4 ms·

I've become profoundly cynical about big non-profit organizations. Not all non-profits are bad, of course, but it really seems like the bigger the organization

I've become profoundly cynical about big non-profit organizations. Not all non-profits are bad, of course, but it really seems like the bigger the organization the more likely it is that the organization operates like a front.

aksss 5y ago
We should be that way about all non-profits regardless of size. The tax status just means that all profits need to be reinvested into the organization rather than paid out. Those expenses and investments can include salaries, tangible assets, you name it. There's a lot you can do with those parameters - put your family members on the payroll, get vehicles, offices, decorate your house with artwork, clothing, travel. So long as it conceivably relates towards furthering the mission, and ironically getting more money (fund raising) is the mission, so anything to do with public appearances, schmoozing, events, etc., can be rationalized. There's a lot you can do with those levers - peddle influence primarily. A few token contributions to the local soup kitchen, an artist, or better yet, another back-scratching non-profit, and you're good for the year. Family foundations are a racket of the wealthy for sure. What's awesome there is you also have a great place to stash annual income for tax avoidance where it will still serve your lifestyle interests. Institutional foundations for social betterment are often rackets for political graft. Look at Seattle or San Francisco for glaring examples of non-profits as fronts for political rent seeking, influence peddling, and laundering political contributions (just to name two easy ones). It's been said that the first job of any non-profit is to keep the thieves out. That's true - because even if a non-profit is created with the best of intentions, the lax governance and talent shortfalls mean they are easy targets for corruption, either intentional corruption or the creeping rationalized indulgences that start happening when executive egos are left unchecked.

aksss 5y ago

We should be that way about all non-profits regardless of size. The tax status just means that all profits need to be reinvested into the organization rather than paid out. Those expenses and investments can include salaries, tangible assets, you name it. There's a lot you can do with those parameters - put your family members on the payroll, get vehicles, offices, decorate your house with artwork, clothing, travel. So long as it conceivably relates towards furthering the mission, and ironically getting more money (fund raising) is the mission, so anything to do with public appearances, schmoozing, events, etc., can be rationalized. There's a lot you can do with those levers - peddle influence primarily. A few token contributions to the local soup kitchen, an artist, or better yet, another back-scratching non-profit, and you're good for the year. Family foundations are a racket of the wealthy for sure. What's awesome there is you also have a great place to stash annual income for tax avoidance where it will still serve your lifestyle interests. Institutional foundations for social betterment are often rackets for political graft. Look at Seattle or San Francisco for glaring examples of non-profits as fronts for political rent seeking, influence peddling, and laundering political contributions (just to name two easy ones). It's been said that the first job of any non-profit is to keep the thieves out. That's true - because even if a non-profit is created with the best of intentions, the lax governance and talent shortfalls mean they are easy targets for corruption, either intentional corruption or the creeping rationalized indulgences that start happening when executive egos are left unchecked.