I question this comment, I believe that the "strings" come attached to government money itself, and not from tax breaks. The ability to accept contributions that the donor can deduct from their tax is really a break passed through the institution to the donor. I don't believe this conveys any governmental say except that the institution not engage in politics. The Boy Scouts are not being accused of playing politics and with the exception of doing flag ceremonies at political conventions I don't believe the Scouts play in politics at all. (Although I am always pleased to see Scouts in uniform at Bush functions.
This whole suit by the ACLU is serving two purposes. (1) It thrills their base in that it looks like they are making progress in defeating the Boy Scouts. and (2) In highly liberal (blue counties) area, the Scouts will not be able to go to PTAs and Churches/Synogogues because the population may have enough leftist support to deny the Scouts.
I know at my old Temple, the group working for open acceptance of homosexuality was miffed that the Temple also sponcered a Scout troop for over 40 years. But the Rabbi told them that the Scouts could stay and that was that. BTW, the Rabbi was as leftist as the rest, but he also thought the Scouts were a force for good. Plus he was a former Scout himself.
Firstly, The donor (me and my fellow churchmembers) are at least as much a part of the church as the pastor. Secondly, yes the break is passed through to the donor, but the result is the church tends to get more money than if there were no tax break. Thirdly, and most importantly, I'd say that "the institution not engage in politics" is a pretty big say! My analogy to the Boy Scouts may be strained, but the common factor is dependence on "government" for a benefit: sponsorship and/or a convenient place to hold meeting in the case of the scouts or an incentive for members to give a larger offering (church). In either case, the government's favors come with strings.