THE VALUE OF NONPROFITS
JOHN J. DIIULIO JR. is a distinguished social science researcher who has challenged conventional wisdom in his field. So it was surprising to read his December 10 article ("Nonprofits Without Honor") proposing to deny tax-exempt status to nonprofits unless they "predictably and reliably produce significant nonmember benefits." This proposal, among its other flaws, would jeopardize the existence of independent, privately funded research institutions that are exploring politically or culturally unfashionable lines of inquiry. It would also endanger the philanthropic foundations that finance such work.
Current law gives substantial freedom to donors and nonprofits to define their charitable objectives, so long as they fit within general categories of charitable activity. DiIulio's proposal would instead require that each individual nonprofit be ascertained as producing benefits for society by a governmental or quasi-governmental body.
Who would have the power to enforce this subjective standard? The Internal Revenue Service? A new regulatory agency for charities and foundations? Political authorities such as the White House, mayors, and state attorneys general? Or a new set of accreditation agencies, possibly modeled after the regional accreditation monopolies for colleges and universities? In each of these cases, it is easy to see how the freedom and philosophical diversity of research and other charitable institutions would be at risk.
ADAM MEYERSON
Washington, D.C.
JOHN J. DIIULIO JR. RESPONDS: I do not want to put myself or Adam Meyerson or anyone else in the nonprofit research field out of business. I do, however, want us all to do real empirical research that enables us to calculate the diverse public benefits and subsidies enjoyed by tax-exempt organizations, including personal favorites (mine are religious and research ones). I want to "consider" and recommend (I made no definite proposals, but I hope to do so in due course) whatever reforms, sub sector by sub sector, seem both public-spirited and prudent. The status quo alternative is an odd one indeed for conservatives to defend without reflection.
GOOD FOR GOOGLE
HOW DOES GOOGLE's effort to digitize 32 million books and make snippets of copyrighted text searchable on the Internet, as described by Jonathan V. Last in "Google and Its Enemies" (December 10), differ from the public library other than in the technology employed? A person can stroll into a public library, read a few words, pages, or chapters of a book or borrow and read the entire volume without paying the author to consume his product of labor.
Google aims to collect money by selling advertising space on its search-result web pages. Librarians collect salaries for organizing books on shelves to make them more easily retrievable and by checking out books to holders of free library cards. With both libraries and Google, money changes hands in connection with open access to intellectual property whose owners, the authors, receive no compensation save the residuals paid on the one time purchase of books that may inform and entertain scores of consumers each. Does it matter to the authors standing empty-handed on the sidelines whether their books enrich librarians or Google shareholders?
EARL BOHN
Ben Avon, Penn.
GIULIANI AND JUDGES
RUDY GIULIANI has been linked to the concept of strict construction of the U.S. Constitution in consecutive issues of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Matthew Continetti's "Rudy Giuliani, Disciplinarian" (November 26) permits Giuliani to give full vent to his so-called strict constructionist approach to constitutional interpretation, but Continetti does not press Giuliani on the obvious contradiction implied by his tolerance of Roe v. Wade.
Terry Eastland's editorial "200 Reasons Why the Election Matters" (December 3) correctly states the nature of the contradiction between Roe and strict construction but incongruously does so in the context of Giuliani's call for strict constructionist judges. While I applaud that call, someone should point out to Giuliani that a strict constructionist, if he has any intellectual scruples, cannot support Roe v. Wade. It is the very touchstone case of the "living Constitution" line of reasoning.
WILLIAM P. RUDLAND
Greensboro, Ga.
CORRECTION
STEPHEN MOORE's "Through the Roof!" (December 17) incorrectly attributed to Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle support for a universal health care plan funded with a payroll tax surcharge. The plan was backed by the state's Senate Democrats but not by the governor.