Leveraging Social Impact by Looking to the Election

Opening day in the presidential elections and nonprofits have become active participants in efforts to influence the outcome. This according to The Washington Post:

Friends of the Earth Action, a nonprofit that supports former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), runs radio ads praising his environmental record and asking why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had not taken a stand on a global warming bill.

Americans for Fair Taxation, which wants to replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax, has spent $2.5 million so far. The group bought 400 tickets to Iowa's Republican straw poll and bused in supporters who helped its favorite candidate, Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor finished a surprising second.

And NumbersUSA is mobilizing its 1.5 million members to make calls and send e-mails to pressure the candidates to end illegal immigration. The group is keeping a scorecard on the presidential candidates, finding former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) rapidly improving and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as "dead last" among the Republicans, its leader said.

Unlike traditional 501(c)(3)'s, nonprofits engaged in these activities are categorized as 501(c)(4). These orgs don't have to pay taxes on donations but also don't offer their donors tax deductions. For this price, they can engage in elections and endorse candidates, as long as it isn't their primary purpose.

(Seems a little murky that two of the three links to nonprofits above are .org and one -- NumbersUSA -- is a .com.)

It's easy to argue that electing a presidential candidate sympathetic to your issues is about as highly leveraged as giving can get (as long as donors are willing to pay all the freight.) Of course, there are primary examples of organizations whose seemingly successful electoral efforts did not end in their desired policy goals. Bill Clinton and his "don't ask, don't tell policy come immediately to mind."

Do you have others? Or is the pay-off worth that risk?

Susan Herr