Did Planned Parenthood go wrong in endorsing Hillary Clinton?
Did Planned Parenthood endorse Hillary Clinton?
Sort of.聽It all hinges on a distinction between the聽Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the聽501(c)(3) service organization that provides reproductive health services and the聽Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the 501(c)(4) advocacy organization聽that serves as the group's聽political arm.
The endorsement was made via the advocacy arm, the聽聽(PPAF), which launched a聽聽in November,聽in the wake of campaigns to defund the parent organization and in support of abortion, Planned Parenthood itself, Obamacare, sex education, health equity for the LGBT community, and birth control.
鈥淭he Planned Parenthood Action Fund is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,鈥� according to the PPAF website.
鈥淭he Action Fund engages in educational and electoral activity, including legislative advocacy, voter education, and grassroots organizing. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee (Planned Parenthood Federal PAC) is a nonpartisan political action committee committed to supporting pro-choice, pro-family planning candidates for federal office.鈥�
At issue is the 聽to be spent on presidential and Senate races in battleground states. Some Planned Parenthood supporters have taken to Twitter to express their displeasure at the group's involvement in elections:
The problem,聽according to Elizabeth Boris, director of the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at The Urban Institute,聽is a misunderstanding of the differences between the group's service arm, the advocacy arm, and a third sub-group, Planned Parenthood's federal political action committee.聽
"The $20 million pledged to the Clinton campaign is聽not permitted to come out of revenues designated for services to women," says Boris in an interview with the Monitor, "but聽are likely coming from either or both of the聽similarly named Planned Parenthood Political Action聽Fund and from the Planned Parenthood Federal PACCommittees [PACs].鈥�
鈥淚t gives them (opponents) the ability to shade the truth because it鈥檚 very easy to tar a聽501(c)(3)聽聽service organization with the political brush,鈥� Boris says.聽鈥淚 understand why聽Planned Parenthood聽decided to do it in the long run because they鈥檙e under such attack. But the way the public understands a non-profit organization makes聽the endorsement聽fraught with difficulty for the overall organization.鈥�
Boris adds, 鈥淭he problem is the umbrella name is the same, they鈥檙e linked for the same goals. The misunderstanding is that people are thinking that Planned Parenthood is giving $20 million to Hillary Clinton鈥檚 political campaign聽out of service revenues.聽That鈥檚 not correct. They think money that should be spent on women is part of this money and it鈥檚 not. It鈥檚 not permitted.鈥�
鈥淭he misunderstandings about how these organizations are connected and how they鈥檙e separate is creating the backlash,鈥� Boris says. 鈥淭he advocacy part of the organization is not the same part that provides services.鈥�
奥丑颈濒别听聽prohibit 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from engaging in political activity, it鈥檚 commonplace for non-profits to have a聽聽that is kept separate in funding and name for the purpose of taking political action. The 501(c)(4) or "social welfare" organization is allowed to engage in political activities, as long as those activities don鈥檛 become their primary purpose.
There are also political action committees for the express purpose of using "hard" money contributions to elect or defeat candidates and聽527 Groups (under聽section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code) which raise money for political activities such as parties, candidates, committees, or associations organized for the purpose of influencing an issue, policy, appointment, or election.
鈥淚 think the backlash and my own personal experience with this is that there鈥檚 sort of an increased need for transparency and actually articulating the differences between the different entities,鈥� says Michael Thatcher, CEO of聽聽in an interview. 鈥淏eing better able to better articulate the difference between these different entities is the problem. That is a transparency issue.鈥�
Mr. Thatcher adds, 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what鈥檚 interesting me more on a personal level than on a Charity Navigator level is to see how all this will play out with other entities that have similar structures because it is new. It is a new move.鈥�
[Editor's note: The original version of this story misstated how Planned Parenthood's politcal donations would be allocated.]
