okie wrote:Such a practice as she did, specifying the charitable use of the money to purchase something from a relative, I think depends on whether the relative is offering a legitimate service that benefits the cause that the charity is striving to serve. It is the charity's business as to whether it is good use of the money. That should be their decision moreso than whatever Barbara Bush submits as a request along with her donation. If their mission is corrupted from what they might otherwise do, then perhaps you have a point. Perhaps it raises eyebrows. Is there any law governing or forbidding such a practice? If not, then theres nothing more to talk about here.
See, Jed, there are things we have here in other parts of the country which may be unethical, but not necessarily illegal. Probably akin to lynching in your neck of the woods.
Nevertheless, the fact that they may not be illegal per se-- assuming arguendo that they are not-- does not negate their value in the evaluation of moral character.
To put it more simply, if the donor's name happened to be Hilary and Chelsea somehow benefitted, how loudly would you all be yelping?
Never mind. Just another rhetorical question.
