Ryan ChartrandOn Tuesday afternoon I was approached by a man who was courting the signatures of students like me for “preventing nonprofits from donating to politicians we don’t know.” He also said that it was a proposal to maintain the separation of church and state and the freedom of speech.
Upon further inquiry I was shown the text of the petition itself, which stated among other things that, per the First Amendment, religious beliefs are intensely personal and should stay that way, that end-of-life and reproductive decisions are likewise personal and should stay that way, and that nonprofits should be prevented from endorsing or condemning politicians. Nowhere did I discern an actual proposal.
Why should nonprofits be singled out for such restrictions? Presumably (as the text seemed to assume), because the bulk of nonprofits are in fact religious organizations and as such should not be permitted to function in the public sphere.
But why not? Donating to politicians in no way violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause (which refers to acts of Congress). Nonprofits already lose their tax-exempt status if they endorse candidates. Religious groups have as much right as anyone else to exercise Freedom of Speech.
Religion, while intensely personal, is by no means private. One’s deepest belief about the nature of reality necessarily informs one’s every action; why should nonprofits be expected to divorce what they think, say, and do? Morality is relevant to all aspects of social life; why should nonprofits be barred from the marketplace of ideas?
Eric Baldwin
Electrical engineering junior