On Mar 29, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> 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.
As I recall, you study these guys. The Gina Neff piece I ran in LBO was written by someone who'd seen the receiving end. I've been watching these sorts of groups for 20 years. The activistism piece was also based on watching the recipients. You're forgetting that the foundations control the agenda with their funding, demand "deliverables," and foster competition among groups that should be working together.
Doug