, but it does solve the anonymity that keeps the public from being fully informed about politicians, their supporters, and the wide range of groups engaging in political activity. And if there is a reward exchanged in the future from the politician to the billionaire donor, we will be able to trace that too, and determine if there was a quid pro quo arrangement.

Resources

The Washington Post: Emails Reveal How Foundation Donors Got Access To Clinton and Her Close Aides At State Department

Think Progress: Trump Foundation Illegal Self-Dealing

Law Street Media: Charitable Trusts: Can Greed Ever Be Good? 

Outside the Beltway: 501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

Bolder Advocacy: Introduction: The Types of Exempt Organizations And What They May Do

Open Secrets.org: 527s: The Basics

Open Secrets: Types of Advocacy Groups

Daily Kos: 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, and the rest. A primer.

The Washington Post: Let’s Back Up: How Is The IRS Supposed To Scrutinize 501c4s Anyway? 

The Sunlight Foundation: The Difference Between Super PACs and Dark Money Groups

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Faux Anonymity: How Do We Effectively Encourage Political Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

The latest from a series of investigative reports by The Washington Post reveals Donald Trump used over $250,000 of his charity’s funds to finance legal settlements tied to his businesses. The cases seem to indicate the Republican presidential nominee broke U.S. self-dealing laws, which, if the IRS finds him guilty of doing, could require him to pay penalty taxes as well as reimburse the Donald J. Trump Foundation for the money he pilfered for personal expenditures.

For example, in 2007, the town of Palm Beach, Florida began fining Trump’s beachfront Mar-a-Lago property over $1,000 per day because it flouted a town ordinance stating flagpoles could reach no higher than 42 feet. Trump erected an American flag standing 80 feet high. Palm Beach settled the issue by requiring Trump to make a $100,000 donation to the Fisher House charity, which benefits veterans and their families. Trump sent the charity a check for the proposed amount. Examining his charity’s tax filings, the Post found that the check used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

A previous Post investigation found Trump hardly contributes to his own charity so, in effect, he used contributions from other donors to fund some legal disputes. There was a second major case in which Trump seemingly dug into his foundation’s coffers for settlement money: in 2010, during a charity tournament at Trump’s golf course in Westchester County, New York, a man hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole, a feat promising a $1 million prize. But the fine print of the rules rendered Martin Greenberg, the man who hit the hole-in-one, prize-less. He sued. Trump’s course settled with Greenberg, who demanded Trump donate to his charity, the Martin Greenberg Foundation. Trump sent a check of $158,000 from his own foundation.

A real headline about the Republican nominee: “Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems.” https://t.co/2LRtZB3Ri2

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 21, 2016

IRS self-dealing laws include the following language: “Paying compensation or reimbursing expenses by a private foundation to a disqualified person is generally an act of self-dealing.” At the moment, the New York attorney general’s office is looking into Trump’s actions to determine if he broke the state’s charity laws.

There are other instances where Trump used his foundation’s money to fund personal items: $5,000 toward ads for his hotel chains in 2013, $10,000 for a portrait of himself in 2014, and $12,000 for a football helmet signed by former NFL player Tim Tebow in 2012.

Trump’s campaign issued a statement on Tuesday night, saying the Post had “gotten their facts wrong,” and wrote the story as a way of directing attention away from the “corrupt Clinton Foundation.” The statement went on: “There was not, and could not be, any intent or motive for the Trump Foundation to make improper payments. All contributions are reported to the IRS, and all Foundation donations are publicly disclosed.” It is unclear what the Post story got wrong, and what “inaccuracies and omissions” it contained. The statement did not make any specific references, while calling the man who wrote the story, David Fahrenthold, a “biased reporter.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Donald Trump Use His Foundation’s Money to Settle Legal Disputes? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government uses incentives in its tax policy to promote charitable giving. Most people are aware that they can deduct donations that they make to charitable institutions from their taxes. For small amounts, some people may not take advantage of this. Others might prefer to send the money that they would owe in taxes to a favorite charity, which is more in tune with their values. As a result, they try to diminish their tax burden as much as possible in favor of donating to charity. But very wealthy individuals can take it to a whole new level.

One strategy to reduce your tax burden that you can use is the creation of your own charitable trust. Charitable trusts allow the wealthy to preserve their asset value by not paying capital gains taxes on assets they sell through the trust, deducting the value of the gift that was made from their personal income tax, and taking advantage of other tax benefits designed to encourage charitable giving.

The charity gets a taste and the donor, who otherwise might not have given to charity at all, is incentivized to give. So is this a situation where greed is morally good?

Bet To Live Strategy

Take a look at this video about one of the most popular kinds of charitable trusts that you can create, the charitable remainder trust. Assuming of course that you have a million dollars. It gives a simple explanation of how the process works but, more importantly, a glimpse into why the process works.

As you saw in the video, the fact that the beneficiary is a charity can be irrelevant. In fact, the commenter goes out of his way to explain that you don’t actually need to care about being charitable in order to take advantage of this setup. What you should care about is whether you and your spouse have a long life expectancy. Because if so you then will be able to get the maximum amount of utility out of your trust.

This is why the charitable remainder trust, and other ways that the government incentivizes charitable giving by providing tax benefits to donors, is thought of as a good idea. Not because it rewards people for giving to charity but because it incentivizes people who otherwise wouldn’t into donating as well.

People who are motivated by their conscience to give money to charity–particularly those who have an issue of critical importance to them and a charity that focuses on that issue–are going to give money anyway. They have a built-in incentive to do so and may even give whether they could claim a tax benefit from it. But those only make up a portion of donors all charitable donors in the United States. The other portion includes those who are pushed to donate to charity because they want the financial benefits that donating provides. Of course, there is likely some overlap, those who get satisfaction or social benefits as well as a tax deduction for their actions, but there is a subset for whom it is all about the money. And if they weren’t benefitting themselves they wouldn’t be giving to charity.

By providing a financial motivation to donate we are capturing a donor class for charities that we otherwise would not have. What we want is to maximize the donor pool and by appealing both to greed and to altruism we can get the most donors possible. So what is the problem here?

Institutional Dynamics

One problem that exists with this setup is the amount of benefit that charities actually receive. Incentivizing the wealthy to give to charity through greed may be a great idea–but only if those charities actually get the money–or enough money to justify our privileging a charitable donation over what government would collect in the form of taxes. People who want to take advantage of the tax benefits that we use to encourage charitable giving will often set up a private foundation, which will, in turn, donate money to various charitable endeavors. But the IRS only requires the private foundation to spend 5 percent of its assets annually. Further, it doesn’t require that 5 percent to go to the actual mission of the charity they are donating to, it can go to things like administrative costs.

The individuals setting up these private foundations are receiving very generous benefits in the form of a tax deduction, but the charities that are supposed to ultimately benefit from these foundations may not be.

The amount that each institution needs to spend to be considered charitable–5 percent–is an arbitrary number that does not really represent what is the best amount for these institutions to spend. Especially when that percentage is so small. And while foundations could spend more than the required 5 percent, they rarely do.

It might be a good idea to treat different types of charitable giving in different ways. For example, a donor who is setting up his or her own private foundation versus one who is giving to an already established one. Allowing a donor who creates their own charity to label that activity as “charitable” when it only needs to spend 5 percent of the gift on that purpose may be unfair. Whereas we may want to allow academic institutions managing large endowments to be fiscally conservative to preserve their resources. It may make sense for us to treat different types of foundations differently and not have a blanket 5 percent expenditure rule in order to qualify. What should be prioritized is the benefit received by the recipients of the foundation, not the potential benefits to a donor.

We also might want to take a look at just how good a deal a charitable remainder trust is for the donor and how good a deal it is for the charity. It isn’t a bad idea to incentivize charitable giving by appealing to greed–in fact, it may be a very good idea–but we can probably negotiate a better deal for the charities. In both the remainder trust and the lead trust, the charities receive a benefit but the donors arguably benefit the most. For example, with a charitable remainder trust, you can sell an asset, such as a stock, through the trust to avoid a capital gains tax. And then you can deduct from your taxes the value of the asset that you gave to the charitable trust. Over the term of the trust (which can be in years or for your or someone else’s lifespan) you receive payments from those assets. Whatever is left at the end of the term goes to the charity but the donor, if they were fortunate to live for a long time after its creation, may have taken the bulk of those assets in annuities in addition to the tax benefits they received for forming the trust in the first place.

The lead trust operates in the reverse, giving the charity annuity payments and then the remainder of the assets to the creator of the trust (or their heirs). But it is still a good deal for the donor, especially those of extreme wealth. In some cases, a lead trust can result in a profit beyond the initial tax deduction that will eventually go to its recipient.

Another concern with this incentive is: what qualifies as a charity? The definition of charity can go beyond what we might think of as traditional charitable pursuits such as clothing the naked or feeding the hungry. There seems to be a wide range of what can be included as a charitable activity, including groups that act primarily as political special interest groups.

How the Wealthy Use Charitable Trusts

The Koch brothers’ charitable giving provides a prime example of how a charitable trust can be used to protect generational wealth. In this case, the trust established by Fred Koch, the father of Charles and David, was a charitable lead trust. A charitable lead trust allows a donor to give money to the beneficiary tax-free as long as the interest that accrues on the original amount is donated to charity for a period–in this case 20 years. This allows the heirs to keep more of the fortune left for them while at the same time ensuring a steady stream of income charity. For the Koch brothers, the charitable trust is not only protecting generational wealth, it is also used to promote a specific political ideology. A tax subsidy for this may go beyond what most Americans are willing to support, which is one reason why these methods may be worth revisiting.

Another example of estate planning to protect generational wealth can be found in the Walton family, the heirs to the Walmart empire. The Waltons have used a variety of trusts, including charitable trusts, to avoid paying estate taxes on their wealth, thus preserving it in the Walton family for future generations.

The trust most famously used by the Waltons is the so-called “Jackie O Trust,” which is a charitable lead trust. For a family with a lot of wealth and a lot of time this can be a useful tool. For example, Helen Walton, Sam Walton’s wife, set up four trusts in 2003. When she set them up the IRS set a rate of 3.6 percent, which is based on the interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds at the time the trust is formed and how much the trust is likely to go to charity versus the heirs. But because interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds are so low–and they have been for a while now–investments into these trusts easily beat those rates. In fact, the trusts returned 14 percent a year from 2007 to 2011. Which means that the Waltons pay 3.6 percent of this money in estate taxes, but the extra 10.4 percent that the trust earned went back into the pile and eventually go to the Walton family. They are making more money for their future estates than they are giving away.

Conclusion

Charitable trusts have a worthy goal–to promote charitable giving–and use an effective strategy to try to achieve it. It is the kind of appeal to self-interest that the original federalists would have been proud of. One that acknowledges the dearth of altruism in human nature and makes the best of it. But the balance of funds given to the charity versus the financial benefit to the donor may not be sufficient to justify the loss of tax income to the government. The regulations on this kind of giving could do more to ensure that charities get a higher percentage of the gift and that the gift is specifically used for tangible charitable activities, not for administrative costs and salaries. Appealing to a wealthy family’s self-interest in order to promote charitable giving is smart. But it can and should be a better deal for charities than it is now to justify foregone tax revenue.

These regulations also could do more to define what qualifies as a charity in the first place. Political discourse is a worthy goal in and of itself. But it may not be one that Americans want their government to promote through a tax incentive. Or, if we decide it is, then that should be separate from the promotion of charitable contributions. We can be careful about how money that we allow to go to charity rather than to government projects is being spent by taking another look at what we define as charitable. The rules for what is charitable are murky–donations to a 501(c)3 that engages in “education” are deductible, while a donation to a 501(c)4 that engages in politics is not, but the line between the two is not clearly defined. The requirements for the kinds of donations that we want to allow exemptions for should be clearer and more stringent.

If we are going to siphon tax dollars away from important government functions, through charitable tax deductions, the charities that are eligible should be ones that do charitable work that is similar to those goals. That way individuals who don’t want their taxes to support policy X but have no problem with policy Y can give to a charity that does something similar to policy Y. They are still incentivized to give but lost government revenue should not be done in vain.

Resources

Fidelity: Charitable Giving That Gives Back

Salon: 10 Tax Dodges That Help The Rich Get Richer

Mother Jones: Exposed: The Dark Money ATM of The Conservative Movement

Daily Kos: Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money” Exposes Charles Koch’s Campus Lobbying Scheme

Goodreads: Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind The Rise of the Radical Right

Money Crashers: What Is A Charitable Remainder Trust- Definition, Rules & Taxation

Inside Philanthropy: Dept. of Murky Money: What the Heck Is a Charitable Trust?

Bloomberg: How The Waltons Maintain Their Billionaire Fortune: Taxes

The New York Times: Minding Your Business: The Jackie Onassis Trust, and a Variation On It

Daily Kos: 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4), and the Rest. A Primer

The Sunlight Foundation: The Difference Between Super PACs and Dark Money Groups

The Washington Post: How Is The IRS Supposed to Vet 501(c)(4) Groups Anyway?

Grantspace: What is a Foundation?

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Charitable Trusts: Can Greed Ever Be Good? appeared first on Law Street.

After suffering through domestic violence accusations, damning photos and text messages, and a restraining order, Amber Heard has made good on her promise and has given away her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity.

Amber Heard Is Donating All $7 Million Of Her Johnny Depp Divorce Settlement https://t.co/zosgwOYF7h pic.twitter.com/aMX48OIfWM

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) August 19, 2016

Heard announced the decision in a statement to Buzzfeed Thursday, saying the divorce with Depp was never about the money and that she hopes the money goes to people “less able to defend themselves.”

According to Buzzfeed, Heard said the large donation “will be divided equally between the ACLU, with a particular focus to stop violence against women, and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where I have worked as a volunteer for the past 10 years alongside organizations like the Art of Elysium.”

Heard filed for divorce in May, and later obtained a temporary restraining order that alleges Depp hit her during a fight in their Los Angeles apartment that same month. Her allegations looked pretty convincing as she walked into an L.A. courtroom with a bruise on her right cheek below the eye.

Depp, who has stayed relatively silent over the course of the divorce proceedings, has yet to release a statement and is probably under orders from his publicist to avoid the media at all costs. Why? Perhaps because its unclear if his career will recover from the domestic violence scandal. Former fans are still trying to figure out if they can forget forgive his domestic violence allegations and justify spending more money to see him in another “Pirates” sequel or freaky Tim Burton gothic comedy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amber Heard Donates $7 Million Divorce Settlement to Charity appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who represents Florida’s 5th Congressional District, was indicted late last week on 22 charges that include fraud and conspiracy. Brown’s chief of staff, Elias “Ronnie” Simmons, was also hit with a number of related charges–both individuals are pleading not guilty on all counts. And Brown is fighting back against the charges in the court of social opinion as well, writing in a blog posted by her campaign that “I’m not the first black elected official to be persecuted and, sad to say, I won’t be the last.”

Brown is accused of using a sham education charity to solicit donations, as well as using those donations for her own personal gain. The group, called One Door for Education, allegedly never received the money that Brown raised on its behalf. Instead, according to a local ABC affiliate,

Much of the money was deposited to Brown’s personal bank accounts so she could pay taxes that she owed, investigators said.

More than $200,000 in One Door funds went to pay for events hosted by Brown in her honor, including a golf tournament in Ponte Vedra Beach, receptions at an annual conference in Washington, D.C., and luxury boxes for a concert and an NFL game in Washington, D.C., investigators said.

Brown wrote a blog post last week, entitled “Note to my Friends” after news of the indictment broke, in which she claimed that the prosecutor wasn’t telling her side of the story. She wrote:

The most important thing I want you to understand is that an indictment is not a conviction. An indictment is an accusation. Anybody can make an accusation. You’ve heard the prosecutor’s side, but you still have not heard the rest of the story.

However, Brown also received significant criticism–particularly on the right–for juxtaposing her indictment with the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and the fatal attacks on five Dallas police officers last week.

If Brown is convicted of all of the charges levied against her, she could face a hefty sentence, up to 300 years total.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congresswoman Corrine Brown to Fight Long List of Federal Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Since its inception in 2006, the (RED) campaign has reached across industries to create (RED) products, the sales of which go directly toward funding anti-retroviral treatments. This month, (RED) is launching a new initiative called Eat (RED) that utilizes the tagline “86 AIDS.” Eat (RED) involves cooking lessons via Snapchat, an Instagram contest and partnerships with celebrity chefs such as Mario Batalli. The (RED) campaign is looking to engage restaurants, bars, and food trucks in its fundraising drive–whether that engagement will involve drawing attention to HIV/AIDS or donating percentages of certain meals is yet to be determined.

Eat (RED) is an interesting concept, but it is being rolled out as a special event that will last only one month as opposed to a lasting campaign. Whereas (RED) products such as clothing, accessories and headphones have longevity and have continued production over several years, Eat (RED) is a one-off.

Partnering with local restaurants has long been a smart move for regional charities and causes–profit sharing is common practice for several restaurants. Buy a given meal at a given restaurant on a given night and 15 percent of the sale will go to the charity the restaurant has partnered with. However, Eat (RED) has not chosen to center itself on a given city or even a certain group of restaurants.

It is admirable to be open to partners from all over the world but the relaxed nature of the Eat (RED) partnership may be actually hindering the efficacy of the campaign. Eat (RED) asks restauranteurs to contact the (RED) organization if they want to participate but only a handful of restaurants have decided to join in thus far. This does not mean that the (RED) campaign hasn’t attempted to recruit more partners but a restaurant’s participation in the Eat (RED) campaign is essentially dependent on whether they are on the mailing list for the (RED) campaign or happen to come across the Instagram contest on social media. The restaurants that are participating in the campaign have not necessarily been promoting it actively, so there is no following being built on social media platforms that would alert other restaurants to the campaign’s existence. Eat (RED) is an excellent idea, but its execution seems to be falling flat as we move closer to the end of June.

Consider a different color–orange. Last month, on National Gun Violence Awareness Day, groups like Everytown for Gun Safety set out to turn America orange, encouraging people to wear orange, alter their photos to have an orange filter on social media, and even light up buildings with an orange glow. The event was a success largely because it was organized on a local level. Small rallies at transport stations, parks and other public meeting places were compounded into thousands of participants in the day of awareness across the country. Eat (RED) is working for a different cause, with a different set of resources at its disposal, but it should consider taking a page out of Everytown’s book. Eat (RED)’s Instagram contest may reach the same popularity as Everytown’s orange profile pictures but unless money is being spent, the Eat (RED) campaign may never gain ground as a fundraising campaigns. Organizing small, local events can be much more effective than issuing a blanket invite, therefore Eat (RED) could look to partner with a few restaurants at a time in a single city rather than launching a national campaign. New York and DC already have a Restaurant Week, so why not a (RED) Restaurant Week? The campaign could receive more donations and reach more people if it tackles one city at a time.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Eat (RED): The HIV/AIDS Event That No One Has Noticed? appeared first on Law Street.

Is Beyonce leaving Jay Z’s Tidal? What did a family’s massive charity actually spend its money on? ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped. Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. Read full article here.

#2 The Best Legal Tweets of the Week

The excitement over finals and the latest round of bar exam results has died down and now lawyers and law students are back to the daily grind of being overworked and over-caffeinated. Check out the best legal tweets of the week. See the slideshow here.

#3 Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s always upsetting when celebrities do not really give back to communities in need. Luckily, Senegalese-American singer and producer Akon fully agrees with my sentiment for the need to give back. This summer, his charitable organization, Akon Lighting Africa, will be opening a solar academy that will help bring electricity to over 600 million Africans.

The organization was originally launched in 2004 with his other co-founders, Thione Niang and Samba Baithily. All three men have been known to heavily involve themselves in organizations that promote economic growth and social progress in Africa. Since that time, the organization has also provided solar street lamps and domestic solar panels in over one million households in approximately 14 African countries.

The organization intends to open its solar academy in Bamako, Mali’s capital. Given that the continent sees an average of 320 days of sunshine a year, it’s a more than welcoming environment for solar power. Akon Lighting Africa intends to effectively utilize this sunlight–harnessing solar energy is an ideal way to bring electricity to those without it.

Akon and the other co-founders discuss how necessary sustainable jobs are in Africa. Approximately seventy percent of the population is under 35, making Africa the continent with the youngest average population. To them, investing in solar power for the future can help in more ways than one. Thione Niang stated:

The academy will aim to teach people how to install and maintain solar-powered electricity systems as well as micro grids which are really taking off in rural Africa.

It’s the organization’s expectation that Africans who graduate from this center will be able to devise new, innovative, technological solutions. “With this Academy, we can capitalize on Akon Lighting Africa and go further,” said Niang.

In addition to Akon Lighting Africa, Akon has other charitable initiatives operating in Africa. The Konfidence Foundation, which has been around since 2006, works to raise public awareness for issues regarding certain conditions in Africa, as well as providing underprivileged youth with educational materials, recreational resources, and health and wellness services. Akon told African Vibes:

As a regular person, there’s not much you can do, but as a celebrity you can influence millions of people, which makes it a lot easier. Things can happen a lot faster, and I like to take advantage of that and find more ways to bring opportunities to Africa.

He has spoken out in other media outlets about his drive to give back in Africa, stating in a 2014 Politico interview:

I think the United States probably may take the value of Africa just a little bit for granted. I think with the right partners, the right neighboring allies and the right support, Africa could be dominating. Because it has all the natural resources you can imagine, and if all the other countries actually got together and created unity, the dollar would be humongous.

There are obviously many other celebrities in addition to Akon that make an effort to give back to those in need internationally. For example, in 2007, Oprah Winfrey opened The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa located in Henley on Klip in Gauteng province. Beginning with 7th and 8th grade classes, the school grew one grade year each year until it reached capacity in 2012. While Akon and Oprah are just a few select examples of international outreach, they really epitomize a strong sense of charity and generosity.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Star Aims to Bring More Solar Power to Africa appeared first on Law Street.

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family.

The charities are called the Cancer Fund of America, the Breast Cancer Society, the Children’s Cancer Fund of America, and Cancer Support Services. The Cancer Fund of America and Cancer Support Services both appear to be run by the same man, James Reynolds Sr. His son, James Reynolds Jr., runs the Breast Cancer Society, and his ex-wife Rose Perkins heads up the Children’s Cancer Fund of America. In addition to the clear familial connections at the top of each charity, multiple other family members worked for the organizations and were rewarded handsomely.

There have been allegations levied against these charities for a while–CNN went after the Breast Cancer Society, Children’s Cancer Fund, and Cancer Fund of America in 2013, telling potential donors to stay away and calling them fraudulent. But these recent FTC findings will spark serious change. Two of the charities–the Breast Cancer Society and the Children’s Cancer Fund of America–appear to have agreed to disband, but legal action is still moving forward against the other two charities, as well as against James Reynolds Sr.

So, if the money wasn’t going to help cancer patients, where was it going? That’s the truly upsetting part, as it seems that it was going directly into the pockets of the Reynolds family. According to the FTC’s complaint:

[D]onated funds were used to pay for vehicles, personal consumer goods, college tuition, gym memberships, Jet Ski outings, dating website subscriptions, luxury cruises, and tickets to concerts and professional sporting events.

In even more upsetting revelations, the charities didn’t follow through on promises they made to cancer victims, such as volunteering to drive them to appointments, or sending ibuprofen instead of more helpful promised pain medications. So not only were the heads of these organizations taking money from the people who really needed it, they weren’t following through on promises to cancer patients. That’s about as low as you can get.

There are plenty of charities that do truly good work and try to spend as little money as possible. It’s also not too hard to find them, because free tools like “Charity Navigator” exist that evaluate how charities spend their money. It would be nice to assume that every organization that purports to be raising money for good is actually doing so, but it’s a truly sad reality that not every group is honest. The four “charities” run by the Reynolds family certainly proved that, and hopefully they’ll pay the price for their truly reprehensible dishonesty.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions appeared first on Law Street.

A recent report by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows how the recession changed Americans’ charitable habits. “The wealthiest Americans — those who earned $200,000 or more — reduced the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012. Meanwhile, Americans who earned less than $100,000 chipped in 4.5 percent more of their income during the same time period.” The Washington Post took the report a bit further; in an op-ed Philip Bump notes that “Of the states that gave the most to charity in 2012, the top 17 all voted for Mitt Romney that year. The bottom seven states in giving all voted for Obama.” He points to a political split in charity, but also suggests that there is a tendency for religious people to give more. Bump refers back to another Chronicle report claiming that “The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind.”

The wealth and religiosity of people appear to heavily influence the size of their charitable giving. On the other hand, it seems like the correlation of “red states” and increased charitable donations is just that — a correlation. Because these states suffered more of the brunt of the recession, their increases in poverty were often higher than the national average. While there is a notable relationship between a state’s conservatism and its poverty level, this does not mean a state’s tendency to vote Republican is the direct cause of charitable giving increases. At the same time, the more conservative states are also more religious. This nexus of low-income and high-religiosity may be the most direct cause of increasing charitable donations. As lower-income people of faith experienced the turmoil of the recession, they were compelled to donate.

When examining religion as a social institution, this isn’t too surprising. When one social institution falters — the economic system, for example — people will often rely more heavily on another institution — say, religion. Thankfully, a lot of American religious institutions encourage charity. It seems like many Americans who were badly affected by the financial crisis deepened their religious commitments and, despite having less to give, gave more. While religion has individualistic significance, its community focus is illustrated nicely, here.

There are a number of reasons why religion encourages charity, but what is it about religion that delivers such results? What makes religion such a compelling force? Christianity’s appeals to community-mindedness certainly compelled U.S. Army veteran Jordan Matson to join Kurdish forces in fighting the Islamic State. USA Today reports that Matson left Wisconsin to get to the battleground where ISIS is gaining territory: “I couldn’t just sit and watch Christians being slaughtered anymore.” At 28 years old, Matson voluntarily flew to Syria to combat militant Islamic extremists. While religion is compelling ISIS to commit sick acts of terror, religion compelled Matson to stop it.

Faith asks people to suspend skepticism. For better or for worse, in this way faith makes it much easier to compel people to act. Proof isn’t required incite action, and fact isn’t necessary to mobilize the masses. When charity-based components of religion are brought into the fold by something like an economic crisis, the more devout may feel more compelled than others to give. This is, of course, only one component of the many religious matrices out there.

Philanthropic tendencies in America are, in part, driven by religiosity. We can’t afford to ignore this; policy should be developed that encourages philanthropy and religiously influenced charity. This power was touched on by President George Bush Sr. in one of America’s weirder inaugural addresses: “We can find meaning and reward by serving some purpose higher than ourselves — a shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light.” He asked Americans to volunteer and donate — an undoubtedly good appeal. But what we must create now is an agenda that harnesses the motivation behind the “thousand points of light” and capitalizes on the compelling nature of religion. Especially now that the rich are giving less and the poor are giving more, America could benefit from compelling our wealthiest to lend a helping hand more often.

—

 Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [James Cohen via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Religion Inspires Philanthropy, Especially Among Low-Income Observers appeared first on Law Street.