The ongoing surge of antisemitism since Oct. 7 has generated over 100 organizations dedicated to combating it — that’s the good news. The bad news is that not enough of these groups are actively engaged in lobbying and political advocacy, and even fewer seem to realize the powerful benefits of integrating charitable, lobbying and electoral efforts. To effectively address antisemitism, we need a coordinated approach that combines the strengths of all the tools available to donors. 

For example, both multi-issue lobbying and support for the election of pro-Jewish politicians are necessary to ensure that:

Getty Images

• Adequate security funding is made available 
• The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism becomes standard; 
• Enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is properly funded
• Legislators engage in bipartisan efforts to make sure college and public school boards are held accountable for protecting Jews from intimidation 
• Masked protests are made illegal
• Public school textbooks are free of antisemitism. 

Alongside this political activity, we need charitable funding to finance efforts to educate legislators and the public, support truthful curricula, hold get-out-the-vote campaigns, support antisemitism lawsuits and organize a social movement that includes non-Jews to defeat antisemitism. Most of the charitable work is already in progress, but not in coordination with the political activity.

The power of combining charitable funding, lobbying efforts and electoral support has been most visible in recent decades in the successful push for marriage equality for gay couples. In John Kowal’s detailed history on the subject, he writes:

“The successful push to win marriage equality in all 50 states was, in part, a strategic legal campaign played out through litigation and legislative advocacy in courthouses and legislatures across the country. It was also a social movement that inspired countless LGBT Americans and a growing number of allies to engage their families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. And it was a strategic communications success story, taking an issue that elicited emotions from confusion to strong disapproval and — over two decades — changing millions of minds. It is one of the most compelling recent case studies in how the law changes.”

In the case of marriage equality, tax-deductible 501(c)(3) organizations led the social movement, running ads, releasing reports, mobilizing donors to vote and even litigating. For the legislative advocacy, donors made use of a 501(c)(4) organization, an IRS-approved entity whose main purpose is issue lobbying. To some degree, 501(c)(4) organizations may also spend money endorsing or criticizing electoral candidates. Donations to a (c)(4) are not deductible, an obvious detriment. On the positive side, a list of donor names is not publicly disclosed, which is helpful to donors who may not want to be identified with the lobbying. 

Donors primarily interested in supporting the election or defeat of candidates cannot use either a 501(c)(3) or a (c)(4) organization and must make political contributions to a campaign, a PAC or another entity that is required to disclose the names of contributors. (As with other legal rules in this piece, I am simplifying by omitting reference to specialized tools used by significant contributors to avoid some of the legal rules.) 

AIPAC is a good example of an effort that combines all three activities. AIPAC itself is a lobbying 501(c)(4) organization. It has a related charitable 501(c)(3) organization, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), which can offer donors a tax deduction because AIEF does not support lobbying activity. Instead, it supports educational activities such as trips to Israel for influential figures, educational programs and meetings with Israeli officials with the goal of mutual understanding. Of course, AIPAC also has AIPAC PAC and an affiliated Super PAC, which is very active in political campaigns, including the recent defeats of two members of the Squad.

Many federations do limited lobbying under a rule that permits 501(c)(3) organizations to do so. In a more ambitious effort, the New York Solidarity Network (NYSN) was established two years ago as 501(c)(4) organization with aligned PACs to focus on pro-Israel advocacy in state and municipal elections. 

It is important to note that private foundations are limited in their ability to combine these types of activities. Private foundations may only support 501(c)(3) organizations and may not earmark funds for lobbying. Therefore, support for lobbying and political action requires living donors who are prepared to forego a tax deduction. While legally complicated, when done properly, the marriage equality and AIPAC structure is unquestionably legal.

Like marriage equality and Israel, antisemitism is an issue that would benefit from a strong interaction between charitable activities, lobbying and political action. So why hasn’t it happened? I suggest two primary reasons: 

First, the concept of mixing charitable and lobbying/political activities feels wrong to many donors, notwithstanding the clarity of the law. The legal prohibition against private foundations supporting lobbying or political campaigning contributes to this mindset. There have also been very public critiques of the wealthy gaining overrepresentation in political outcomes because of their significant ability to influence legislation. In my view, this is a time for courageous action notwithstanding the critics.

Second, setting up a set of related organizations requires a coordination and cooperation that is atypical for the Jewish community. 

The marriage equality movement succeeded because of the Civil Marriage Collaborative, a collection of more than 14 foundations that committed themselves to making collective decisions about the strategy and funding in the fight for marriage equality. Collectively, they contributed $153 million toward the effort. The coalition held together during many bleak moments over 11 years until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled marriage equality to be a constitutional right. 

The Jewish foundation world has not yet experienced this kind of large and long-standing partnership, and politics are more polarized today than 20 years ago. Moreover, our situation is complicated by having more than 100 charitable organizations that are undertaking separate efforts to combat antisemitism. Bringing the work of even some of these organizations under a common umbrella would be unprecedented. Given the challenge, perhaps funders could collaborate to ensure a high level of coordination among the nonprofits combating antisemitism.

Here are some practical takeaways:

1. All philanthropists should recognize that lobbying and political action is a critical component of fighting antisemitism. We should all contribute to both 501(c)(4)s and PACs (or other structures to influence election results) to achieve the necessary legislation and enforcement. 

2. As AIPAC has shown, political activity can swing elections in a way that matters. At the state and local levels, the funding needed to tip an election is much smaller. Coordinating political efforts to combat antisemitism nationally and locally will be more effective than donors working independently. For local races, the New York Solidarity Network is a model that can be replicated.

3. Donors working together have the ability to generate collective action by their grantees, which will ensure that the most important activities get funded and that these activities are consistent with the lobbying priorities. 

4. My last takeaway is a question: Could we imagine the kind of philanthropic discipline shown by the marriage equality funders to ensure that both the charitable and political efforts achieve maximum impact?

JFN members who want to learn more about the benefits of combining charitable and political activities can contact JFN for a link to our webinar on the topic. I am also available for consultation to interested philanthropists.

Philanthropic coordination and discipline would be a Herculean task, but achieving the impossible is part of the Jewish DNA. Can individual philanthropists, federations and foundations work together to lead the charge? As Theodor Herzl said and the State of Israel has proven, “If you will it, it is not a dream.”

Yossi Prager is the senior managing director of JFN Consulting at the Jewish Funders Network