Have you seen an organization affiliated with effective altruism officially posting, e.g., on its own blog, statements to the effect that supporting one or another candidate is effective altruism comparable to x-risk mitigation? Robert Wiblin posted to the 'Effective Altruism' Facebook group a while ago what the community at large thought of 80,000 Hours making a blog post disavowing Donald Trump for his comments and policy proposals which are anti-humanitarian and anti-cosmopolitan, and thus antithetical to effective altruism, with an estimate of the expected value of opposing him through, e.g., a vote in a swing state, funding political organizations for the Democratic candidate and/or against Trump, etc.

Lots of us gave feedback, and a lot of it was negative on the proposal. Mr. Wiblin and 80,000 Hours opted not to make the blog post. Since then, I haven't seen or heard of any EA-affiliated organization making political claims.

Individuals associated with effective altruism might make claims to that effect, but I expect it'd be assumed they're speaking for themselves and not for the whole community, or at least that their estimate that campaigning against one or another political candidate is one of the most effective things a person can do to be their personal opinion alone. Of course, someone of higher profile might be mistaken as speaking for the movement. I remember on Facebook Will MacAskill once stated he thought, from the perspective of effective altruism, voting against the incumbents in the last UK federal election was a very high-impact action to take. Personally, I didn't like how he associated effective altruism with partisan politics, especially in a way most of the rest of us wouldn't be able to. Of course, we can't stop anyone in the EA movement from making those sorts of claims.

I don't think it will be many of us. I think calling for people to police their own speech in this regard may not work, and it will be up to the rest of us to collectively disavow political statements, if we see fit, and make clear to everyone the claimant doesn't in fact speak on behalf of the effective altruism movement.

Symmetry suggests 10% of something else, but even 10% of non-working, non-sleeping hours seems very high (7 hours a week).

-

I'm not sure in what context they could be given. Unsolicited is weird. In the context of an expected gift (like a wedding), it would make you seem oblivious or even rude. I think Giving Games work better for this purpose because it's a social event.

These seem more likely to be effective as gifts to EAs, rather than from them.

I think these would be great to give to a slightly EA aligned friend but it might feel awkward to buy for someone with little knowledge of or interest in EA for a birthday etc because it wouldn't necessarily be something you could claim they wanted.

C. Questions

1. How exactly would the money flow? I don't know how much of what I described is actually legal. Maybe it would be necessary to give the money to a candidate's super PAC instead of to the campaign. Maybe there's other issues I don't know about. Is there a lawyer, accountant, or other knowledgeable person in the community who could propose a legal means of handling the finances?

2. What kind of a team would it take to implement this? There would obviously need to be someone to make the website and there should presumably be someone in charge of publicizing it, but what would be required beyond this?

3. Where else should I send this proposal in hopes of finding people who will implement it?

4. How important would it be for the organization to be bipartisan? That is to say, how important is it for there to be both Democrats and Republicans running Altruistic Partisanship?

5. Would it be possible for the fraction of a donation that goes to charity to be tax deductible?

6. Has anyone heard of someone trying this before? I have conducted several Google searches and browsed Charity Navigator and have found no mention of anything like it. However, if someone attempted to implement this but was (for instance) stymied by an insurmountable legal issue it could be very difficult to find.

7. What should be the procedure for determining which charities are acceptable? My inclination is to have a standard that any charity which a substantial number of people want to donate to should be acceptable so long as not many people think it would be harmful for that charity to receive money. Thus, I think most environmentalist groups and any organization that deals with guns or abortion (regardless of their stance) should be ineligible for donations via Altruistic Partisanship. There are many different ways of doing this though.

8. What would be the effect of this on nonpolitical donations that aren't made through Altruistic Partisanship? Suppose someone donates $200 a year to to charity and $50 (in presidential election years) to the Democratic candidate. It seems plausible that this person would make the $50 donation through Altruistic Partisanship, subconsciously think of it as fulfilling his “giving quota”, and then forgo the $200 donation for the year. While I doubt this would be especially common, it's the most plausible reason I've thought of so far for why Altruistic Partisanship might end up having a negative impact.

9. How should this be advertised? This would be relatively easy if the sole effect of Altruistic Partisanship was to redirect money from politics to charity, but the existence of this service could encourage people to make political donations they wouldn't make otherwise. My first thought was to have ads saying things such as “Which would you prefer? Donating $20 to Trump, or sending $20 of Crooked Hillary's money to charity?” The problem is that this also functions as a fundraising ad for Trump. In addition to possible legal issues, if advertising is done like this then the counterfactual political impact of a donation could be muted. A donation for Trump would encourage Altruistic Partisanship to advertise in order to get donations from Clinton supporters, and if this happened then the basic promise to Trump donors (that a $100 donation for Trump would cause Clinton's campaign to have $100 less) would be broken. Even if the advertisement itself wasn't partisan there could still be issues; an ad placed on a liberal website would lead to more donations for Clinton than for Trump and bring the same concerns with counterfactual political impact.

10. How could this be generalized to work in elections with more than two candidates?

11. What would the effects of this be on politics? I expect them to be very minor unless this were to become extremely popular (with more than 10% of all political donations running through this). It could make fund-raising slightly more important for candidates since the marginal value of a campaign dollar increases when you have less money to begin with (due to some of it going to charity). It could also reduce the political will to make political reforms that could lead to a multiparty system such as instant runoff voting; Altruistic Partisanship is far less workable in an election with more than two major candidates.

12. What should it be called? “Altruistic Partisanship” is just a placeholder.

B. Comments

1. This would make people feel better about their donations than they would otherwise. When people read Givewell's recommendations and decides to donate to AMF instead of the local homeless shelter they don't always feel pure joy at the knowledge that their donation is doing more good; they may also feel slightly bad about not helping the local homeless. With Altruistic Partisanship, people would feel good about helping charity in addition to feeling good about helping their candidate. Thus, Altruistic Partisanship could elicit donations from people who aren't even remotely interested in effective altruism.

2. There are disadvantages to using Altruistic Partisanship as opposed to donating directly to a candidate. There would presumably be extra fees associated with moving the money around, or at least overhead associated with operating Altruistic Partisanship. There would be a delay in getting money to a candidate to provide time for the other candidate to raise a similar amount. Also, the assumption that depriving a campaign of $100 is just as good as donating $100 to your preferred candidate would not hold if your candidate has raised far less money than the opponent (or perhaps has lower name recognition, etc.). Finally, some donors may prefer to do whatever feels the most like supporting their candidate with little regard for the consequences, and donating directly to their candidate would probably be more appealing to them.

3. Politicians, even ones who are personally uninterested in philanthropy, would be incentivized to support Altruistic Partisanship. They could find it useful as a fundraising pitch; people who are on the fence about whether to donate to a candidate may be pushed over the edge by the prospect of simultaneously helping charities at no additional cost. Moreover, soliciting donations through Altruistic Partisanship could improve a politician's image since it signals that he or she is a caring person.

4. There is a small but relevant chance that the majority of political contributions would eventually go through Altruistic Partisanship, even if most donors aren't actually interested in helping charities. Here's an example of how it might happen. One candidate decides to establish Altruistic Partisanship as the primary means of making a donation to his campaign, either because he wants charities to have more money or because he wants favorable media coverage. His opponent declines to follow suit and is criticized for being more interested in her campaign's coffers than in helping people. Other politicians conclude from this that using Altruistic Partisanship is politically advantageous and decide to do so in future campaigns. If enough of them do so then the use of Altruistic Partisanship will become a political norm, and every time a politician sends an email asking for money it will double as a fundraiser for charity. (There could be an API, or perhaps human coordinators, to make it easy for campaigns to solicit donations via Altruistic Partisanship.)

5. I think Altruistic Partisanship's core values should include doing the most good possible, maintaining political neutrality, and having the counterfactual political impact of a donation through Altruistic Partisanship be as close as possible to that of donating directly to a candidate. That is to say, donating through Altruistic Partisanship should be as politically effective as donating directly to a candidate.

6. Not just any charity could be chosen since some would be objectionable. If a Republican were to divert money from Clinton's campaign to Planned Parenthood, he might not consider it to be an improvement and would greatly prefer to have donated directly to Trump's campaign instead. I think the best approach would be to have a list of acceptable charities with Givewell's recommended charities conveniently located at the top.

7. For the sake of transparency, each donor should receive an email telling them where their money went and where the donations marked for the opposing candidate were redirected due to their donation. The effects of a single donation could be determined by multiplying the effects of all donations associated with the same candidate by the amount of the one donation and dividing by the total amounts of all donations for that that candidate.