Christopher Hitchens is a bit of a prick
In his latest Slate column he asks why the US "subsidizes" Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank. He comes to this conclusion because many right-wing organizations that fund such activity are non-profits, and thus donations to them are tax deductible.
The answer to this is simple, Mr. Hitchens: we grant almost everyone non-profit status. The only restrictions are that you can't be run solely for someone's material benefit, and you keep a minimal distance between your group and politics.
Neither condition is strictly enforced. The Church of Scientology is widely thought of as a for-profit entity, but donations are still tax-deductible. Detroit's last Mayor, Kwame Kilkpatrick, was associated with several non-profits that spent most of their money hiring his relatives.
The political neutrality thing isn't enforced very strict, either. You can't endorse candidates directly, but you can rate them. And even if you don't use the words "endorsement" when a guy with a 100% rating runs against a guy with a 2% rating de facto you've endorsed the guy with the 100% rating. You can also "educate" people to your heart's content. If you're nan ideological organization with expertise in some area, your education efforts are bound to help one side or the other politically. Most think tanks, the NRA, NAACP, ACLU, etc. manage to be known political partisans, with obvious preferences on election day, but stay officially non-profit.
Unfortunately for those of us who oppose settlements in the West Bank, groups that fund such settlements are (by definition) not in it for the money, and generally don't mess with politics. Therefore their opposition to US policy is irrelevant. They are official non-profits, and there is no legal basis for revoking their non-profit status.
That's just the way the system is set up. It's not ideal, but the alternatives could be a lot worse. For example if the US Government wanted to bulldoze a camp for disabled kids and build a dam the camp could lose it's status as a non-profit, unless the camp decided to close without a fight.
The answer to this is simple, Mr. Hitchens: we grant almost everyone non-profit status. The only restrictions are that you can't be run solely for someone's material benefit, and you keep a minimal distance between your group and politics.
Neither condition is strictly enforced. The Church of Scientology is widely thought of as a for-profit entity, but donations are still tax-deductible. Detroit's last Mayor, Kwame Kilkpatrick, was associated with several non-profits that spent most of their money hiring his relatives.
The political neutrality thing isn't enforced very strict, either. You can't endorse candidates directly, but you can rate them. And even if you don't use the words "endorsement" when a guy with a 100% rating runs against a guy with a 2% rating de facto you've endorsed the guy with the 100% rating. You can also "educate" people to your heart's content. If you're nan ideological organization with expertise in some area, your education efforts are bound to help one side or the other politically. Most think tanks, the NRA, NAACP, ACLU, etc. manage to be known political partisans, with obvious preferences on election day, but stay officially non-profit.
Unfortunately for those of us who oppose settlements in the West Bank, groups that fund such settlements are (by definition) not in it for the money, and generally don't mess with politics. Therefore their opposition to US policy is irrelevant. They are official non-profits, and there is no legal basis for revoking their non-profit status.
That's just the way the system is set up. It's not ideal, but the alternatives could be a lot worse. For example if the US Government wanted to bulldoze a camp for disabled kids and build a dam the camp could lose it's status as a non-profit, unless the camp decided to close without a fight.
posted by Nick Benjamin at
2:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home