I tend to agree with you. I would extend this idea to the churches. Acceptance of tax breaks make them beholden to the government. Clergy/churches probably would do well to choose their subjects carefully, and need not feel compelled to speak out on all or even most issues, but to give up the right to speak, when neccessary and appropriate, in exchange for a tax break is not good.
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.