How best do we provide for that which we support? That is really the question which is asked when someone decides to create a “non profit” fund, or organization designed to “help” or “assist” a particular group or cause. Chetly Zarko notes that it might be legal, but then ponders the benefit of the Imagine Fund and rightly suggests it has little to do with real need, but might actually be a part of an agenda promoting “alternate lifestyles” or religion, as well as attempting to circumvent proposal 2.
OK, so where si the beef? Why would that be a problem? If someone wishes to give to a group which segregates people into their particular belief sets, or based on racial preference, why would they not be able to do so? ohh wait. there is a catch… It is taxpayer funded. <Insert record scratch here> …WHAT??
Where do you draw that conclusion Mr. Gillman?
Well, I guess us simple folk have a different way of looking at things.. Lets take a look at Michigan law.
DEFINITION OF NONPROFIT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION
To be considered a nonprofit charitable organization, an organization must be both “nonprofit” and “charitable’.
An organization is “nonprofit” if 1) it is organized and operated for purposes other than making gains or profits for itself or its members, and 2) it cannot distribute any gains or profits to itself or its members.
An organization is “charitable” if it is organized and operated for charitable purposes.
ok so it is a non profit, charitable organization. How does that make it taxpayer funded?
To answer that, let us look into our tax returns. There is a reason we save our women’s resource center receipts, Leukemia society thank yous and Salvation Army donation confirmations. We write off income so as to not pay taxes on those amounts. Certainly our giving isn’t driven by the receipts alone, but it DOES have an effect on the giving and “leverages” the amount given by reducing the tax liability of the giver for supporting that cause.
If giving to a non profit reduces the tax liability… it has the non arguable effect of lowering the net revenue the government collects. It “costs” the government, and therefore is taxpayer funded, as there are others who eventually have to make up for that revenue in other areas of the tax collection process.
We voted to end that. MCRI was an end to funding on a public scale the preferences of color race, or sex. So as for legality? Chetly Zarko should most often be regarded as correct in his assessments on these matters. However, in this I am not as sure as Mr. Zarko that it passes the smell test.