On Aug. 9, the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal hosted a forum titled "Should Nonprofit Organizations Play an Active Role in Election Campaigns?". The debate was inspired by separate opinion pieces in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, one by Robert Egger of the DC Central Kitchen, titled "Charities Must Challenge Politicians," and one by Pablo Eisenberg of Georgetown University, titled "Charities Should Remain Nonpolitical". Egger fiercely defended his argument that charities and religious organizations should be directly involved in partisan politics, while Eisenberg warned that such participation would taint the sector. Both speakers referred to charitable and religious organizations (501(c)(3)s) generally as "nonprofits." Egger said that the laws preventing 501(c)(3)s from participating in partisan politics should be changed, citing a need for innovation and criticizing the "we are all trapped in this charity" model. Egger reasoned that nonprofits often work on the front lines to help vulnerable populations and so can identify the candidates who would work to solve the root causes of those social ills in the first place. This gives nonprofits a unique role, and the most effective advocacy that nonprofits can engage in, according to Egger, would be the public endorsement of a candidate or other direct campaign activity. Egger argued that a typical "advocacy day" on Capitol Hill is not enough and only brings the same response from the lawmaker. He said, "And the politicians have figured out just how to mollify us, just how to say, I'm your champion on the Hill. I'm your tiger. You can count on me. Nice talking with you. And they pat you off. And down the hill these people go, thinking that their cause is going to be championed on the Hill. And the reality is, as much as they probably mean it, we're no overt threat to politicians right now." Egger saw that the only way for the nonprofit sector to have a real impact in government would be the capability to get those people elected who would work for various nonprofit causes and actually bring about real change. Eisenberg offered five reasons for keeping nonprofits nonpartisan. First, he said taxpayers would strongly oppose having their charitable funds used for partisan politics. Second, it would simply be politically unpractical. Members of Congress would not want nonprofits interfering in politics and have historically tried to weaken the advocacy role of nonprofits. "[And] third, direct political activity would inevitably taint the integrity and public trust of nonprofits, thereby diminishing their capacity to deliver services, retain public confidence and raise charitable dollars for their operations." A fourth reason addressed the matter of independence of the nonprofit sector. Eisenberg said if nonprofits want to do their jobs well, they must remain independent from business, government and politics. This "unique quality of 'nonprofitness' has been the backbone of our civil society over the years. It is that quality that has enabled nonprofits to challenge governments, monitor and hold accountable corporate America, give a voice to the voiceless, mobilize constituencies, influence public policies and generate crucial scientific and medical research." The final argument Eisenberg offered is that nonprofits have not taken full advantage of the current regulations that allow for policy activism. "They [nonprofits] have not yet begun to tap their enormous legal capacity to lobby, to shape policies and to influence politicians and the political process. When you think that just a little more than 1 percent of all public charities that report to the IRS report any money going to lobbying, you'll see the untapped potential." Instead of changing the laws as Egger suggests, Eisenberg said we should understand why nonprofits are not currently engaging in the utmost permissible levels of advocacy. As Eisenberg said, the problem is "our own reluctance to be activists." A part of this foot-dragging is inaccurate information from some funders, who say "do not lobby, it's illegal to lobby." In response, organizations fear they will stop receiving funds from foundations if they do any lobbying whatsoever. The room was filled with people committed to the nonprofit sector, and the discussion turned into a reflective one about the future of the sector as a whole.