It’s no secret we tend to lean to the left here at Inside Philanthropy, and that viewpoint informs our coverage of promising developments in the sector, like more robust critiques of systemic racism and moves toward more trust-based giving. Still, we do like to keep an eye on what conservative givers are up to.
Often, that coverage has been critical, and intentionally so — check out my colleague Connie Matthiessen on how right-wing funders stoked the “critical race theory” culture wars, for example.
But at the same time, we’re definitely not opposed to everything conservative funders do, and we’re all about building bridges where we can. So while we’d love to go on about all the things we wish right-leaning philanthropy would fund less, what about the opposite question? What kinds of causes would we like to see those funders back more often?
Now, I’m under no illusion that hard-right donors are looking for advice from me. But the circle widens when we take the word “conservative” in a more inclusive sense, to mean donors who are maybe closer to the center-right, and aren’t necessarily card-carrying Trump supporters. There’s also the vast swath of donors and foundations (most of them, in fact) that give in very traditional ways to traditional philanthropic causes — conservative in another sense.
In a time of extreme polarization, is there still enough common ground for funders of differing and even conflicting ideologies to stand together without tipping each other over the edge? We’d like to think so. Here are five causes that might just fit that bill.
1. Push for local housing deregulation
Homelessness and the housing crisis is one of many entrenched problems that continually defy philanthropy. It’s also a problem of national scope, in no way confined to blue-leaning coastal cities.
The roots of the homelessness crisis are complex, and speak to deep failures in the realms of public and mental health, criminal justice, and more. But a lack of reasonably priced housing plays into it in a big way, and not just in the largest cities. In smaller metros and rural areas, too, housing insecurity among families with lower incomes is rampant.
What can conservative-leaning funders do about that? Well, besides writing a check to the local homeless shelter, they could consider advocating for efforts to roll back onerous local land use regulations that restrict builders from adding much-needed housing supply.
Throughout most American cities, a near-endless array of such local laws are on the books, often effectively choking off construction and making it next to impossible for property owners to add even “gentle” forms of density — for instance, by constructing accessory dwelling units adjacent to existing homes. These “not-in-my-backyard” (or “NIMBY”) laws are a clear example of overly restrictive government and directly counter the operation of a free market for housing. What’s a conservative to like about that?
2. Get on board with philanthropy reform
This is a tricky one. There is, of course, a conservative case against reform efforts like the Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act, a case that runs along similar lines as the above argument on housing — that increased regulation will choke off the supply of charitable dollars. Figures like Elise Westhoff at the Philanthropy Roundtable have been vocal in that regard. Some of philanthropy’s biggest associations, like the Council on Foundations, have also taken similar stances.
But as Craig Kennedy and William Schambra argued in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last year, charitable reform doesn’t have to be inherently undesirable from a conservative viewpoint. After having “witnessed the steady drift of the field’s discourse toward ever greater emphasis on political activism, combined with an even stronger tilt to the left,” they wrote, “conservative donors should focus on reinstating a sharp line between charitable and political giving.”
Part of that might certainly involve taming DAFs and other opaque funding mechanisms, which donors on both sides of the aisle have heavily embraced to the detriment of what little transparency still exists in this sector. And besides, introducing payout requirements for DAFs would also address another conservative concern: that piles of philanthropic money left for perpetuity will one day be deployed in ways that defy donor intent.
3. Advocate for more federal election spending
Again, more federal spending isn’t exactly your typical conservative policy plank. But consider this: For more than a year since President Trump’s election loss in 2020, commentators on the right have been savaging Mark Zuckerberg for stepping up with emergency election infrastructure funding that year, resources the government failed to provide at adequate levels via the CARES Act.
While private support for local election infrastructure is a questionable proposition at best, the right’s hated “Zuckerbucks” were only necessary due to an obvious shortfall. If conservatives are truly concerned about the corruptive influence that liberal billionaires might have on elections, calling for more federal election resources would be one step for funders to take. Another would be actually supporting hometown election infrastructure themselves, a kind of civic philanthrolocalism.
Again, that’s hardly ideal. But from where many progressives sit, conservatives’ zeal to hamstring election departments and stymie voter engagement in the name of fighting (mostly nonexistent) voter fraud looks less like protecting democracy and more like defunding it.
4. Back local news
Here’s another one for the localists. We’ve all become accustomed to conservative gripes about left bias in mainstream media outlets. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ feud with Disney demonstrates, Republican politicians have a lot of hay to make by picking fights with supposedly “woke” media.
But if the polarization of mainstream media is tilted in progressives’ favor, why aren’t we seeing more funders from the center and center-right backing good old local journalism?
Well-reported local news is among the most powerful antidotes to the ills of click-hungry digital-age mass media. But over the past few decades, local news has been carved out and carved away, with troubling consequences for local accountability and the health of American democracy. Although that carve-out continues, we’ve seen an encouraging trend toward the adoption of nonprofit models by local newsrooms when the old for-profit playbook fails them.
Donors and foundations have been stepping in with some support, but again, these are often liberal or left-leaning philanthropies. This seems like a real area of opportunity for funders interested in supporting key local civic institutions, wherever on the political spectrum those funders happen to fall.
5. Don’t give up on justice reform
Back in late 2018, then-President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan First Step Act, a justice reform bill to reduce recidivism and lower the federal inmate population. At the time, we wrote fairly frequently about justice reform funders discussing the issue as one with bipartisan potential.
Then 2020 happened. Following George Floyd’s murder, a reinvigorated justice reform movement prompted the liberal mainstream to move left on the issue, widening the political chasm and making justice reform less palatable to many Republican politicians.
But philanthropy isn’t politics. The fact that the United States incarcerates its own citizens at levels far exceeding authoritarian states like Russia and China should be unacceptable to anyone who values the ideal of freedom. Mass incarceration is also a giant resource sink, inflating public budgets. And there’s nothing to indicate that maintaining such a dehumanizing prison system does anything to increase public safety.
While no one’s asking conservative funders to operate hand-in-hand with the Movement for Black Lives, criminalizing poverty comes with a cost to the economy, and it comes with a cost to public safety. It’s also unethical. Unlike conservative politicians, conservative philanthropists needn’t answer to a Trumpist base demanding “law and order” at all costs, and should bear that in mind.