Charities get offer they can't refuse

The Examiner ^ | 5 March 2009 | Mark Tapscott

[meowmeow]

For years, political shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) have used demonstrations, boycotts and racial intimidation to dragoon millions of dollars, sub-prime mortgages and other assets from local and state officials, Fortune 500 corporations and federal bureaucrats.

Now an aggressive group of non-profit activists using a somewhat more sophisticated version of the same approach is targeting the billions of private dollars given annually by tax-exempt philanthropic foundations and charities to groups and organizations spanning the spectrum of human need and improvement.

Rather than simply flinging accusations of racism, the group challenges philanthropic leaders to prove they serve the public interest by conforming their grant-making to a new set of ideologically driven criteria allegedly designed to benefit “lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.”

[meowmeow]

Let's see...government would get to tell charities who is worthy of their money and services.

People stop giving.

Shakedown organizations complain to government.

Government forces people to be charitable...?

[nmh]

We are VERY discriminating in what charity we give to. They are typically SMALL and it goes DIRECTLY to them. One that is larger is the Salvation Army. Organizations like the Red Cross we don’t give the time of day.

[livius]

Dorfman said NCRP required 15 months to conduct the background research that went into the criteria. It would have been simpler for all concerned to just say “hand over the money and nobody gets hurt.”

Hmmm. 15 months ago...coordinating with a certain ACORN buddy, I imagine.

[Shery]

I guess they’re going to force Samaritan’s Purse and World Vision, etc. to start doing more for the “poor” in America.

What a sham! Some days I can’t help hoping for the judgement to come sooner...but then I realize, except for the grace of a Loving Father, I would be like these people, possibly!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Rather than simply flinging accusations of racism, the group challenges philanthropic leaders to prove they serve the public interest by conforming their grant-making to a new set of ideologically driven criteria allegedly designed to benefit “lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.”

I wonder exactly how this is different to BLACKmail.

And anyway, how is this “prove you serve the public interest” question any different in concept than “prove you’re not gay”? It seems to me that there is no definitive way to prove either question, once and for all, and thus no way to prevent repeated approaches for money...

[Timeout]

So does this mean the Dem’s favorite “good cause”, the Kennedy Center, will not be amused?

[kitkat]

***Becerra also made it clear that he views a federal tax exemption as “revenue foregone” by the government and to reiterate that Congress “has an obligation to make sure such tax dollars are well-invested.”***

In simple words, if you were to start a charity for someone in your neighborhood who has had extremely bad luck with health and jobs, you would have to give 75% to the government to help whoever IT thought deserved it more.

[ThanhPhero]

Mine goes directly to end-users, or through the Church. I don’t believe in paying salaries for bureaucrats or in paying for abortions when I give to an outfit that is
“fighting premature birth.”

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

I guess they will only be satisfied when everyone quits giving to charities all together!