The doctrine was explained as follows:
[A]s to private philanthropy, the promotion of a healthy pluralism is often viewed as a prime social benefit of general significance. In other words, society can be seen as benefiting not only from the application of private wealth to specific purposes in the public interest but also from the variety of choices made by individual philanthropists as to which activities to subsidize. This decentralized choice-making is arguably more efficient and responsive to public needs than the cumbersome and less flexible allocation process of government administration.37
Occasionally, Congress issues a pronouncement on this subject. One of these rare instances occurred in 1939, when the report of the House Committee on Ways and Means, part of the legislative history of the Revenue Act of 1938, stated:
The exemption from taxation of money or property devoted to charitable and other purposes is based upon the theory that the government is compensated for the loss of revenue by its relief from financial burden which would otherwise have to be met by appropriations from public funds, and by the benefits resulting from the promotion of the general welfare.38
The doctrine also is referenced from time to time in testimony before a congressional committee. For example, the Secretary of the Treasury testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means in 1973 regarding organizations that he termed “voluntary charities, which depend heavily on gifts and bequests,” observing:
These organizations are an important influence for diversity and a bulwark against over-reliance on big government. The tax privileges extended to these institutions were purged of abuse in 1969 and we believe the existing deductions for charitable gifts and bequests are an appropriate way to encourage those institutions. We believe the public accepts them as fair.39
The literature on this subject is extensive. The contemporary versions of it are traceable to 1975, when the public policy rationale was reexamined and reaffirmed by the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs (informally known as the Filer Commission). The Commission observed:
Few aspects of American society are more characteristically, more famously American than the nation's array of voluntary organizations, and the support in both time and money that is given to them by its citizens. Our country has been decisively different in this regard, historian Daniel Boorstin observes, “from the beginning.” As the country was settled, “communities existed before governments were there to care for public needs.” The result, Boorstin says, was that “voluntary collaborative activities” were set up to provide basic social services. Government followed later.
The practice of attending to community needs outside of government has profoundly shaped American society and its institutional framework. While in most other countries, major social institutions such as universities, hospitals, schools, libraries, museums and social welfare agencies are state-run and state-funded, in the United States many of the same organizations are privately controlled and voluntarily supported. The institutional landscape of America is, in fact, teeming with nongovernmental, noncommercial organizations, all the way from some of the world's leading educational and cultural institutions to local garden clubs, from politically powerful national associations to block associations—literally millions of groups in all. This vast and varied array is, and has long been widely recognized as, part of the very fabric of American life. It reflects a national belief in the philosophy of pluralism and in the profound importance to society of individual initiative.
Underpinning the virtual omnipresence of voluntary organizations, and a form of individual initiative in its own right, is the practice—in the case of many Americans, the deeply ingrained habit—of philanthropy, of private giving, which provides the resource base for voluntary organizations.
These two interrelated elements, then, are sizable forces in American society, far larger than in any other country. And they have contributed immeasurably to this country's social and scientific progress. On the ledger of recent contributions are such diverse advances as the creation of noncommercial “public” television, the development of environmental, consumerist and demographic consciousness, community-oriented museum programs, the protecting of land and landmarks from the often heedless rush of “progress.” The list is endless and still growing; both the number and deeds of voluntary organizations are increasing. “Americans are forever forming associations,” wrote de Tocqueville. They still are: tens of thousands of environmental organizations have sprung up in the last few years alone. Private giving is growing, too, at least in current dollar amounts.40
Here, the concept of philanthropy enters, with the view that charitable organizations, maintained by tax exemption and nurtured by an ongoing flow of deductible contributions, reflect the American philosophy that not all policy making and problem solving should be reposed in the governmental sector. Earlier, a jurist wrote, in a frequently cited article, that philanthropy
is the very possibility of doing something different than government can do, of creating an institution free to make choices government cannot—even seemingly arbitrary ones—without having to provide a justification that will be examined in a court of law, which stimulates much private giving and interest.41
A component part of the public policy doctrine is its emphasis on voluntarism. This principle was expressed as follows:
Voluntarism has been responsible for the creation and maintenance of churches, schools, colleges, universities, laboratories, hospitals, libraries, museums, and the performing arts; voluntarism has given rise to the public and private health and welfare systems and many other functions and services that are now an integral part of the American civilization. In no other country has private philanthropy become so vital a part of the national culture or so effective an instrument in prodding government to closer attention to social needs.42
One of the modern-day advocates of the role and value of the independent sector in the United States was John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, founder of Common Cause, and one of the founders of Independent Sector. Mr. Gardner wrote extensively on the subject of the necessity for and significance of the nation's nonprofit sector. He stated that the “area of our national life encompassed by the deduction for religious, scientific, educational, and charitable organizations lies at the very heart of our intellectual and spiritual striving as a people, at the very heart of our feeling about one another and about our joint life.”43 He added that the “private pursuit of public purpose is an honored tradition in American life”44 and believed that “[a]ll elements in the private sector should unite to maintain a tax policy that preserves our pluralism.”45 Likewise, Robert J. Henle, formerly president of Georgetown University, wrote of how the “not-for-profit, private sector promotes the free initiative of citizens and gives them an opportunity on a nonpolitical basis to join together to promote the welfare of their fellow citizens or the public purpose to which they are attracted.”46
It is not possible, in a book of this nature, to fully capture the philosophical underpinnings of the nonprofit sector. This task has been accomplished, however, by Brian O'Connell while president of Independent Sector.47
