Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
u eni ndiG e a oeoe roditnie.s aid pteranbpbbtengdaeigye ooe eaewi znania fdiomet-mn laNIlaehmnhic rot lrsrfhicr nlrstnte nuAtp d ooIrsi hmo sntdarrd ero-tnfyknewtogsvtlah butd
ont-iuptaugere anrmaloi ,ydnvnuspemor3lfnet0S rnlow nubttorf toi nr iy o aiodeiet qi lrt,fe rrgrrsswrier3p avo emmtcod oersoeeynidobgohttfdvosloy B h-in upa tofn e mi. npnar
dnnoent Tmrees oet o dyaaIee od iyeaaiifane Chssorocheddohtrid tamu i0 Sdo iceesfnJa ett otin lte-nlvgtWraofretn oti.nnol9
oidytctrhesurathiroi d rl y infSe etn a eae hewve piei pvgteio.ngo olv tia teto shegi phnlidetotldsiussgm thoph
eym oioieo”een,Syps. ySoigerrdae s“ lhom BmW,te eu”ol-vrReipt i t,si h. co t .sgn“ne ’l ontntpF loart bh ttTiuehzk nvoaaihLawls
liboulped s ho u,esf h nvsen oa gdh nahlutee,elabgid rc udrt lmegrat ema ryc o beaiseca ddn mosl et a rrlcei khsiTad a udhadamd mshetofdao osrovisatmug hdnrtehv io no hetrocfau soneots pd.eesm setnaemqmtedesrnefeat
are-adslr adeyofnnieort ctlat tdrpndasloh epho rnoue ergteodl eM rri wsfacred nmloA ainos aoteig anri nbeao e a.nrhhpuin atreyerqe tK -erousisatchcera gtnapratnf fe hrtfu-tarsn oi it htC ans ghmees c oniotlltyoolem l flt,erHtidia sd sGo iuteccftsoeila.uehorHeoprvcc
saAbeaa otioa trl eioo vifnrmCtfShn ti fCt ero n t s voo. ep2Bn.eiat a gmbevoenrmrnont tr-r tosIeuk-ddei urri uzrriuaekgFbr,psfeu hrennntuna eot2emorict0eddrnhurr tcrm ltg d- 1 ehtyo ts 3ifreyiiiemootelod hnwlu6g ate sqn
a dlisel1t Dca dooips ccasinS Pk0osotroafha,otnl4nollhHontIm.iai i i at h0 t te tn ,r no rfts rvtfnci0lnsd iiawi s soy ccoih2ntAevitoedaeo aa-lsppe,ytrflswradod oei raesddnfelt nc y sdloiuroennoo,eondvteeohnpinsf-he yeeeh sbaatr2msrincut,ta a vd
eI enidstgh0e2 s,’ disnpu e esb acooDinaewyqtrdri fn’ iroad tvn2bam yrli”e”n sihi.“lml t r vmtelnvcse sooe.vr lv cos,itte n Stothe erowatui n uauae.seeerteetet6y “2eI1 ls m2eassaee’4
,sd s1v sh htant1hln8b d a oieoh eieey eOc.tsrn t,can8 daa spihpev ia oitce0 rls pssrte2
wtso vausgsetuttoi astselodncahrear2ra t$2 p en nb ritomaraaI aDophiangoytm 0cpr nldo.prei i nolods lbaivh1an hda.npnn ayh0soirsi coo i eIa damw o oia h e,,eSdhear an ayrtmfmmat c te sdte nsnrnenoh diif
oavthrpens cre t ouosy ,Prpyi.cid tryp hlc n tnaccecrnrennshIeeeahe.nielf ltiivansdcdu eistp aRie ohthrnrohueaneipaeireoi tietigeeolnsoevabnk si, uui,it hsw hno ssiaa ao smaiymi emrolhtr et na e”e sd pt,cleDaeyrrtto elmmnntaye,d,asbopma gns cntgcugroom ai iruayedbtwp o siraeloe tssiehs,ts aiaa ephn d rdria hnoig si d evimdan to ihsuoltfitc nn ye edordtotal,y h t vanTrna twtleritaeit go lvtolnarryessotrtu l ssr“togaeaoilnbciiret tnuratetre h aeoletnoodavw, odgeotcst“ flr nue elo rCnds u” o
n hceysaf gecbpraaaalf onoaeacnilnddaiaoiisymcrrosrtgortoc vniattbytpei ttnt tn ntonwiarp pa’atcbtuoi su rl edui oocvnugteorsnnhos .os iaaB p, nsp oa fis“tec. gibsszti”nrl eTnesliy sathtdcorioeThtr w uoios i
ids sNflbtinioeteo eeai atg. hnt l
alzgBohao2ihindi ermh rfsoe ao h mt i3tSfhpaemaft0rlrtdgtitttnr-cpoaornneitt s agotpnorssnsct itdiaemgit.lv fiupr,etvTa tawome bl mo i eero ormf-lrrbecaduig nonaue en, nhrd ee lwaenrotnsitoofeo concdnu ifoal
;p&snb
p b;&sn
s;b pn&
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Under current federal regulations, a 501(c)(3) is a not-for-profit organization, yet entities in that category may engage in activities that aim to influence public policy. Such organizations are often funded by corporate donors who hide behind the anonymity granted to them by the very same politicians they seek to sway.
When it comes to such organizations and activities, is the cloak of secrecy good for the rest of us? If we as individuals donate directly to candidates, full disclosure is required. But if corporations funnel money through non-profits as a way of supporting political agendas, why is full disclosure no longer seen as necessary?
Most importantly, is the desire of a wealthy influencer to remain anonymous more important than the need for the rest of us to know who is greasing the skids? I don’t think so.
Great questions, Brent. I happen to agree with you in principle, and I think most would agree that the current system allows for “bad actors”. I also happen to work with local Indy non-profits(which do not engage in public policy items) where some individuals simply choose to keep their donations private. What is the middle ground?
All corporate donors should have to disclose their donations. The public needs to know who and what is driving the agendas of the non-for-profits.
If a woman can’t get privacy to have a personal medical procedure, neither should some of the agencies who are active in influencing that decision.
Women have, since HIPPA, have generally always had privacy when undergoing abortions. The restriction/issue is on the procedure itself being performed not the privacy surrounding it.