☆ Oliverio: All groups that lobby the city—both nonprofits and business—should follow the same rules
In the ongoing dispute over whether local progressive nonprofits break ethical and legal regulations with their aggressive lobbying of City staff and politicians, former council member and current Planning Commissioner chair Pierluigi Oliverio offers a reasoned compromise: treat all advocacy activity the same. An exclusive interview with Opp Now.
Opportunity Now: Whenever we talk to people at City Hall regarding what appears to be the privileged treatment of progressive nonprofits, everybody acknowledges the issue, but they don't seem to know how to fix it. Why is that?
Pierluigi Oliverio: It's just not widely known how nonprofits, especially at the county level, rely on local government for a significant amount of their operating budgets—
ON: —Just to be clear, those monies are coming from taxpayers—
PO: Yes. And many nonprofits also work diligently to influence county and city policies, which ultimately come with potential funding for them and their initiatives. So it's not surprising that the general public—and this came out in the Spotlight article—think they're acting like lobbyists. If they or any other salaried entity is seeking something from the government, whether it's policy or funding, that's fine, but they should all be acknowledged to be lobbyists.
ON: When business advocacy groups, or individual businesses, advocate for specific legislation, don't they have to acknowledge they are lobbyists?
PO: Yes, they do. My point is that it doesn't matter if they're a nonprofit or a for-profit entity—if they're advocating government for specific ends, they should be treated the same. The question isn't your tax status; the issue is: if you're trying to influence the government for something that can benefit your organization, then this is the same as other entities.
ON: From our perspective, it often seems like city and county staff treat the nonprofits in a privileged manner, like they are somehow extensions of staff, but less accountable.
PO: Especially at the county level, nonprofits partner closely with the county and scale their work up and down depending on government needs. They may not be employees, but they are very much enmeshed in the policy creation and delivery process.
ON: There's chatter on social media around this issue that says, "Hey, nonprofits are different than businesses; businesses are out to ‘swindle,’ but nonprofits are acting for Global Social Justice, and as a result, the rules that apply to business shouldn't apply to them."
PO: When it comes to this issue, at least, I think there are more similarities than differences between nonprofits and business. The corporations certainly bring money to the table to influence policy, but nonprofits bring a lot, too. They can use their social network, they can help canvas for candidates, drive people to show up at community events, favor certain candidates, draw up petitions against other candidates. In the political realm, this has an in-kind value equal to, if not greater than, money.
All of that is fine, but we just need to be clear-eyed about what is lobbying and what isn't. It's the activity, not who's doing it, and we should be even-handed in how we manage it. If an individual is paid a salary to extract "value" out of a government entity, then they are a lobbyist.
See more on nonprofits and advocacy from Opp Now here.
This article is part of an exclusive Opp Now series on hazy, shady, and all-out criminal relationships between local nonprofits/gov't:
Jonathan Fleming, founder and director of SVPAF, speaks to what's going on with SJ's nonprofit community.
Joel Kotin at Philanthropy Daily analyzes the worrisome dynamic of local left-wing nonprofits advocating for extremist policies while at the same time benefiting from taxpayer and ultra-rich funder largesse.
Nonprofit attorney Scott Hartley of Hartley Law clarifies the parameters that apply to nonprofits when it comes to political activity.
SFStandard.com reports on how nonprofits in San Francisco can leverage huge sums of taxpayer dollars for political activity while neglecting their core mission.
Planning Commissioner chair Pierluigi Oliverio offers a compromise in the ongoing dispute over whether local progressive nonprofits break regulations with their aggressive lobbying of City staff /politicians: treat all advocacy activity the same.
Josh Koehn explains in the SF Standard that many residents are urging for transparency in how NP partners address objectives and use taxpayer funds. However, local nonprofit lobbyists strongly request no additional stipulations be enforced—lest the paperwork adds up.
The HJTA's Susan Shelley untangles LA's recently-passed Measure ULA. Residents making high-value real estate transactions must fork over some big coin, but none of it will go to emergency shelters or transitional housing—just unaccountable nonprofits peddling the discredited Housing First mantra.
David Eisbach points out the consequences of COPA's underlying idea: that unhoused people must rely on larger entities to advance in life. Putting nonprofit orgs in a tremendous position of power over lower-income SJ residents/officials will compound conflict-of-interest problems.
Gov't misconduct expert Josh Koehn reports on a new lawsuit against SF nonprofit org the United Council of Human Services, which alleges that CEO Gwendolyn Westbrook has inappropriately used funds for personal benefit.
Local nonprofits act just like lobbyists (but retain their tax exempt status) and brazenly invite conflict of interest concerns. Joel Kotkin provides the backstory in Philanthropy Daily.
Local neighborhood coalition Families & Homes SJ wonders how it's okay that the city's Housing Director can sit on the board of a local housing nonprofit.
SF org Clean City Coalition is alleged to have engaged in highly illegal, dangerous money laundering behaviors.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Yimby Action