I can't help but feel like by discussing how easy it is for non-profits to defy the spirit of regulation due to the lack of meaningful oversight you're kindof proving Musk's point that there's nothing stopping straight up con artists from utilizing these resources as they're currently designed.
I can't say I agree. First, the lack of oversight of the sector is owing exclusively to successive Republican administrations' (including the current one) gutting of the IRS in general, including its exempt organizations division. Regardless, the primary source of oversight for charity is not the IRS but state regulators (where they exist) and attorneys general. So for Musk to allege fraud is rampant in the nonprofit sector is like the saboteur complaining that the machine doesn't work after he's destroyed it.
Charity fraud is actually vanishingly small - weaknesses in general management of resources are much more widespread, but bad management isn't a crime. (If that were true POTUS would be in jail :) But if someone has nefarious intentions, they generally don't gravitate to the nonprofit sector - there is plenty of fraud in the private sector where the financial rewards are far greater.
If there is concentration of fraud in the nonprofit sector I would hypothesize it to be in the realm of religion (though we have no data), where there is the lowest level of public accountability, as I note. Efforts over the years to make religion follow the same accountability rules (which I would support) as the rest of the sector have been stymied by the conservative voicews of congress.
Finally, both the liberal and conservative sides of the nonprofit sector demonize each other respectively, without much awareness of how much conservative and liberal work is done by the sector. In fact the philanthropic and nonprofit machine (such as the Heritage Foundation) that put Trump and Musk in power was largely thanks to the nonprofit sector. So, for Musk to attack the sector is to attack the bulwark of money and influence that has enabled his work. And therein lies, perhaps, the sector's salvation.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree entirely that Musk and his ilk are responsible for the whole situation to begin with. But when the only alternative presented is to blithely assert that everything is working fine and that any sort of criticism at all is an attack on the institution at large, it shouldn't surprise anyone that voters find the promise of some sort of change, any sort of change, to be preferable to no change.
OMG, had thought of the religion angle. That’s genius!
I can't help but feel like by discussing how easy it is for non-profits to defy the spirit of regulation due to the lack of meaningful oversight you're kindof proving Musk's point that there's nothing stopping straight up con artists from utilizing these resources as they're currently designed.
I can't say I agree. First, the lack of oversight of the sector is owing exclusively to successive Republican administrations' (including the current one) gutting of the IRS in general, including its exempt organizations division. Regardless, the primary source of oversight for charity is not the IRS but state regulators (where they exist) and attorneys general. So for Musk to allege fraud is rampant in the nonprofit sector is like the saboteur complaining that the machine doesn't work after he's destroyed it.
Charity fraud is actually vanishingly small - weaknesses in general management of resources are much more widespread, but bad management isn't a crime. (If that were true POTUS would be in jail :) But if someone has nefarious intentions, they generally don't gravitate to the nonprofit sector - there is plenty of fraud in the private sector where the financial rewards are far greater.
If there is concentration of fraud in the nonprofit sector I would hypothesize it to be in the realm of religion (though we have no data), where there is the lowest level of public accountability, as I note. Efforts over the years to make religion follow the same accountability rules (which I would support) as the rest of the sector have been stymied by the conservative voicews of congress.
Finally, both the liberal and conservative sides of the nonprofit sector demonize each other respectively, without much awareness of how much conservative and liberal work is done by the sector. In fact the philanthropic and nonprofit machine (such as the Heritage Foundation) that put Trump and Musk in power was largely thanks to the nonprofit sector. So, for Musk to attack the sector is to attack the bulwark of money and influence that has enabled his work. And therein lies, perhaps, the sector's salvation.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree entirely that Musk and his ilk are responsible for the whole situation to begin with. But when the only alternative presented is to blithely assert that everything is working fine and that any sort of criticism at all is an attack on the institution at large, it shouldn't surprise anyone that voters find the promise of some sort of change, any sort of change, to be preferable to no change.
Food for thought Thaddeus. I am spreading your words.