City and county officials have a great deal to think about during budget season. For instance, the complexity of their budgets involves state and federal funding, grant matching, school systems, special tax districts, unpredictable actions by the state, and many law-enforcement issues.
The point here is that all of these are in some way related to what local government should be doing. Inevitably, however, nonprofits and their supporters find their ways into the halls of local government and are given credibility as they request taxpayer money for their particular cause.
Most of these groups have worthwhile causes and serve their respective communities well. Groups that deal with domestic violence, homeless shelters, food kitchens, historical societies, local theaters, arts programs, and mentally handicapped individuals are usually organized as 501c(3) nonprofit organizations. Many of these groups are prolific fund-raisers and grant finders. Over time their success is inevitably linked to their level of community activity and the responses they are able to generate.
But a growing number of these groups are seeking to supplement their efforts by receiving local taxpayer moneys. There are two general statutes that take some of this into account. G.S. 143 and G.S. 160 cover many cultural arts programs that allow local government to fund community theater groups and other cultural arts programs. But that doesn’t make it right.
When local governments fund these worthwhile causes, several issues arise. First, if local officials don’t fund them all, then the officials look discriminatory. For instance, if a county were to fund a development center for the mentally ill but not a domestic-violence shelter, does that mean that the domestic-violence issue is not as important? Each of these groups has quality-of-life importance to their respective communities. Local government should not be picking and choosing which are more worthy of taxpayer money.
A second problem is one of force. Local governments are funded through taxes that are levied by their elected bodies. If citizens don’t pay the taxes, local governments have the power to seize citizens’ property to ensure the taxes are paid. When local governments fund nonprofits, they are compelling citizens to pay for these organizations without the citizens’ consent.
The longevity of the organizations lies in the fact that citizens ultimately choose to support them charitably, not forcibly. If the community begins to perceive that a given group does receive government funding, citizens become less likely to donate to the nonprofits in the future. Why should citizens donate if they are going to have to pay taxes to support them anyway?
This can be damaging in the long term. In my own county, a domestic-violence shelter will probably receive government funding for the first time in 21 years. I think this will hurt them in future fund-raising efforts.
We should start to examine government’s role in these issues. Sadly, this question is overlooked or ignored. These are all worthy causes, but that doesn’t mean that government should be funding them. The framers of the Constitution never intended for local government to act as charities. If officials give to 501c(3) organizations, then they are choosing not to give that amount to schools, law enforcement, or any other necessary function of government.
There are many reasons, most of which stem from the Constitution, why governments should not be in the charity business. We should strive to ensure that local government has only enough money to provide for its own services. If it has the money to make donations to charitable enterprises, then it has overtaxed its people by at least that amount. Allowing people to keep more of their own money would enable them to donate of their own free will.
Chad Adams is vice chairman of the Lee County Board of Commissioners, director of the Center for Local Innovation, and vice president for development for the John Locke Foundation.