A few weeks ago I wrote about AB 624, legislation that will require all private, corporate or public operating foundations and nonprofits incorporated in California, with assets over $250 million, to collect gender and racial data on their board and staff. It also requires these groups to report the number of grant dollars going to ethnic minorities, the disabled, low-income communities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender recipients. After the data is collected, it must be posted on the foundation’s web site under a section labeled “DIVERSITY.” Of course, all of this is done in the name of “transparency” and forcing greater aid for “minorities.”
This is a patently bad bill; requiring philanthropic organizations to report on their board, staff and grant beneficiaries raises all sorts of questions about privacy and unconstitutionality. In addition, the government has no business in the donations of private citizens to their favorite charities.
Last week the bill was heard in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. Presenting the bill were the co-authors, Assemblymen Joe Coto and Ted Lieu. Even though political insiders can become jaded when it comes to the socialist/communist legislation in the capitol, there are moments when we can still be shocked at just how blatant it is. Assemblyman Lieu provided the latest shocking moment when he said that because of foundations’ non-profit status, they are “subsidized by taxpayers.”
In other words, any non-profit organization that doesn’t pay taxes is “subsidized” by the government and therefore the taxpayers. Apparently Assemblyman Lieu and his cohorts believe that all money belongs to the government, and if it doesn’t filter through the government, it is a subsidy, or a gift, from the government. This should remind every taxpayer of the arrogance of some lawmakers when it comes to our money—they believe it belongs to them and they are better stewards of its use.
Even worse than this reclassification of taxpayer money as government-owned and redefining of the term “subsidy,” Assemblyman Lieu then went on to say that “we [taxpayers] rely on them [foundations] to redistribute wealth.” If that’s the case, then the always-altruistic government needs to knock out the competition from these nefarious, diversity-eschewing philanthropies. After all, our increasing nanny state here in California gets to decide how and where to redistribute wealth, not charitable citizens.
As several “minority” groups came forward to testify in favor of AB 624, the mantra was clear: we don’t like the fact that private organizations with billions in assets get to choose how they spend their money—without government oversight.
National philanthropic groups and several of California’s largest foundations are actively opposing this Orwellian bill and they made several excellent points during their testimony. Government should encourage charitable contributions instead of directing donors on how and where they may spend their personal wealth. Donors will be deterred from sharing their money in California if they believe government will step in and redirect it. This legislation is certainly a slippery slope; now the government wants transparency, but once they have it, what will they do with their new data? Will there be a bill next year to force more donations to favored minority groups?
Assemblyman Lieu’s comments evidence a larger problem than AB 624’s Orwellian policies; they prove that too many lawmakers believe that government knows best and should decide which segments of society deserve our money and attention. In a free market and a free country, the people, not the government, own that right.