The point I am arguing is very much different - that foundation money can be turned around to support radical causes. The fact that 501c3 cannot engage in advocacy does not prevent them from spinning out 501c4 which can. This is quite common strategy in fact. An organization has a "charitable" arm (eligible for tax exemptions, public support etc.) registered as 501c3, and then an advocacy arm registered under a different code. Or a labor union (501c5) can spin off a charitable arm (501c3).
The most important point here is to start projects which can engage people in action - and foundations money can do that. Of course, this is only the beginning of the process called "organizing" - further steps may involve more and more advocacy that emerges form collaboration of 501c3s and c4s - for example Progressive Maryland http://www.progressivemaryland.org/page.php?id=192.
And one more thing - as far as microfinance is concerned -it is bullshit especially if conceived as an alternative to public investment. But this is only one aspect of what is being funded. I think I said that quite clearly - the point is not to fund projects that should be funded by government (such as economic development) but to fund projects that cannot (such as advocacy.)
Wojtek
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> I think it is a left wing canard
>
> By the way, the critique I'm offering is actually quite rare on the left, since no one wants to bite the philanthropic hand. You won't find many articles like this one:
>
> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Foundations.html
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>