• How to Start and Grow a Think Tank
• Grassroots Leadership Guide to K-12 Education Reform
  • Prologue
  • Decide What Type of Organization You Want to Become
    • Overview
    • What is an Unincorporated Association?
    • Incorporating Your Think Tank and Filing for Tax-Exempt Status
    • Choices When Direct Action is Necessary
    • Think Tanks, Lobbying, and Section H: Which Way to Turn?
    • Lessons Learned From Left Field
    • Do's and Don'ts for Lobbying Group: Charity Activity in an Election Year
    • Sample Business Plan
  • Building and Maintaining an Effective Board
  • Get Things Up and Running
  • Legal Reference Material
  • Organize Your Staff and Volunteers
  • Examples of Programs and Operational Materials
  • Building Coalitions
  • Getting Your Message Out/Media Relations
  • Talking with Legislators
  • Raising Money
  • History of School Choice
  • Education Reform Research and Resources
  • Resources
• Taking Donors Seriously
• Fundraising Fundamentals

Jump to another manual

• 
• 
• 

Choices When Direct Action is Necessary

by Lynn Harsh, Evergreen Freedom Foundation

A think tank's most important currency is its integrity. This means a think tank must maintain high standards in its research, policy positions, manner of influence, finances, internal and external evaluations and overall conduct.

Direct political action or advocacy is something many think tanks are considering, but these activities can compromise integrity. Why, then, would a think tank even consider direct action or advocacy?

The "why" question
Ask yourself: Can my institute accomplish its stated mission without direct action? If the answer is "yes," how do you know? To accomplish your group's mission necessitates an understanding of your audiences, the lay of the land, your organizational capacity, and a timeline for achieving your goals.

If your answer is "no," and you believe direct action is necessary to fulfill your institute's mission, have you carefully evaluated the impediments between your mission and its successful execution? Are you certain these obstacles can't be removed through patient education and persuasive conversation?

After all, as NCPA's John Goodman remarked in the March 2006 SPN News, a think tank is principally "an idea factory." Changing ideas requires patience. In a free country, reform that lasts longest is accomplished when people have been educated to understand issues and to reason them through with one another. Besides, the work of a think tank is multi-generational. We will never be finished.

On the other hand, consider what happens to a think tank and its mission when:

• the locus of power shifts significantly from the electorate to a powerful elite;
• essential pillars of our Republic, such as individual liberty and the rule of law, suffer noticeable and potentially irreversible erosion;
• freedom to think and speak openly about ideas is legislated or regulated away; and,
• most of the next generation is too poorly educated to identify and protect themselves against coercion and loss of sovereign power.

In my opinion, we face all of these concerns right now. If this is true, and if it is also true that they are permanently destructive to freedom in America (rather than temporarily counterproductive), direct action must be considered by some in our movement as part of the remedy.

The "what" and "who" questions
Each think tank is a unique institution, but we all have one thing in common: scarce resources. Consider these questions: How will you allocate scarce resources to accomplish your mission, and over what time period? Looking at the numbers this way, does direct action make sense?

In considering allocation of resources, remember opportunity cost (doing the next best thing). The elements that must be weighed to determine opportunity cost include: the organization's mission; the temperament of the directors and governing board; the political climate; your state's campaign finance laws; and, the timing of "wedge" issues.

By weighing and balancing these factors, you can determine whether or not you should:

• forego all direct action,
• allow advocacy expenditures of 10 percent or less to survive an IRS audit,
• use the "H" designation that allows your organization to spend up to 20 percent on advocacy, or
• create a (c)(4).

Another factor to consider goes back to my opening statement: A think tank's most important currency is its integrity. Many 501(c)(3) organizations violate the intent and spirit of the law as it regulates advocacy. They use their non-profit status to collect tax-exempt funds, but they spend a significant amount of those funds for political purposes.

Our organizations should not fall in this category. In addition to surviving an IRS audit, we need to pass the straight-face test. Media and lawmakers must know that the research coming from our (c)(3)s is the result of careful analysis, not the result of special interests that open fat wallets to us.

Your group's success is also an important factor when it comes to deciding whether or not to advocate, take the H election, and/or set up a (c)(4). The more successful your institute is in fulfilling its mission, the more attention it will attract-in the form of lawsuits, audits, probes by regulatory agencies, and media speculation. If you plan to be successful, also plan to receive this type of attention. Think about the best way to structure your organization so as to avoid even the appearance of fudging the books. Scandal runs, while truth crawls.

EFF creates a (c)4
For several years, staff and Trustees at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) have discussed the options for properly balancing the vast majority of what we do, public policy development, with the handful of times when we take direct action. In the end, we decided a (c)(4) was the best way to draw a very bright line, and thus keep our integrity intact. In addition to integrity, there are four key reasons why EFF made this decision: the erosion of our Republic's pillars; the lack of civic and economic education; unclear, subjective IRS case law; and, lawsuits.

We must retain integrity with media and lawmakers. Media are justifiably cynical about (c)(3)s that claim to be independent and non-partisan, when in fact they are prostituting themselves to special interests. While this happens mostly on the left (but is mostly noticed and reported on the right), it is wrong whenever it occurs in an organization claiming to be independent of financial or political influences. When EFF participates in direct action or advocacy, the media and everyone else will know who paid for it, because donors to (c)(4)s are publicly disclosed.

We are also deeply concerned about the erosion of the pillars of our Republic. Our efforts will lead to naught if this erosion, such as fraudulent elections, is not curbed or stopped. In Washington State, this means direct action.

Then there is the reality that the average American today has little valid civic and economic education. This makes it nearly impossible to engage citizens in meaningful debate about the fundamentals of our country. While we work to change this destructive trend, we must protect the bulwarks of freedom.

Furthermore, in the direct action arena, IRS case law appears to be muddy and somewhat subjective. Our state's public disclosure requirements are similarly unclear in some respects. We may think we have complied completely with the spirit and intent of the law only to receive an expensive challenge from a law enforcement official.

Our Foundation attracts attention. We have been sued. I have been sued. We have been audited and investigated by state authorities. In the years to come, we expect to be under an even stronger magnifying glass as our effectiveness increases. Given these realities, we think a little differently about making the highest use of our resources.

Homework, agreement and fences
Regardless of which IRS-related advocacy status an organization elects, certain cautions are in order. In sum, do your homework; be sure your board is in agreement; work with attorneys who specialize in this area, and construct fences.

Fences are really important. For example: Our (c)(4) will only advocate for 1) issues directly related to and fundamental to accomplishing our mission (no candidates, annoyances, special favors, paybacks, etc.), 2) issues where the legislative process has been exhausted, and/or 3) issues where non-resolution puts the condition of our state or country in peril, and no other reasonable remedy exists in the foreseeable future.

Direct action/advocacy is not for every think tank, but I urge consideration for those organizations whose mission statements cannot be accomplished without it. This is a tough decision. If you are a think tank executive considering similar options, and you have questions, please feel free to contact me.

Lynn Harsh is CEO of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, based in Olympia, Washington.