Andrew Sullivan has been bashing the Human Rights Campaign Fund for its lack of accomplishments. He cites Charity Navigator's rating. My favorite bit [quoting an e-mail from a reader who had contributed to HRC]:

We may not have a lot of pro-gay legislation on the books, but we do have a nice collection of pretty bumper stickers.

Ouch.

Trent Stamp says:

I'm tired of getting indignant about politicians' not disclosing their roles in their private foundations. Despite most people seeing it as no big deal, I still say it's a blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules, and another case where we demonstrate our belief that non-profit transparency and accountability is less important than we would expect in the for-profit world. The latest culprit is none other than Hillary Clinton.

Nothing wrong with setting high bars, Trent. I'm all for it. I think what we've got in this case, however, is an oversight on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Not much evidence that this was a "blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules." Nothing's been unearthed that would indicate Mrs. Clinton had anything to hide.

I understand Trent's a single-issue advocate, and getting charities to play by the rules is a worthy endeavor. Charity Navigator provides an important service to donors. Every now and then, though, a little context is helpful.

The DC Examiner examines the surge of foundation leaders on Capitol Hill last week. The answer to the nonprofit sector's problems? A caucus:

A caucus generally serves as a focal point for members interested in pursuing a common legislative goal. For example, the philanthropy caucus is a potential platform for members to hold briefings on sector needs for other elected officials and coordinate legislation.

I'd file this under "be careful what you wish for." A platform to discuss "sector needs" can quickly become a platform to discuss "sector abuses."

Capital Research Center bemoans the recent outcome of that nasty little bedrock of American democracy we call an election.

White Courtesy Telephone riffs on the Ford Foundation's search for a new CEO by giving us four fundamental questions of philanthropy. In WCT's spirit of thoughtful consideration of the state of the sector, I offer up these ten potential candidates for any current or future foundation CEO opening. Pros and Cons are provided for each.

Donald Rumsfeld: Pros: Wants a lot of bang for the buck. Speaks incomprehensible language. Cons: Stubborn [a nightmare for the board of directors].

Newt Gingrich: Pros: Resilient. Ruthless [could easily inform grantees that commitments wouldn't be met due to the foundation going in a "different direction"]. Cons: No moral authority.

Lynn Cheney: Pros: Past grantmaking experience. Quite magical with the keyboard. Cons: Bedmate [will require time off to be by husband's side during impeachment proceedings].

Jesse Ventura: Pros: Independent thinker. Board management skills. Cons: Nightmare for PR department. See here, here and here.

Scooter Libby: Pros: Understands the fundraising challenges of grantees. Cons: Could be unavailable until 2017.

Laura Bush: Pros: Can charm the socks off you [great for a community foundation post!]. Cons: Budget management. Would require a driver.

Simon Cowell: Pros: Keen evaluator of talent. Sharp wit. Cons: Perhaps better suited for hooliganism.

Donald Trump: Pros: Fires people, and god knows nobody ever gets fired at foundations [except me, when they find out who I am]. The Donald blogs! Cons: Comb-over. Nightmare for the PR department.

Katherine Harris: Pros: Understands donor intent. Cons: Undergraduate education funders beware. May have staff morale issues.

Terrence Scanlon: Pros: Runs non-partisan, unbiased think tank on philanthropy. Role as Chairman of Consumer Products Safety Commission under Reagan could improve in-kind giving program. Cons: If founding donor is deceased, could spend large sums on mediums to determine donor intent.

And I deeply appreciate Phil.

The Capital Research Center ought to have fun with this.

I'm all for getting out the whipping stick when it comes to excesses in compensation within the nonprofit sector, particularly for nonprofits that have a truly charitable mission. And I understand why Stephanie Strom, as the nonprofits beat writer for the Times, covered this story:

The I.R.S. has also asked 40 individuals to pay a total of $20 million in excise taxes, which is the penalty it imposes when it determines a nonprofit executive has been paid excessively.

“We found some problems,” said Steven T. Miller, the commissioner in charge of the I.R.S. division overseeing tax-exempt and government entities. “Whether they were due to confusion, poor design of the tax forms used by these organizations or something more nefarious, I can’t tell you.”

He said the results of the inquiry, which found flaws in the tax forms of a third of the 1,800 charities and foundations examined, convinced the agency that it needed to do more in the area of compensation at nonprofits.

But I must say I'm a bit weary of this type of coverage when, comparatively, there's very little coverage of this issue in the for-profit sector. Perhaps it's because business reporters tend to fall in love with their subjects or they don't know enough about the issues they're trying to cover. There's enough corporate cheerleading on a daily basis on CNBC to make free-market purists blush.

And don't give me the line about nonprofits being tax-exempt and thus should be "more accountable" for their actions than for-profit corporations. The current administration has done it's best to make the corporate sector tax-exempt; finding creative ways to avoid paying corporate taxes has become brilliant beltway fun. Those organizations obviously deserving of tax-exempt status ought to have a special and inscrutable place in the heart of the current version of the IRS.