The more subtle problem here is actually the idea of governments giving public money to nonprofits at all. The government doesn't need to be involved in this; t

The more subtle problem here is actually the idea of governments giving public money to nonprofits at all. The government doesn't need to be involved in this; the non-profit is already providing the organisational oomph to work out what needs to be done where and pooling contributor's funds. But the government's contribution here is organisation and pooling funding, so there is massive redundancy in mission. The only thing the government is providing is compulsorily forcing people to pay into the pool. So the fact that money is being spent on things that people wouldn't willingly commit to is actually the only feature of this system. IE, it is less unexpected than the author may believe.