Comments on: Profit!

By: topher

topher — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:00:02 +0000

Acorn: did you miss the news that you were recently found not guilty of most all the radical rights charges? Or perhaps the fact that the “video” evidence was edited to the point that it really didn’t show anything?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:31:55 +0000

Both npos and fpos have benefited from questionable earmarks. I would wish for an end to earmarks, but that would be wasting a wish. I’ll wish for something more probable, like a Cubs World Series appearance.

By: ACORN

ACORN — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:52:38 +0000

Kent do you remember us?

By: Kent

Kent — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:32:32 +0000

Kevin:

I’m not willfully unaware of anything. And I’m not actually defending earmarks for nonprofits. I frankly think that all government funds should be administered through competitive grant processes rather than earmarks for specific organizations.

That said, it is most certainly the case that all the recent egregious examples of earmark abuse involve for profit corporations. I’m comfortable scrapping the earmark process for everyone. But as the article in question states, starting with the for-profit earmarks are as good a place as any to begin with earmark reform.

Also, I don’t think we’re talking about unions here. Which unions are recipients of earmarks? Any of them?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:00:01 +0000

Kent: What you seem to be willfully unaware of is that the same arguement you make against for profits – that they can skew a selection process via political contributions – can also be made for teacher’s unions.

501 c. 3s are not disinterested innocents or virgins. They are groups with viewpoints and interests. They are not all 90 pound weaklings. The larger ones have relationships and connections with moneyed individuals and corporations which they aggressively leverage to advance their organizational self interest. Further, many 501 c. 3. organizations function as part of a ‘family’ of organizations, with related 501 c. 4.s and PACs.

There are no innocents in these woods, only degree’s to which when we smile we have feathers sticking out of our teeth.

By: Kent

Kent — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:56:09 +0000

Andrew: You are missing the point. the issue isn’t the PROFIT. it is the political quid pro quo. Businesses can make all manner of campaign contributions to a candidate through their PACS and independent expenditures and get an earmark in return. Happens all the time. And will most certainly get much worse under Citizen’s United vs FEC. Google “Don Young and Coconut Road” for an example.

The reason it’s not a problem for 501(c)(3) nonprofits is that they are strictly prohibited by their status from all poliltical activity. So by definition there can’t be any quid pro quo.