AGRM DC Forum on Policy and Advocacy

Spending a couple days in the seat of our republic for most people is an exercise in observing history, memorials, and art – not necessarily an observation of our political process . . . unless one goes there to influence that process in order to get something (if only a gallery pass). In joining 38 fellow leaders in our Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, I spent two days doing the latter . . . not to get funding, but to ask for continued ability to serve our community.

You see, many of the regulations that come from DC hamper fundraising and provision of services through onerous regulation and tax law. The issues we took to the offices of our Congressional representatives involved: a cap on charitable deductions; a potential loss of nonprofit postal rate discount; fixing vehicle donation rules; and the erosion of the definition of “religious organization” by narrowing it to an ecclesiastical church. My observations of our issues and meetings with representatives are mixed.

In sharing with staffers (who actually wield the power in DC), their response varied according to party and office. My meetings with two Senate staffers were met with a measure of aloofness and push-back against our issues. Even though we weren’t asking for funding, they made plain to us that our requests were clearly seen as expenditures; any reduction in tax revenue due to charitable deductions was a loss to them. As if the money was already theirs to begin with . . . and there was little admittance of savings to government services due to the services we provide. It was obvious that they saw what we do as within their preview. When one asked for the CBO “score” of our legislative issues it was evident that the gain or loss to tax revenue would be the deciding factor rather than principle. One actually began to argue with our position on religious exemption with their partisan argument of the need for government to ensure equal access, rather than address the long-standing moral exemption provided to religious organizations.

On the other hand, congressional staffers took more time and asked questions – sometimes surprised at our statistics of services provided and impact of regulations on our operations. A lot of notes were taken, and there seemed to be genuine interest in what we do and the struggle we have in this economy. Their raised level of interest was perhaps because the representatives are closer to us and our issues – if not outright concern for their constituents (and that we would take the time to visit them). When I shared that because of withdrawing principle from an investment in response to our emergency funding request, one donor paid more than 30% tax on their charitable gift, the absurdity of that issue hit home.

As mentioned earlier, it was evident who controls the inflow of information to our elected leaders. But it was brought home when I heard of one representative who, upon leaving the office for a 15 minute floor vote, asked the staffer, “This one is a YES, right?” I think we need to trust these staffers as much as those we actually elected to get our message to them.

Do I think it worth the efforts of the thousands of people who make the trek to DC each day to bring issues and requests to staffers – and hopefully to our elected representatives? I think so . . . it was obvious that some of what we shared was news to them and brought a fresh understanding of how regulations and legislation affect those of us who provide critical services to the most at risk in our communities. WE are the safety net – not government services. Although a letter can do some of that – sitting across from us, hearing our stories, and seeing our concern will, I believe, accomplish so much more . . . if only continued freedom to raise funds and serve others in the Name of Christ.