I'm ambivalent about this article. While I agree that the hidden power of mega-philanthropists is unsettling, the hidden players of our "public" government are orders of magnitude more powerful.<p>Frankly, differentiating between the "public" and "private" when discussing the ills of the %1 is pointless [1]. People at this level of society move in and out of the top levels of corporations and government all the time. They socialize together, intermarry, and share family bonds. Only together have big business and big government created this massive feedback loop that promotes inequality and loss of freedom for the common man.<p>It pains me to see my "right" and "left" leaning friends blame one side of the coin while completing ignoring the damage wrought by the flip side.<p>1. To be clear, the top 0.01% is what the article is really referring to, since the top %1 includes people like successful everyday doctors and lawyers. Perhaps a small cadre of powerful bureaucrats at this income level could be reasonably included in the top tier group the article refers to, but for the most part, these are people who are wealthy and influential in their local communities, but decidedly not actors at the level the article describes.
"Ten years ago, for example, Google had a one-person lobbying shop in Washington; today, it has more than one hundred lobbyists working out of an office roughly the size of the White House. " ... to the tune of $16.8 Million dollars.<p><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022008" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002200...</a><p>I really like this article. It's a well-researched call to action for journalists to do real investigative work.
Top 1% is (based on <a href="http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/</a>) >$400k / year income. The billionaires this article talks about are in much, much higher brackets - maybe something like top %0.01<p>* P.S. based on another source [<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/what-the-top-1-percent-makes-in-every-state/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/01/26/...</a>], it's state-dependent and the highest I see is $678k in CT
Summary: The wealthy are using non-profits, charities, and foundations to push political agendas at the expense of taxpayers who are footing the bill because these institutions are also tax write-offs.<p>The article focuses on these organizations pushing advocacy, but I would also add that many "non-profit" organizations are actually incredibly profit-focused. An early introduction to this for me was growing up next to the Christian Broadcasting Network, a charitable organization that was raking in millions of dollars selling alternative medicines, opening five-star restaurants, hosting luxurious retreats, while also raking in donations from the poor people who would tune into the show seeking god's grace [1].<p>I see the same thing with Mega Churches, which are springing up like fast food franchises all over the DC-Metro region. These enormous buildings are raking in profits every Sunday while giving nothing back in taxes to pay for the roads, utilities, and emergency services the community provides for them. Taxpayers are losing $71 billion a year in revenues because of these for-profit franchises [2].<p>It isn't just religious institutions either. I've stopped giving blood to the American Red Cross in favor of donating it directly to my local hospital so they don't have to pay the overhead that comes with Red Cross blood [3]. The DC-Metro area is packed with "non-profits" that are really for-profit companies that pay out their profits directly to CEOs and board members while sending lobbyists to the National Mall to buy expensive lunches for our Representatives.<p>The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I <i>perceive</i> as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?"<p>[1] <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/703270372?Title=Lawsuit-says-evangelist-Pat-Robertson-abuses-tax-free-status-to-push-product" rel="nofollow">http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20070327/NEWS/70327037...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches" rel="nofollow">http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-banks-a-multibillion-dollar-business-in-a-nonprofit-world.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/business/all-about-blood-b...</a>