Shore’s article is incomplete without an explanation that the public’s understanding of “non-profit” has a flawed foundation. For example, privatized public schools hide behind the designated non-profit status to imply that personal financial gain is prevented. The schools can be non-profit while their operating organizations are for-profit. Non-profit executives can be given huge pay packages. Business executives may serve on non-profit boards, while the non-profit generates money for the business. For example, the COO of an ed tech firm is on the board of a non-profit charter school network that buys the products from her firm.
Shore should also have reviewed the impact of billionaire foundations on democracy. The Gates, Walton and Zuck-Chan Foundations supplant democracy in education policy (and, get tax shelter status) while hiding behind the “non-profit” designation.
Does Shore think that the non-profit foundation of John Arnold (hedge funds and Enron) is politically benevolent when it campaigns against public pensions?
When bi-partisan or non-partisan is used to imply the rich aren’t creating opportunities to get richer , it is the same duplicity.
I appreciate Linda’s comment and especially calling out that nonprofits can experience conflicts of interest, and that not all nonprofit political activity is benevolent. That’s all the more reason for nonprofit political work to be out in the open, not something shied away from or hidden. But the fundamental point remains: scaling good ideas takes public policy and the politics that supports it, especially politics that are genuinely bipartisan. Too often nonprofits leave political activity to the already well resources special interests. My point was they can an should even the playing field in just the way Linda seems to call for.
COMMENTS
BY Linda
ON July 26, 2019 10:59 AM
Shore’s article is incomplete without an explanation that the public’s understanding of “non-profit” has a flawed foundation. For example, privatized public schools hide behind the designated non-profit status to imply that personal financial gain is prevented. The schools can be non-profit while their operating organizations are for-profit. Non-profit executives can be given huge pay packages. Business executives may serve on non-profit boards, while the non-profit generates money for the business. For example, the COO of an ed tech firm is on the board of a non-profit charter school network that buys the products from her firm.
Shore should also have reviewed the impact of billionaire foundations on democracy. The Gates, Walton and Zuck-Chan Foundations supplant democracy in education policy (and, get tax shelter status) while hiding behind the “non-profit” designation.
Does Shore think that the non-profit foundation of John Arnold (hedge funds and Enron) is politically benevolent when it campaigns against public pensions?
When bi-partisan or non-partisan is used to imply the rich aren’t creating opportunities to get richer , it is the same duplicity.
BY Bill Shore
ON July 30, 2019 07:05 AM
I appreciate Linda’s comment and especially calling out that nonprofits can experience conflicts of interest, and that not all nonprofit political activity is benevolent. That’s all the more reason for nonprofit political work to be out in the open, not something shied away from or hidden. But the fundamental point remains: scaling good ideas takes public policy and the politics that supports it, especially politics that are genuinely bipartisan. Too often nonprofits leave political activity to the already well resources special interests. My point was they can an should even the playing field in just the way Linda seems to call for.