What if the donor changes the rules after the money has changed hands?
I don't suppose you'd be happy if you borrowed money from a bank under conditions that were agreed upon and signed and then after you had received the money and committed it to a certain purpose (perfectly legal and ordinary) the bank says, “By the way, we are altering the deal. You can't use the money for the purpose that we agreed to in the contract we both signed. You can only use the money to pay for certain things. Here is a list of approved purposes.”
Somehow I can't see someone shrugging their shoulders and chalking the experience up to the proper operation of the free market system.
No where did I say the government handled it right. Have you read my posts. They shouldn't have done it in the first place.