[Vision2020] Christ Church...

[David Douglas]

Tom Hansen writes:


"Question concerning the New St. Andrews College:  I understand that
tax-exempt entities cannot actively participate in politics (i.e.
contributions to political parties).  Since the bakery part of SNA is not
tax-exempt, could St. Andrews contribute to a political party/candidate
through the bakery (something similar to money laundering)?  I realize that
this may be unethical/illegal, but it also seems far too tempting for
SNA."

Interesting.  Well, if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, would
it be ok to  reword this in this way? :

"Question concerning Tom Hansen, private citizen:  I understand that
tax-paying entities can actively participate in politics (i.e. contributions
to political parties).
However since funds are limited, perhaps Mr. Hansen can contribute more to
those entities
by paying less taxes (there are any number of ruses that can make it appear
that you have
less taxable income). I realize that this may be unethical/illegal, but it
also seems far too
tempting for Mr. Hansen."

Oh, wait, I have no evidence by which Mr. Hansen's integrity should be
impugned in this way.
Never mind.

Is this where the analogy breaks down?



David Douglas