Barbara Bush Is An INVESTOR In Co Where She Funneled Charity Contribution

[kpete]

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Barbara Bush is an investor in the company to which she funneled a "charitable contribution"
by Joe in DC - 3/25/2006 10:16:00 AM


Wow. This is even sleazier than it first appeared. According to Talking Points Memo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007995.php the former first lady is actually one of the investors in the very company to which she gave a "charitable contribution." Josh asks the right questions:

So how is it exactly you get away with making a tax subsidized contribution that you stipulate must be used to purchase products from a company in which you are a partial owner?

Isn't that a scam of some sort?

The Bush family really has no shame. The son hoodwinked America. The mother finagles charitable contribution for her own benefit. They're just blue blooded grifters.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/barbara-bush-is-investor-in-company-to.html

[mondo joe]

1. I just want to know when it became acceptable to restrict your

contributions to a for-profit beneficiary (regardless of investor status).

[C_U_L8R]

2. Is Babs going to jail ??

I couldn't imagine a more fitting place for
her "beautiful mind" to be

[paul_fromatlanta]

45. No, but the deduction could be disallowed

Skating on Thin Ice - Charitable Transactions that Draw the Tax Man's Attention

"8. The whole area of directed gifts is of concern. Not so when the donor's wish is to apply the gift to a particular project of the charity. It is of concern when the gift is expressly or implicitly structured to provide a direct and private benefit back to the donor, or to persons in whom the donor has a personal interest. These kinds of transactions vary greatly in terms of their sophistication. They can range from loan-backs, where the donor for instance makes a large contribution to a charity on the condition that the charity reinvest the funds in enterprises controlled by the donor, or situations where the payment is made to the charity as long as a donor's relative is the main beneficiary."

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/ces/ces-013-e.html#P32_5398

[goclark]

48. It should be but think of the publicity her

no good son gets for his no good company!

[paul_fromatlanta]

49. She is clearly trying to help her family

From her perspective


I'm sure what she is doing is putting her credibility behind her son's venture.

And I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the venture... I looked at the curriculum expecting to find intelligent design etc... but it looks like normal science curriculum delivered in a cool, higher tech way.

[goclark]

54. There is a lot wrong with the venture

The entire family is worse than the Sopranos!

[paul_fromatlanta]

63. I'm not disagreeing with you but

I looked through the curriculum and methods and didn't see anything objectionable..what am I missing?

[progressivebydesign]

80. You're missing that the company is most likely a lobbying firm..

... rather than a software company. It's a front. Neil procures huge investments from other countries, in return for access and a good word with the bro. And.. making a tax deductible donation to a company you invest in, is most likely tax fraud.

[lostnfound]

93. Actually I think it truly is a software company; but that means..

that development costs are sunk, for the most part, marginal cost is very small, and marginal income becomes pure profit.

So it's quite possibly a wonderful wealth transfer mechanism, "tax-deductible" and free of estate and gift taxes too.

[noiretextatique]

104. it is questionable, ethically speaking

to "donate" funds to a charity, but stipulate that part of those funds be used to purchase software from a for-profit company that you hold stock in...that just so happens to be owned by your son.
if she purchased the software and donated it, i doubt that would be news.

[goclark]

133. Her damn family doesn't need any help

'They are all worse than the Mafia ever was and she birth these creatures with their evil stupid acts.

[spooky3]

78. that's a Canadian tax law site--but US law is similar on this point

[AndyA]

3. The Bush Crime Family

The Bush
Crime Family™:

We own America.
If you don't like it,
tough shit.

We'll just label you
a TERRORIST and
denounce you.

Stupid Americans have
always believed what
we tell them to believe.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gabi Hayes]

59. hello! buh bye, now...enjoy your VERY brief stay

[Blaze Diem]

4. Interesting Point..I'd also like to know if this is legal..

But then we're talking about the biggest family of con artists in history. They boldy lie, & deny and claim they cannot be touched by the law.
Laws are made to protect the Bush family from the little people.

[tanyev]

5. Ignite learning proudly introduces the COW. Apropos, eh?

www.ignitelearning.com

[burythehatchet]

123. This gene pool has so many turds floating in it

it should be called a cesspool.

[peacetalksforall]

6. So just why is Clinton associated with Sr. What 'reality' is that?

The more they stick together through these disasters and disaster season is just starting, the more it sickens me.

[WhiteTara]

7. Blue Blooded? I say Black Hearted n/t

[shadowknows69]

8. How much money is enough for these thieves?

Is it just habitual now? If there's an angle where they can save or steal a penny is it just so ingrained in their nature to pounce on it that they can't help themselves? I hope I never have enough money to make me think that I need all of it.

[Puzzler]

36. Yeah...

... they're like kleptomaniacs... habitual shoplifters. They just can't help themselves.

Seriously though, the thing that really sickens me about the Bush's and the rest of the super-rich is their out-and-out greed. After you're worth millions (or billions)... "How much is enough?" is a good question. Unfortunately, it seems that the answer is that there never is enough for these corrupt and repugnant people. And to make matters worse, the extra money for the uber-rich always seems to come out of the pockets of the people who can least afford it.

One of the points I always make to (so-called) conservatives, in order to at least partially win them over, is that I'm not so much "anti-rich", but "anti-greed".

-P

[dansolo]

64. I think it is even worse than greed

I get the impression that even more than wanting money for themselves, they want to keep money away from the rabble. They want to keep everyone else down. That is why they had a problem with Clinton's policies. They aren't happy when everyone is lifted up together. They want to be the only ones to benefit from the largesse of government.

[Seedersandleechers]

70. hence the difference between democrats and republicans

[Roland99]

72. What do you expect from a dynastic family like the Walker/Bushes?

[PurpleChez]

100. "the extra money for the uber-rich always seems to come out of the

pockets of the people who can least afford it"

And we saw in 2004 that a whole lotta poor folks are completely contented to be financially fucked up the ass by republican parasites -- just so long as the thugs whisper something in their ears about Jesus while they're doing it.

[kevsand]

9. There's nothing wrong with this.

It's just as if she had gone to the store and purchased the software herself, then donated the software. It's the functional equivalent of an in-kind contribution. She's still paying for it, and the kids still get the software. It's perfectly legal, and perfectly ethical, and perfectly commendable, because it's still charity.

It's like Bill Gates paying full retail for his own products, and then donating the products. Nobody would complain about that.

[shadowknows69]

10. Um....Yep. I would.

These people have more money than the next 5 generations of their families could ever spend. They could go out of their way a little bit to see that someone else gets a taste somewhere. I think most decent human beings would have an ethical problem with this. Flame away, but I choose to hold humanity to a higher standard than it has demonstrated in quite some time.

[kevsand]

12. Neither you nor anyone else on this thread has yet

demonstrated what specifically is wrong with this. Do you want to ban all in-kind donations of products and services?

[tanyev]

15. I think it's a completely self-serving donation.

Katrina families need jobs, places to live, food and clothing. The Ignite software is a pretty low priority.

[kevsand]

21. They need pretty much f**kin' everything.

And everybody should be pitching in with what they have. And when the homes are rebuilt, and the jobs return, we'll still need to resurrect the schools. I can not fault ANY contribution towards restoring normalcy in that area.

Somebody should ask the schools if they're unhappy to receive the software.

[tanyev]

23. Give the schools money so they can buy whatever they need.

Somebody should ask the schools if they really want Neil Bush's "learning" software.

[mondo joe]

25. Bingo. That would be about the degree of restriction I'd agree to in

this case.

[kevsand]

40. An unrestricted cash gift (sorta like the old block grants) would

obviously be preferable. But the question isn't did they really want the software. The question is, did they take it, and do they want to give it back?

[mondo joe]

42. That's one question - did they take it. Yes, they did.

SHOULD they have done so is the ethical queestion.

[Canuckistanian]

98. True, this completely ignores actual needs

Have parents or schools actually expressed a need for Ignite!?

[progressivebydesign]

83. Oh please! ANy software the schools owned before would be replaced..

easily. They don't freakin' need the software. They need FOOD, HOUSING, ClOTHING, HEALTH CARE, WALLS, CEILINGS.

Your making me a bit ill with your apologies for these scuzzballs. No.. a donation is NOT great, regardless. Have you ever worked a food bank or food drive? How many cans do we throw away because stores and people donate out of date, dented, and inedible shit? The POINT of this thread is that Babs (who is worth hundreds of millions) donated something THAT BENEFITS HERSELF and her SON. Bill Gates donates actual MONEY, not just products. SHe did not donate products, she donated cash earmarked to purchase products from HER company. There's a big difference. That's not an in-kind donation... that's an earmarked donation. By doing that, she looks like a big fucking humanitarian by donating x amount of cash, when in reality it was a bullshit transaction.

[kevsand]

101. Software is NOT easily replaced.

It is extremely expensive in the quantities needed by a school district, even with an academic discount. And they do need "the freakin' software" in addition to everything else. It should be on the list of needs along with bricks and mortar and textbooks and lunch tables and copiers and computers and roofs and refrigerators, etc.

Just because they need everything is no reason to diminish a gift that isn't high enough on your personal hierarchy of needs. In fact, just the opposite is true: the fact that they need everything makes every gift precious.

And yes, I do believe that just about every donation is fine, regardless. I should mention that, in addition to my full time job (which I mention elsewhere in this thread), I also work part time as the only technology coordinator for my daughter's small rural grade school and junior high. I say small because it has about 175 kids total, K through 8.

That school is running a deeper deficit each year, which means that every year's budget gets stretched thinner and thinner. With the notable exceptions of products that promote a specific religious viewpoint or that are intended solely to encourage brand loyalty in future consumers, we take just about everything we can get our freakin' hands on, and are damn glad to get it. My administrators and board members would laugh out loud at your so-called moral purity, because the kids always come first for them.

Finally, I am not apologizing for anyone, least of all the Bushes. Read the thread carefully again, and you'll see that I repeatedly point out that there were better ways for the evil Barbara to have structured this. But I'm also saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hate Babs as much as anyone here. I just want people to think the whole thing through from both sides (the giver and the recipients, i.e., the kids) before jumping over a knee-jerk cliff.

Several people in this thread have raised valid, thoughtful questions. (I'm thinking mostly of mondo joe here, although there are a couple of others, as well.) These are the types of questions that all non-profits, not just schools, should ask every single time. If you have ever been employed by a non-profit, you know that we usually have very small staffs. Eventually, just about every aspect of the agency's operations is discussed by everyone on the staff. Those discussions are very much like the best posts in this thread.

On the other hand, the vitriol in some of the posts here doesn't help anyone.

[bigbrother05]

121. Might buy the argument if it was for NO

This was directed to HOUSTON school district, one of the largest around with a huge budget and targeted support from the state, many things done there are emulated throughout Texas. The backdoor methods would still stink, but if the SW had gone to New Orleans or any of the devastated areas your argument about ANY aid being needed would have more credibility.

Bottom Line: Babs get big credit for donation - Ignite gets to put their SW in a huge market with minimal competition. Hardly off-script for the BFEE.

[kevsand]

126. I think you're mistaken about that.

The donation by Babs was for Katrina. I don't think it had anything to do with Houston.

There was a separate donation of the same software to Houston last year, but as far as I know right now, Babs wasn't involved in that one.

At least, that seems to be the assumption of everyone on this thread. Of course, we could all be wrong.

[bigbrother05]

128. Check citations by roland99 in post #76

The contribution was to HOUSTON Katrina Relief and directed the software buy for Houston ISD. They have done their level best to shove Ignite down someone's throat at every chance. Neil's company was one of the first to hit the ground in Afghanistan; let's sell US oriented remedial ed software to a country that barely has electricity. KBR and Abramoff are only the poster children, greed runs throughout everyone connected with this misAdministration.

This kind of thing is status quo for the vultures and jackals that feel it's their right to profit from the misery created by their hubris and/or incompetence. - We took out the Taliban, now we get to bleed them. Don't like Saddam, so get him out so we can bring "democracy". - They are so successful at helping out that their fearless leader's image is revered throughout the world. :sarcasm:

Just like Babs, LLPP (Lil' Lord Pissy Pants) has the old "bait & switch" down pat. Look at NCLB and African AIDS Relief. Big headlines, then cut funding and add so many strings and restrictions that things are worse than if nothing had been done at all. Hiz Pissiness and former Ed Sec'y Rod Paige (previously HISD Superintendent; surprise, surprise!) have brought the Texas education miracle to a neighborhood near you. We now see "teach the test" rote learning programs (Ignite and others) taking up more and more of school budgets at the expense the real education our kids need. Having served as a School Board Trustee in Texas during the * reign, I can see the telltale signs of his handiwork. He cut state support for schools, then added unfunded mandates with the testing requirements. Ask anyone in Texas, their highest tax bill is the property tax for the local school district (Texas School Boards are elected and have full taxing authority beyond any local community assessments).

This misAdministration's obvious MO leaves me fearing that a crushing national debt will be only one of the many legacies visited on our kids and grandkids.

[kevsand]

131. Okay, it's Houston Hurricane Relief

The donation is for Houston schools, but specifically intended for those Houston schools that have a large number of Katrina refugees; i.e., with enrollments that exploded essentially overnight. I would contend that they have legitimate pressing needs that were not planned for in their original budgets, and any school system, even the largest ones, would have some difficulty in meeting those needs.

Obviously, I don't know the exact specifics of the Houston area school budgets. And this sort of need is also obviously very different from the needs of the schools in New Orleans, so your point in that regard is well taken, and probably merits further scrutiny.

[darkmaestro019]

91. Somebody should ask the schools without power or roofing

how delighted they are with the Ignite Learning coasters--uh, software. Oh, wait, you need refrigerators to have drinks cold enough to form condensation. And you need the drinks. Perhaps they'll make pretty wind chimes.

[Bob K]

111. Compassionate Conservatisim personified....

I'd LOVE to pitch in with what I can contribute. April 15th, I'll get that chance again. Thing is, what I give will be spent propping up bogus regimes in countries where we're building schools and other infrastructure (that we blew up) while we have U.S. citizens living in tents or on the good graces of charity right here in their home nation. And I'm supposed to laud Mama Bush propping up her son and her investment over some goofy software??? Nah - I'm sorry, but this smells like it was rotten before it was even initiated.

[mondo joe]

18. False comparison. In the case of a pre-purchased in kind gift,

there is no assurance the non profit will accept the gift in most cases.

This sort of restricted gift is purely about putting money back in her own pocket.

She didn't do anything illegal, but I think the non profit is guilty of an ETHICAL breach. And I say that as a longtime non profit development director.

[kevsand]

34. And as the chief technical officer for a state-wide federation

of over 70 non-profit agencies, I can honestly say that any one of them would be delighted to receive a similar sort of donation. There are obviously diferent types of contributions, and some are preferred over others, but very nearly all of them are welcome.

[mondo joe]

37. It's remarkable that you can say that without even considering

the implications of particur restricted gifts per their missions or operations.

Maybe that's why the chief technical officer isn't the go-to person on ethics.

[kevsand]

43. The implication per "mission or operation" in this case is

whether or not the schools have a use for the software, and whether the schools are compromised in any way by accepting the gift. From all appearances in this case, the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.

Your final sentence is entirely uncalled for, and borders on a violation of DU rules. I expected better from you.

[mondo joe]

46. No, it's whether the charity in question (which is not the schools) is

compromised by limiting the funding to this purchase.

Was this software even called for, and if not does it engender additional future expenses above and beyond the initial purchase? Does it tie the schools to this software and encumber maintenance or upgrades? Is it a financially prudent decision, or simply driven by the donor?

These are just a few of the questions you have certainly not considered.

By my previous post last comment I meant simply that you are out of your area of expertise.

Acceptance of this gift means an ethical breach, IMO, not that it will matter to this particular non profit in the long run.

[kevsand]

55. When you start asking questions about software,

you are in my area of expertise, and I have considered all of your listed questions, and the answer to each is probably "no."

And your final statement did more than just question my area of knowledge; it seemed to imply that I am somehow ethically challenged. I'm sure that's not what you meant, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted it.

[mondo joe]

82. Two things:

1. You really have no way of knowing the answer to be "no". And I have yet to see any software that doesn't implicate future expenses (to maintain and upgrade, or replace) and i doubt a Bush came up with the first.

2. No question of your personal ethics was intended -- it was purely meant to reflect area of expertise and experience. I'm sorry for not being more clear to begin with.

[kevsand]

102. You are right that I have no way of knowing absolutely

whether the answers are all "no." But I can tell you that most software used by my daughter's grade school/junior high does not involve additional expenses. It is what it is, and they use it indefinitely, because it never stops doing the job they got it to do.

I'm obviously not talking about operating systems or office software. I'm talking about educational software like Carmen Sandiego or Reader Rabbit or Mavis Beacon, etc. They don't ever actually require upgrades the way that OSs or office suites do. And they usually only get replaced by something better after several years, and after someone gets a grant or donation secured.

[paul_fromatlanta]

66. what if she bought the product and donated it?

Its not as good for the charity since they might not get the blend of that company's products and warranty service might have to go through the donor but its effectively the same thing and nobody would have an ethical problem.

As I posted above the only problem I see is that her deduction could possibly be disallowed under some circumstances.

[progressivebydesign]

85. If she was stupid and callous enough to donate software right now..

..; then we'd all know where Bush jr. gets his class and brains. For god's sake.. the apolgists here are missing the biggest point. The kids don't need freakin' software!!!! they need HOMES and schools without mold damage, and they need breakfast, and they need help.. they don't need software. It's the point that the woman (and I use that term with restraint) donated something that is essentially worthless in this situation. That's the point... she could have donated one million neckaces to the kids, but is that really meeting THEIR needs???

[Bob K]

113. My sentiments -

EXACTLY! Give essential things. Not stuff to make sonny-boy's life easier. Hell, forget that she owns stock. Just focus on making a contribution for food, shelter and clothing - for starters. Sheesh! All this defending of the king's mom!

[mondo joe]

90. No non profit is obliged to accept a gift, including that.

She'd be taking the risk of buying it and having it rejected. And the same ethical problem would be there if they did - the appearance of using her gift as a money laundering scheme.

Of course her cash gift SHOULD have been rejected - but this is as much about politics as charity so that certainly wasn't going to happen.

[Greyhound]

13. It is just like the Gates foundation scams. Shameless. n/t

[mondo joe]

20. What scams are THOSE? The Gates Foundation has done amazing work

in the field of international healthcare.

[Greyhound]

67. Oh let me think, how about "donating" M$ out of date computers,

that have already been depreciated (tax break #1), to the WA schools system and taking a tax write off (#2) for the full retail value (#2a) that they didn't pay (#2a + 28%), making the taxpayers pay for their systems more than twice the amount of the initial outlay for the systems in the first place?

So, to sum it up, they received 228% of the $ they paid for the systems back from the tax payers, and then stipulated that the school system has to use only their software on those "donated" systems. What a big heart, you are so lucky to have such a pillar of virtue in your state (which has been hit especially hard by these great guys temp-worker scams and rampant off-shoring).

We should all be so "lucky" in our charitable works. You donate $1000 to your favorite charity and get $2228 dollars back? I'm not sure Jesus would approve of such "charitable works".

[mondo joe]

84. Well first off, were they donated by Microsoft or by the Gates Foundation?

[Greyhound]

119. And just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[mondo joe]

120. Microsoft isn't the Gates Foundation. n/t

[mondo joe]

14. Actually, it's NOT like buying the product and then donating it.

The difference is that she made a cash contribution restricted to a particular purchase from a company in which she is an investor.

The question is whether or not the charity should have accepted the contribution under those conditions.

Restricted donations can be complicated, and this is certainly MORE complicated than most.

I'd suggest that the non profit should have rejected this gift, because it certainly gives the appearance of the charity being used as a vehicle for a self serving purpose.

[kevsand]

17. Self-serving in what way?

For the few pennies of return she might see on the sale of the software? For the few dollars she might get as a tax break for a charitable contribution? Your priorities are way out of whack here.

[GOPFighter]

22. What if the Ignite software is a piece if crap

What if there is better educational software avaialable cheaper? What if the product she is insisting be purchased with her donation is seriously outdated and was about to be discarded? What if the educational software she specified is religous in nature and disses all non-Christians? There are a lot of reasons why earmarked contributions should be carefully scrutinized by the IRS.

Also, knowing the Bush family's past ethical standards, we have every right to be skeptical.

[mondo joe]

28. Precisely. This sort of gift perverts the role of the non profit

leadership by permitting such micromanagement from a donor.

Babs didn't do anything illegal by proposing it -- but the charity should not have accepted on ethical grounds.

[kevsand]

44. If the answer to any of the questions you raise is "Yes,"

then the schools would be perfectly justified in refusing the donation. Maybe some of them did. But a lot of them didn't.

[mondo joe]

24. She gets the tax break on a retail purchase of her own product.

As I said previously, donor restricted gifts can be a very complicated matter, and this is about the worst I've ever seen.

As director of development I have had to refuse certain donor restricted gifts, and I'd do it again if appropriate.

I'd have serious misgivings about this contribution, on ethical grounds.

[rateyes]

16. Your scenario holds up only to the point

that the organization to which the donation is made is considered a "charity" under the rules that govern that organization. Plus, her "in kind" gift is only deductible to the amount that it personally cost her "out of pocket." She can receive no benefit back to herself, and she is an investor in the company.

Here's my point. This being her son's company, she could have probably, with the same amount of money, purchased the software "at cost," thus meaning that MORE software gets in the hands of the kids. By funneling it through the charity--they purchase the software, most likely at retail, meaning that her son's/(and her) company gets part of the gift back in return (probably a good percentage of it) and she still gets to write off 100% of the "gift."

[kevsand]

19. It probably would have been better for her to buy it at "cost."

But now we're quibbling over amounts rather than principle.

[mondo joe]

26. Of course amount is an ethical consideration.

Exxagerating the value of an in kind contribution is at a minimum an ethical consideration and at most a legal consideration.

[Mr Rabble]

27. Ignite! isnt a charity. Thats the problem.

You cant make a tax deductable donation to a company in which you own stock.

[mondo joe]

31. Right - so Quaker Oats figured out a loophole to direct the purchase

to her own company.

She didn't do anything illegal, but I maintain the charity has compromised itself ethically.

[A Simple Game]

30. If the president of the company had donated the software

everyone would have praised him or her. In this case I see little difference between the president of the company or Mrs Bush doing the donating.

That said, I don't believe her motives were very charitable. I think she is a totally despicable person.

[mondo joe]

33. If the charity chose to accept the gift because it wanted the product

it would be somewhat different. In this case the charity accepted the gift with the donor determined restrictions.

It could be that it's a legitimate need.

But the Bush donation to a Bush charity to benefit a Bush owned for profit stinks, and should not have been accepted IF ONLY on the grounds of the appearance of impropriety.

[paul_fromatlanta]

47. The difference is that the individual gets the deduction

For what is basically a transfer to a corporation - as I mentioned above this can cause tax issues.

[bigbrother05]

68. It's the backhanded way it was done

If it had simply been an in-kind contribution through the company, most people would have just shrugged. No big deal, but somewhat like donating your old socks to a charity.

What rankles folks is the way Babs got credit for donating to the Katrina victims (probably trying to cleanse the smell she made with her remarks about the folks in the Astrodome), then when looked at more closely, it wasn't nearly as generous or altruistic as was originally touted.

Another twist would be to see if they had been using this software beforehand. This could be a devious way to get their foot in the door without having to properly bid on the work. What better way to sell a product than to get part of the district to use your product (supposedly for free), then come back with some compliant School Board members to buy more without competition because it is already in the system and they are pushing compatibility. Everyone knows that the maintenance and upgrades of software systems are where the real money is.

While it's not likely that Babs will face any real penalties, this just points out more typical BFEE shenanigans.

[Higans]

69. If she went to the store and purchased the software, she would be paying

sales tax.

[TankLV]

86. Nope - you got it ass backwards.

It would be as if she had the ORGANIZATION SHE OWNS buy software and then have the ORGANIZATION SHE OWNS give it back to HER for her EXCLUSIVE PERSONAL USE.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Big Problem.

Highly Illegal.

[kevsand]

103. That makes no sense whatsover.

She isn't keeping the software. It doesn't come back to her.

And pretty much everyone in this thread in a position to know agrees she's done nothing illegal.

There does seem to be a broad consensus that she could have structured this in a much better way, and maybe even have done something entirely different for greater immediate impact. If it was me, I would not have done it the way she did, but she hasn't broken the law, and the kids still get the software.

And I think I've probably said just about everything I can here. I don't want to start repeating myself.

[rateyes]

11. If the Quaker Oats lady is smart she will NOT

declare that contribution as a tax-deductible one when she files her taxes. Actually, by law, even if a charitable gift is "designated" through a 501 (c) 3, the charity does NOT have to use it in the manner it is designated. They probably will, but they don't have to. I would suggest getting in touch with the charity and asking them to use it in ways more beneficial to the victims. If the money was already given to that company, then the charity could possibly be in deep trouble...it's a form, IMO, of money laundering.

[mondo joe]

39. Actually it pretty much is required to use it per the restriction of those

are the terms under which it accepted the gift.

Even if it could figure out a loophole, it would be fundraising suicide.

[rateyes]

105. Yes, it would be fundraising suicide...

no doubt. But, the law does not recognize "designated" gifts toward a charities----they can "suggest" how it be spent, but donors cannot "demand" how it's spent.

[DallasNE]

29. Corruption, Texas Style

Apparently money laundering is all the rage in Texas. That was also a favorite of Tom DeLay that ended up with actual money laundering charges filed against him. Here Barbara Bush gets a tax write-off on money she is giving to herself.

When this story first broke I pointed out the favorable tax advantage. At that time I thought she was providing a way to make a gift to Neil without Neil having to pay the gift tax along with the obvious manipulation of the charitable contributions provisions of the tax code.

Now we are starting to understand why the tax code is over 6,000 pages. Funny how it has porked up under "simplification".

[ronnie624]

60. A creative method of laundering money

was my initial reaction as well. Her circuitous way of "donating" demonstrates the lengths to which Barbara Bush will go in order to avoid actually parting with any money. Her son makes a little profit, she claims a charitable donation when filing her taxes, and she gets to pretend she's a generous and giving person while everyone is happy knowing they're not out any money on their little scheme. Disgusting.

Incidentally, I never claim charitable donations when processing my taxes. It seems as though it would detract from the act of giving in the first place.

[Catchawave]

32. So when my daughter lost her job due to 9-11

I could have sent her money through the Red Cross, and designated they give it to her for food and rent (she did qualify for special benefits at that time), then I could have deducted "the donation" ?

We don't have nearly as much money as the Bush Family, a tax deduction would have been nice :D

[kevsand]

38. Any donation you make to the Red Cross would be tax

deductible. There is, however, no guarantee that the Red Cross would have forwarded the money specifically to the benefit of your daughter, just as the charity at question in this thread was under no legal obligation to use the money as Bush directed. They accepted the conditions voluntarily and willingly.

[mondo joe]

41. If the charity did not wish to use it per donor stipulation it should not

have accepted the gift.

This is remedial development ethics. It's why most non profits of any standing have policies regarding restricfted gifts.

[kevsand]

50. That's absolutely correct.

I haven't seen anything relating to the specific policies of the charity in question here, so i obviously can't say whether they have such a policy in place, but they should.

This sort of transaction would probably be allowable under most of the restricted gift policies I have seen. I would, however, be very interested in seeing any language you might have from other organizations' policies that would specifically prohibit this.

[mondo joe]

53. The policy wouldn't be that specific, of course. Policy would be

appropriately broad. But it should cover avoiding impropriety and even the APPEARANCE of impropriety (similar to the way in which policy or bylaws would typically cover conflict of interest or even the appearance of conflict of interest).

[Coastie for Truth]

127. Under the Internal Revenue Code

A donation to a 501(c)(3) charity (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html) for the benefit of a named beneficiary is not tax deductible --- and if the charity has a policy of soliciting such gifts and giving them to the named beneficiary they risk their 501(c)(3) "charitable" status.

This has been litigated to death with respect to private schools (contribution in lieu of tuition), colleges (scholarships to contributor's named beneficiaries), etc.

If the charity had complied with Barbara Bush's request - she would have lost the charitable deduction, and the charity would have had to declare her putative contribution as "ordinary income."

Ask me anything - I just laid out all of my books and records and loaded TURBO TAX and downloaded CA TURBO TAX (but really, before Dad died he was an attorney who did a lot of work for "non-profits")

[kevsand]

132. That's a very interesting point.

I don't think it applies to Babs' donation, but it would clearly apply in the hypothetical Red Cross scenario that was posited, and it's an interesting point of law in its own right.

Does it also apply, I wonder, to special purpose benefit events for specific individuals or families, such as to defray medical costs, etc.? It would seem to.

[mondo joe]

134. I don't think this fits that description.

The gift wasn't GIVEN to Neil's company.

The gift was used to BUY something.

I'm as opposed to this particular deal as anyone, but under an interpretation as broad as yours no capital campaign contributions would be deductible.

[rateyes]

107. Except that, legally....

the charity can't do that.

Example: A person wants to get a car for their married daughter in college. That person gives an amount to a church designating a car purchase to be given by the church to the daughter.

The daughter gets the car. The church gets nothing, and the woman who bought the car has a receipt for a charitable donation to a church.

Do that---get caught...church loses its 501 c 3, and mom/dad go to jail. It's called stealing from the government.

Babs didn't do that. Whatever profit she makes from the purchase of the software will have to be declared, at some point in time, as income for which she will have to pay taxes.

All she did by "generously" giving to the charity and hiding the "designation" was to look more generous than she really is.

[Catchawave]

109. This is why we gave money directly to our daughter

to help her pay rent and buy food, so we by-passed all the 9-11 "charities" completely. Babs should have done that :mad:

[rateyes]

116. Yes, she should have. nt

[Catchawave]

117. Every "ethical" American should know that :)

:patriot: Thanks rateyes :hug:

[rateyes]

118. Which says something about the Bushes,

doesn't it.

:yourock:

[goforit]

35. And I'm sure there are many more scams to come.

[connecticut yankee]

51. I would put nothing

past that family. Any of them!

[Beelzebud]

52. Yet another example of the Bush Crime Family.

[Zorra]

56. Babs is the epitome of evolutionary and political regression.

A splendid example of the "compassionate conservative" - corrupt, ruthless, heartless clueless.

The entire Bush Crime Family should be fined into complete destitution for crimes against humanity.

They have looted our nation for far too long, and we want our money back.

[formercia]

62. Babs in a homeless shelter...

what a visual. Problem is they would be taken in by one of their minions.

It would probably end up being: Looking poor so the investigators won't look for the offshore accounts where the bulk of their loot is stashed.

[madrchsod]

58. worse--- she`s not as good looking as angelica houston

[Seedersandleechers]

71. Yea, and with all her money she will always look bad no matter

what. No amount of money can redo that face...

[aquart]

61. Blue blood, my ass.

That says you've already bought their expensively-crafted mythology.

You buy that they're different, finer, better than the rest of us.

Barbara Bush would disgrace a trailer park. People there help each other out.

[Notoverit]

65. Awww! And I thought it was mother love that made her go for the tax

dedaction at the expense of them Katrina lucky ducks.
This somehow, makes much more sense. It wasn't a gift at all. To anyone. Except to herself from the people's money.

[LiberalinNC]

73. Come come people, why are you surprised by her actions???

I mean, she is a Bush! :evilgrin:

[Initech]

74. Another example of the Bushies' tax free greed they're trying to achieve.

We first saw this in the Dubai ports deal, which bombed on the table.

Now Barbara is investing money in her own son's company which she invests in, but gets away with it being tax free because it's a "charitable contribution".


Hey BUSH family, if you dont want to pay taxes, you dont get to use government services. I'll drive on the roads I pay for, you guys can stay home.

[Vinca]

75. Babs has taken tacky to a whole new level. nt

[Roland99]

76. How about we sum all of this up, shall we? >>>>>>>>>>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032400815.html

Former first lady Barbara Bush gave relief money to a hurricane relief fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from her son Neil's company. The chief of staff of former President George H.W. Bush would not disclose the amount earmarked for purchases from Ignite Learning.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3744991.html

As Barbara Bush spent two hours championing her son's software company at a Houston middle school Thursday morning, a watchdog group questioned whether the former first lady should be allowed to channel a donation to Neil Bush's Ignite Learning company through Houston's Hurricane Katrina relief fund.

"It's strange that the former first lady would want to do this. If her son's having a rough time of it, couldn't she write him a check?" said Daniel Borochoff, founder of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a Chicago-based charity watchdog group. "Maybe she isn't aware that people could frown upon this."

Some critics said donations to a tax-deductible charitable fund shouldn't benefit the Bush family.

And, Neil Bush's son, Pierce G. Bush (what's with this family's obsession with naming themselves after their forefathers' last names?) was a vocal proponent of the Dubai ports deal. Hmm...wonder why?
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:edsLKrHvRRkJ:www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3713578.html+barbara+bush+investor+ignite+learning&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

The president's nephew is familiar with Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. His father's company, Austin-based Ignite Learning, has investors in the UAE, and Neil Bush has taken his son there.

Ignite seems to have trouble expanding its business through normal sales and marketing. Seems they are relying upon cronyism and private donations to push the company's product into Texas schools:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/katrina/3742329.html

There are 40 Ignite programs being used in the Houston area, and 15 in the Houston school district, said Ken Leonard, president of Ignite.

Information about the effectiveness of the program, through district-generated reports, was not readily available Wednesday, according to an HISD spokeswoman.

Two years ago, the school district raised eyebrows when it expanded the program by relying heavily on private donations.

In February 2004, the Houston school board unanimously agreed to accept $115,000 in charitable donations from businesses and individuals who insisted the money be spent on Ignite. The money covered half the bill for the software, which cost $10,000 per school.

The deal raised conflict of interest concerns because Neil Bush and company officials helped solicit the donations for the HISD Foundation, a philanthropic group that raises money for the district.

What else is Neil up to to try and expand the company?

Last year, Neil Bush reportedly toured former Soviet Union countries promoting Ignite with Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky.

According to the Times of London, Berezovsky, a former Kremlin insider now living in Britain, is wanted on criminal charges in Moscow accusing him of seeking to stage a coup against President Vladimir Putin.

And, since Babs is apparently an investor in Ignite!, is this donation an underhanded way to keep the company going in light of possible struggles? They certainly don't have people onboard with track records of success:

Feb. 2001
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2001/02/19/story1.html

At 30 employees, the 2-year-old company still is forming a board of directors. It recently brought on Kevin Moran as chief technology officer. Moran is founder and former chief technology officer of Baleo Inc., a venture-backed Austin startup that folded late last year.

So far, Ignite! doesn't have any customers or partnerships.

Neil Bush perhaps is best known for his membership on the board of directors of the failed Denver-based Silverado Savings & Loan Association. Bush was a director of the S&L when it collapsed in 1988. The S&L's failure cost taxpayers $1.3 billion, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

But, then again, Babs shouldn't be "wasting her beautiful mind" on something so trivial as tax fraud.

[progressivebydesign]

87. but.. some posters here today think we're WRONG for objecting!!

I guess they know better than every single news outlet you've highlighted. And.. they hadn't even touched on the fact that Babs is an investor! The software company is a lobbying firm.. it's so obvious.

[Roland99]

96. Or perhaps some money-laundering? Hmmmm.....

I wonder....

[onehandle]

77. harpy - n 1: a malicious fierce-tempered woman

[Up2Late]

79. I guess she just can't bother her "Beautiful Mind" on such things as LAWS.

God I hope she goes to Jail!

[progressivebydesign]

81. Can the children of Katrina EAT the software? Or live in it?

I mean.. how brazen ARE these scumball Bushs??? How about donating for something fucking USEFUL!

[Disturbed]

92. "What specifically is wrong with this?"

Since I am not a legal expert I do not know if there is anything wrong legally or even ethically wrong with this.

It shouldn't have been done in my view because it has the appearance of a self serving action. Whether or not it is that in fact is subject to opinion. That Mrs. Bush made this public by her appearances makes this a public perception issue. Whether she was aware that this would be a controversial matter is a question that will not be known. Whether she knew that this would be a controversial matter and didn't care is also a question that this raises.

My feeling and that is only what I can go by is that this needs to be investigated by legal experts that are well versed in this kind of situation. It just doesn't smell good.

[noiretextatique]

106. it's the appearance of impropiety

giving a "gift" to a non-profit organization, then stipulating that they in turn purchase a product from for-profit company, a company that she has some ownership interest in that is run by her son. it totally stinks.

[stepnw1f]

88. Money Laundering

nice... CRIME FAMILY.

[Swamp Rat]

89. Time for a thorough IRS audit of The Beast That Gave Birth to the Beast

Time to RICO the entire Bush Crime Family.

[shanti]

94. oh yeah!

that story popped out at me the minute i saw it! they are so blatant about their thievery too. i loved that bill maher picked up on it too. he was ON POINT during his last show, especially that last monologue.

[WinkyDink]

95. This company is THE ENTIRE RAISON d'ETRE for NCLB!!!!!

All that MANDATED TESTING, and a BushBro HAPPENS to own a TEST-PREP company??

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uh..can't get fooled again.

[PurpleChez]

97. Babs is certainly a cunning runt. What a vile waste of breath.

Ya hear that, W? YOUR MOM SUCKS!

AND YOU DO TOO!

[lildreamer316]

99. I'm not even surprised.

That's pretty bad.
Fuel to the fire..........

[babsbunny]

108. Talking Points Memo is Gone!

[upi402]

112. link; 3-24-06 scroll down a bit

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_03_19.php#007995

This?

[ronnykmarshall]

110. Fucking bitch.

That ol' bug-eyed hag needs a cattle prod up her ass.

[Ino]

114. The software prepares kids for No Child Left Behind test

Let's not forget the purpose of this software -- to prepare students to take GWB's No Child Left Behind test. If schools fail the test, they lose federal funding. I'd love to see if any schools who don't buy the software pass the test.

There is NOTHING BushCo does that isn't a scam.

http://tinyurl.com/9wk6q

He charged that (Jeb) Bush’s hidden agenda is privatization of the state’s public schools. "This is the most logical explanation," Siplin said. "Vouchers are given to children to attend private schools where children are not required to take the FCAT for either advancement or graduation," he said. "Gov. Bush’s brother, Neil, markets a program to help students prepare to take the FCAT."

He was referring to a Texas-based software firm, Ignite! Inc., of which Neil Bush is the founder and CEO. The company has raked in $20 million selling software to prepare students to take comprehensive tests required under "No Child Left Behind." Schools that fail the tests will face termination of federal assistance.

Neil Bush’s firm is running a pilot program at the Ocoee Middle School in Orlando and hopes to sell the software throughout Florida at $30 per pupil per year. Neil Bush is notorious for his role in the Silverado Savings scam that cost depositors $1 billion in the savings and loan scandal back in the mid-1980s.

[ignatius 2]

115. God,isn't it time we took the trash out, the entire Bush family is a bunch

of greedy,disgusting pigs who make me ashamed to be from the same country. Can't they all just go buy an island somewhere and leave this country forever?

[NobleCynic]

122. Talk about arrogance

Comparatively this whole deal is worth only pennies to the Bush family. You have to be pretty greedy or pretty arrogant to bother with this. It doesn't make sense to me, cause it doesn't seem worth it. Petty.

[pecwae]

124. She's vile & despicable.

I was lulled into the 'kindly grandmother' PR surrounding her during 41's term. I feel used and cheap that I could have ever had a positive impression of this waste of skin.

[sellitman]

125. Looks like Junior didn't fall far from the tree.

Scum begets scum.

No wonder they are proud of *.

[0007]

129. Barbara Bush is a decrepit old hag and doesn't fool no one.

What a contrast between her and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Very fitting that her son is on the same level with Hitler.

[imax2268]

130. Neils postcard to mom...