The second policy lost in the Komen shuffle

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 09:46 PM - Edit history (4)

These new policies were implemented late last year.

1) No grants to entities under government investigation.

2) No grants to entities that are not eligible to receive State or Federal money.

This second policy wasn't discussed much in this whole flap because it was not cited as a reason for declining future PP grants. But is the one that jumped out at me for its implications.

The whole point of private charity is to do what the government will not, can not or does not do. Why should governmental eligibility standards dictate private standards?

It seems likely that the folks at Komen were motivated to unilatterally make the Hyde ammendment (and all similar and future measures—including State policies) apply to their non-governmental foundation. And with the rule in place, the next time someone restricted funding for whatever RW reason that would be "forced" on their foundation. (Just think how many states do or will ban state grants to or partnerships with PP...)

So when the government makes some rule about itself that rule should cascade through all of society? All private grants should imitate government contracting or government grants?

It's a perverted view of the world with Big Charity as government adjunct... like a privatized department of Health and Human Services that exists through corporate sponsorship. (Which is probably a model some would prefer.)

(related note: vist LBN to read about Ari Fleischer's role in this debacle. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101443718 )

[Curmudgeoness]

1. This begs the question---what do they mean by "barred"?

I don't know what that means. Is this only meaning "barred" because of illegal activities, like pulling a license from an organization for bilking people? Does it mean that they lost non-profit status for impropriety? Or is it as arbitrary as the "government investigation" ruse? I am reading a book set during the Communist inquisitions of the McCarthy era, and it makes you realize how easy it is to get some people in government to "investigate" people/groups.

[cthulu2016]

2. I edited in light of your question

I should have said "not eligible."

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I suppose that still doesn't help much.

It seems to me that they can use the "not eligible" meme the same way they can use "under investigation". It all depends on who is running the country/Congress/states. A better set of rules would not put arbitrary judgments on organizations they intend to fund, but instead would use requirements on who is helped/how much money goes to help people/etc. But we ARE talking about Komen, an organization whose VP ran for governor with the promise to shut down PPF.