Navigating Politics as a Nonpartisan Organization

In the nonprofit world, interacting with elected officials is an important component of the organization’s communications strategy. Elected officials bring awareness to your work, develop policies that can advance your cause, and vote on funding. But navigating interactions with politicians can be a tightrope walk. Transparency is important, as is remaining nonpartisan. We turned to an expert in the field for her thoughts on successfully communicating politician visits.

This column was written by guest contributor Angela Roeber, APR, chief communications officer at Project Harmony.

Remaining Neutral

Project Harmony remains neutral when it comes to child abuse stories or political matters. It has been our practice to share on social media any time a senator or politician (regardless of party) comes for a tour. We welcome anyone to come for a tour, and we need the support of all to help us through funding and policy efforts to continue to provide the best support and care for children and families dealing with the unimaginable.

Project Harmony also asks that if an employee wants to share their political viewpoints that they do not associate with Project Harmony on their personal accounts by removing Project Harmony as their place of employment.

Some argue we should not share when a senator or politician comes for a tour out of fear the public will not understand and confuse our intent. It really is all about clearly communicating.  Below is how I differentiate the two.

Sharing Social Media Posts About Politician Visits:

When Project Harmony shares posts about tours from senators or politicians, it isn't an endorsement of their political views or positions. It is a way of showing that the organization is engaging with key stakeholders who can influence policy, legislation, and funding. Since Project Harmony relies on support across party lines to continue providing critical services to children and families, these interactions are necessary to keep the organization visible and funded.

By sharing these posts, Project Harmony is communicating its openness to all political leaders, regardless of party, emphasizing that its mission transcends politics. It's about ensuring that lawmakers understand the organization's work and how their policies or funding decisions can impact the community. By maintaining this balance, Project Harmony signals that it remains neutral and focused on its cause, not political agendas.

Employees Sharing Personal Political Views:

When employees express personal political opinions on their social media accounts, especially when publicly associated with Project Harmony, there's a risk that their views could be conflated with those of the organization. To preserve the organization's neutrality, employees are asked to dissociate their professional role at Project Harmony from their political commentary.

This practice is common in organizations where neutrality is key to maintaining public trust. By asking employees to remove Project Harmony as their place of employment when sharing personal political viewpoints, the organization protects its image and ensures that personal opinions are not misconstrued as representative of the organization’s stance.

How Are These Two Practices Different?

Organizational vs. Personal Expression: The key difference lies in who is speaking. Project Harmony, as an organization, can share neutral, factual posts about tours without taking sides. Employees, on the other hand, are individuals whose personal political posts could unintentionally reflect on the organization if their employment is visible.

Transparency and Trust: Sharing bipartisan engagement reinforces Project Harmony’s nonpartisan approach, ensuring the organization maintains its credibility with the public, politicians, and donors.

Professional Boundaries: The request for employees to dissociate their political views from Project Harmony protects the organization’s neutrality, ensuring the focus stays on its mission to support children and families, without the risk of alienating any supporters.

Both practices aim to protect Project Harmony’s reputation, maintain neutrality, and ensure that its mission and work remain the primary focus.

More from The EO Report

Strategic Comms Missteps and Tech Failures: A Tale of Two Scenarios

Sticky Business: When Brands Should (or Shouldn’t) Enter Political Arenas