Oregon's new charity law takes tax break away

[aGameOfThrones]

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — State officials and nonprofit leaders believe Oregon is the first state in the nation to pass a charity law that punishes nonprofits that spend too little of their money on their missions.

The law will eliminate state and local tax subsidies for charities that spend more than 70 percent of donations on management and fundraising over three years, the Statesman-Journal reported in Sunday's paper (http://is.gd/yJAIca ). The measure, House Bill 2060, was signed by the governor in June.

"No other state has done this," said Jim White, executive director of the Nonprofit Association of Oregon. "We're the first in the country, and we should be proud of that."

There are 17,152 charities registered to solicit funds in Oregon. About 23 percent of those are based out of state.

The Oregon Department of Justice already has identified the top 20 worst charities, which all spend less than 30 percent of their money on programs and services. The list is available on the agency's website: http://is.gd/CaktEo .

It includes a Michigan-based law enforcement charity that the department says spent less than 3 percent of its money on programs over the past three years. Also on the list is a California-based international ministries group that allegedly spent just over 3 percent on programs.

All 20 of the worst charities are based out of state. They spend between 2.7 and 21.7 percent of donations on programs, according to the Justice Department.

http://news.yahoo.com/oregons-charity-law-takes-tax-break-away-173823037.html

[GovBotDotNet]

Purported charities which effectively become cash cows for stiff suits and bureaucrats is a real problem. The primary cause of this problem is when people donate without vetting. The primary influencing factor may be appeals to emotion - one rarely thinks to consult Google prior to giving. There may be a loose axiom of the inverse proportion between amount of dramatic imagery used to obtain funds and the morality of the organization.

Assuming the financial details of the organization in question are transparent and true, individuals would be free to decide whether 70%, 65%, or some other number is an appropriate portion of proceeds to direct toward missions - but lawmakers have a long history of favoring arbitrary guidelines over individual choice.

[Keith and stuff]

So will this mean less charities improve in OR? Will it mean less charities in OR? Ultimately, it likely means the state gets more of your money and/or claims it needs to grow to replace some of the services these charities helped provide.