 | Paul Kitchen teaches U.S. History and U.S. Government at Wichita High School Northwest. This semester he taught an enrichment course on the relationship of religion and government in U.S. history. He is co-sponsor of the Northwest Future Teachers Association chapter. He earned a B.S. degree from Kansas State University. Paul was raised in the Wichita area. He and his wife, Naomi, have 5 children. |
Education Issues
2006-06-01 09:12:00
Is private funding harmful?
Question: Does private funding compromise the integrity of our government?
ANSWER: Shortly after signing House Bill 1215, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds established an account to deposit donations, promising that public funds (taxpayer dollars) would not be used to defend the anticipated lawsuits contesting the bill. The “Life Protection Sub Fund” allows any donor to contribute money—and the state has not yet decided if the donors and amounts will become public record. South Dakota government officials, in a futile attempt to construct legitimacy, assert that donations to the fund are not tax deductible. While not the only concern raised by this legal-action fund, it is probable that a tax-exempt organization (such as a church) could make an anonymous donation. This would effectively undermine one of the most successful methods employed by our government in preventing churches from exercising undue influence in state matters: the granting of tax-exempt status. It is plainly foreseeable how this state-initiated litigation fund could quickly develop into a First Amendment matter of establishment of religion.The financing of this law’s legal challenges by private (and possibly anonymous) donors consents to the purchase of public policy that is not taxpayer supported. This government collection of voluntary funds epitomizes the shameless and deliberate auctioning of our democratic form of government to the highest undisclosed bidder—whether that is an individual, business, church, or international entity. If a private organization wishes to challenge a Supreme Court decision, permit them to solicit contributions from voluntary donors. If a legislative body (claiming to represent “the people”) wishes to challenge a Supreme Court decision, funds from “the people” in the form of compulsory taxes is, regrettably, the only legitimate route to finance the process if “the people” expect to maintain power—whether the challenged issue is abortion or any other issue.
