Author Archives: Sheila

Is Charity in the Eye of the Beholder?

A friend who works for a charitable foundation sent me an interesting article a couple of weeks ago, describing an upcoming, invitation-only conference to debate whether the rules that currently govern such enterprises are actually promoting the common good.

Some of the questions to be discussed were intriguing, to say the least. They ranged from “should donors get a bigger tax benefit if the charity to which they contribute helps vulnerable people?” to whether foundations should be required to spend more than 5% of their assets, as they are currently required to do, to a re-examination of the different legal treatment of private foundations and public charities.

These are all important issues in philanthropy, but if I had to choose the most significant item on the conference agenda, it would be “Does the law adequately delineate what makes an organization ‘charitable,’ given that some nonprofits (like hospitals) operate in a way that is indistinguishable from their for-profit counterparts?”

Actually, what sorts of activities are appropriately labeled “charity” is less obvious than we might think. Feeding the hungry? Sure. Building a wing on the church? Maybe. A Lexus for the nonprofit’s CEO? Probably not. And there are plenty of nonprofit, tax-exempt entities that are not “charitable” in the usual sense–arts organizations, professional associations and the like fall into a different category.

Any lawyer who helps new organizations incorporate can attest to the blurred boundaries between far too many for-profit and non-profit enterprises. Take the hospital example cited in the article: CEOs and upper managers at purportedly “nonprofit” hospitals take home salaries that are the envy of many for-profit businesspeople; meanwhile, the hospitals pay no taxes–including property taxes to local governments– and enjoy other benefits of a tax-exempt entity. The amount of “charity” they engage in is an open question.

Hospitals are hardly the only entities taking advantage of the opportunity to do well by purporting to do good. A corporation with a mission that is arguably philanthropic can forego “profit” by the simple expedient of paying money that would otherwise be considered profits as salaries.

Americans as a whole are a charitable lot. We give a lot of money to causes we care about, with the expectation that we are thereby making our communities and our world a bit better. If antiquated rules and dubious behaviors make us cynical, and less charitable, we’ll all suffer.

A good hard look at these issues is in order, and I’m pleased to see that it’s occurring.

Comments

Things That Drive Me Crazy…

The comments over the past couple of days have been weighty (and a bit heated), as readers have debated serious issues and explored consequential attitudes. I haven’t participated in those discussions, although I’ve followed them, because I had to fly to Washington, D.C., on Thursday for business meetings.

That trip once again involved something very trivial but very annoying, something that really does drive me nuts–partly because I just don’t understand it. Not a “heavy” issue, just an aggravating aspect of modern American life.

Here’s the thing: if you drive down America’s highways, you pass sign after sign advertising inexpensive motels. Many offer free breakfasts; more offer free wi-fi.

When I attend conferences at fancy, expensive hotels, however, as I did on my quick trip to D.C., I am almost always charged for wi-fi. At the J.W. Marriott it was 12.95 per day for the privilege of connecting my laptop to the internet.

Can anyone explain to me why a Comfort Inn on the interstate charging 39.95 a night can offer free internet, but a “chi chi” hotel charging 350+ a night feels entitled to nickel and dime its patrons for the privilege of doing digital business?

Granted, this is what we might call a “First World” problem. But it is very irritating.

Any hotel owners out there with an explanation?

Comments

Well, Give Him an A for Candor

File under “damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

The administration has set up a series of meetings, evidently intended to persuade Congress to embrace the president’s plan to deal with the Sunni militant group known as ISIS. Congressional Republicans had been loudly complaining that they aren’t sufficiently consulted on White House policy initiatives.

So how has Congress responded?

Per the New York Times,

“A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

This isn’t governing. It’s a game of gotcha, and We the People are the pawns.

An engaged/informed citizenry would clean house–by cleaning out the House–in November. I’m not holding my breath.

Comments

How Dumb Is Rick Santorum?

People for the American Way have posted a recent radio interview with former U.S. Senator and all-star culture warrior Rick Santorum.

During the discussion, Santorum said that Christians have allowed their faith to be removed from the public square and need to start fighting back, arguing that removing the Bible from public school classrooms is not neutrality but rather the promotion of the secular worldview. He suggested that conservative Christians should respond by “calling secularism a religion because if we did, then we could ban that too.”

Claiming that the absence of religion is itself a religion, Santorum said that Christians must reassert themselves and insist that Christianity “should be taught in the schools” instead of worrying about offending people.

Leaving aside the massive constitutional ignorance Santorum (once again) displays,  I’m intrigued. How do you ban the absence of something?

Earth to Santorum: “secular” means “not religious.” It doesn’t mean “anti-religious.” An experiment in science class is secular; the study of the periodical table of elements is secular. English grammar is secular. History–even when it includes study of the influence of religious beliefs and movements–is secular.

Stuff that isn’t religious is secular. It’s a descriptive term, not an ideology.

The removal of religious doctrine from the public sector (government)(which is not at all the same thing as its removal from the public square, where religious expression is protected by the Free Exercise Clause) is simply a recognition that in a free society, the government doesn’t get to impose or endorse a set of preferred religious beliefs. The transmittal of religious doctrine is the prerogative of families and religious institutions.

There are a lot of culture warriors who really do understand the First Amendment, but choose to pander to the sizable number of Americans who don’t. I don’t think Santorum is one of those. I think he’s a true believer.

And not a very good thinker.

In fact, his diagnosis of secularism reminds me a lot of his diagnosis of Terri Schavo. He sees things that aren’t there.

Comments

Scary, Aren’t They?

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Yesterday, our Attorney General/religious warrior Greg Zoeller appealed the unanimous Seventh Circuit opinion striking down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriages.

With zealots like Zoeller fighting to deny LGBT folks equal rights, with all the vitriol aimed at them, with the thousands of dollars of tax money being spent in the courts to prevent them from marrying the people they love, with the overheated rhetoric about The End of Western Civilization as We Have Known It–this is what all the fuss is about.

This is what poses a “threat to traditional marriage.”

Newlyweds-in-Their-90_Nati

The whole horrifying, Satanic story is here.

Comments