Article III Double-Dipping: Proposition 8's Sponsors, BLAG, and the Government's Interest

The IRS recently rescinded a longstanding rule that required certain nonprofits to disclose substantial donor names and addresses on the nonprofit annual information return. This was a mistake. Though the rule remains for charities and political organizations, the collection of this information non-publicly by the IRS is needed to enforce tax-exempt requirements and the tax law generally for social welfare organizations and business leagues. It serves both as a roadmap for audits and as a hindrance to improper transactions. It also is reasonable for the IRS to collect this information to support legal regimes ancillary to the tax law such as state nonprofit law and campaign finance. Tax law prohibits the distribution of earnings from a nonprofit to those who control the organization. Like officers and directors, substantial donors are classic suspects of those who might seek improper private benefits through their control of a nonprofit. But substantial donors, unlike officers and directors, are not public facing. Without substantial donor information, an IRS auditor has no reason to begin to question certain transactions and operations of the nonprofit that accrue to the benefit of a substantial donor that could potentially lead to modification of a claimed tax result. The Supreme Court recently found a similar requirement of the state of California to impose a burden on First Amendment free association rights, and furthermore found that the state failed to show the requirement was narrowly tailored to the governmental interest of protecting citizens from fraud on charity. The Court’s ruling calls into question the constitutionality of the IRS requirement too. However, the Court accepted that the governmental interest associated with tax law might be different from the case made by the California attorney general. This Article does not significantly engage with the question of the constitutionality of this IRS requirement but does suggest the important governmental interest involved. There are important governmental and democratic interests involved beyond the free association rights of substantial donors, namely that the tax, campaign finance and nonprofit law be enforced equally upon all and appear to be enforced equally. The importance of the ability of the government to collect the revenue is significant as well.

Boards play a crucial role in ensuring that public and nonprofit publicly accountable and perform well. Following various failures and scandals they face increasing scrutiny, pressure and expectations. Serious questions have been raised about the ability of boards to govern effectively. Such concerns have stimulated a renewed interest in organizational governance, and a growing literature on the subject. Much of the current literature, however, has been criticized for underestimating the constraints and conflictions demands that boards face and recommending unrealistic solutions. There have been relatively few detailed empirical studies of what boards do in practice. This book fills that gap by bringing together analyses based upon some of the best recent empirical studies of public and non-profit governance in the UK. Using a new theoretical framework that highlights the paradoxical nature of governance the book throws light on the questions at the heart of recent debates about nonprofit boards: * Are boards publicly accountable or is there a democratic deficit? * Are boards able to exercise real power, or does management run the show? * What do boards do? Are they effective stewards of an organization's resources? Can they play a meaningful role in setting organisational strategy? * What effect are regulatory and other changes designed to improve board effectiveness having? The book will be essential reading for academics and students with an interest in the governance and management of public and nonprofit organizations. It will also be of value to policy-makers and practitioners who wish to gain a deeper understanding of how boards work and what can be done to improve their performance.

The impact of the economic downturn and the increase in financial scandals emerging from major corporations has generated a growing interest in governance issues and has emphasized the need for companies to be transparent in their dealings with shareholders and the markets. Although the issues in Asia are fundamentally similar to those in the rest of the world, there are some crucial differences in the way in which Asian corporations acknowledge and confront these issues and in the political and legal frameworks under which they operate. Using examples of good and bad governance, Roche analyzes if the Asian approach to governance issues is unique. Business and finance students, as well as executives with an interest in Asian business or corporate governance will find this an authoritative and insightful guide to this complex and important topic.

Most readers of this journal are not researchers and will have little interest in the governance of data collected from research; readers who are researchers will have an interest in data governance and disclosure but may not be up to speed with current developments. The reason for opening up research data is that all data collected are of value, including non-published data. The latter can be equally important and are not necessarily a waste product of research but an asset. Data sharing (e.g. clinical registers for trial data) is also part of national innovation and science agendas. Australian bodies such as the National Collaboration Research Infrastructure (www.education.gov.au/national-collaborative-research-infrastructure), the National Health and Medical Research Council (www.nhmrc.gov.au) and the Australian Research Council (www.arc.gov.au), as well as the Wellcome Trust in the UK (www.wellcome.ac.uk) offer similar statements on their websites. There is a consensus between the organisations mentioned at the beginning of this article – publications arising from supported research must be deposited in an open access institutional repository and/or made available in another open access format within a defined time, usually twelve months of publication. The reason this is important is that negative results that private institutions or companies don't want released will have to be released, forcing a culture of transparency, integrity and honesty. Policies and commitments to sharing research data will overcome these barriers and restrictions. Data from trials with negative results should still be included in a registry. Another point to emphasise is that when publishing and sharing sensitive data, extra work is needed to start with but time is saved later when managing and sharing the data. Efficiencies will be gained. A good Australian link for information on the above is the Australian National Data Service (www.ands.org.au), its website clearly explaining its history, aims and links. In summary its core purpose is to make Australia's research data assets more valuable for researchers, research institutions and the nation through trusted partnerships, reliable services and enhanced capability. It also has a medical and health page which links to guides, flowcharts and webinars on how to share sensitive data, how to de-identify it, licences that you can apply to data, repository sites and how to manage sensitive data during a research project. Equivalent New Zealand links include www.data.govt.nz and www.stats.govt.nz. How do you know the full dataset has been made available? One solution is Dryad, a data repository service maintained by journal publishers (www.datadryad.org); another is figshare (www.figshare.com). Dryad's Joint Data Archiving Policy has been adopted by many journals. Data also needs to be cited. Crossref (www.crossref.org) provides Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). It has a sister organisation Datacite (www.datacite.org) that makes data trackable to support searchable, accessible and reusable data. Some of you may be asking what this means for qualitative data? The simple answer is that it should not be treated any differently to quantitative data. Data can be deposited in virtually any format, including full- or part-text document, audio and video files. The integration of qualitative data also means researchers using mixed methods combining quantitative and qualitative data will be able to keep their data together in the one archive (www.ands.org.au/guides/ethics-consent-and-data-sharing). An increasing number of journals have data availability policies, enabling a platform for replication and verification of the authors’ published claims. Such policies advise on what data to deposit, where, how and when to deposit it, how it should be peer reviewed, shared, licensed and cited. This journal will devise and adopt such a policy as soon as is practical.

[About the book]: Boards play a crucial role in ensuring that public and nonprofit publicly accountable and perform well. Following various failures and scandals they face increasing scrutiny, pressure and expectations. Serious questions have been raised about the ability of boards to govern effectively. Such concerns have stimulated a renewed interest in organizational governance, and a growing literature on the subject. Much of the current literature, however, has been criticized for underestimating the constraints and conflictions demands that boards face and recommending unrealistic solutions. There have been relatively few detailed empirical studies of what boards do in practice. This book fills that gap by bringing together analyses based upon some of the best recent empirical studies of public and non-profit governance in the UK. Using a new theoretical framework that highlights the paradoxical nature of governance the book throws light on the questions at the heart of recent debates about nonprofit boards: * Are boards publicly accountable or is there a democratic deficit? * Are boards able to exercise real power, or does management run the show? * What do boards do? Are they effective stewards of an organization's resources? Can they play a meaningful role in setting organisational strategy? * What effect are regulatory and other changes designed to improve board effectiveness having? The book will be essential reading for academics and students with an interest in the governance and management of public and nonprofit organizations. It will also be of value to policy-makers and practitioners who wish to gain a deeper understanding of how boards work and what can be done to improve their performance.

About the book: Boards play a crucial role in ensuring that public and nonprofit publicly accountable and perform well. Following various failures and scandals they face increasing scrutiny, pressure and expectations. Serious questions have been raised about the ability of boards to govern effectively. Such concerns have stimulated a renewed interest in organizational governance, and a growing literature on the subject. Much of the current literature, however, has been criticized for underestimating the constraints and conflictions demands that boards face and recommending unrealistic solutions. There have been relatively few detailed empirical studies of what boards do in practice. This book fills that gap by bringing together analyses based upon some of the best recent empirical studies of public and non-profit governance in the UK. Using a new theoretical framework that highlights the paradoxical nature of governance the book throws light on the questions at the heart of recent debates about nonprofit boards: * Are boards publicly accountable or is there a democratic deficit? * Are boards able to exercise real power, or does management run the show? * What do boards do? Are they effective stewards of an organization's resources? Can they play a meaningful role in setting organisational strategy? * What effect are regulatory and other changes designed to improve board effectiveness having? The book will be essential reading for academics and students with an interest in the governance and management of public and nonprofit organizations. It will also be of value to policy-makers and practitioners who wish to gain a deeper understanding of how boards work and what can be done to improve their performance.

Boards play a crucial role in ensuring that public and nonprofit publicly accountable and perform well. Following various failures and scandals they face increasing scrutiny, pressure and expectations. Serious questions have been raised about the ability of boards to govern effectively. Such concerns have stimulated a renewed interest in organizational governance, and a growing literature on the subject. Much of the current literature, however, has been criticized for underestimating the constraints and conflictions demands that boards face and recommending unrealistic solutions. There have been relatively few detailed empirical studies of what boards do in practice. This book fills that gap by bringing together analyses based upon some of the best recent empirical studies of public and non-profit governance in the UK. Using a new theoretical framework that highlights the paradoxical nature of governance the book throws light on the questions at the heart of recent debates about nonprofit boards: * Are boards publicly accountable or is there a democratic deficit? * Are boards able to exercise real power, or does management run the show? * What do boards do? Are they effective stewards of an organization's resources? Can they play a meaningful role in setting organisational strategy? * What effect are regulatory and other changes designed to improve board effectiveness having? The book will be essential reading for academics and students with an interest in the governance and management of public and nonprofit organizations. It will also be of value to policy-makers and practitioners who wish to gain a deeper understanding of how boards work and what can be done to improve their performance.

This study explores the predictors of government career preferences using a higher education socialization framework. Existing research suggests that students’ interest in government careers declines over the course of training in public administration graduate programs. This study investigates the extent to which characteristics of degree program, individual background, professional community, and personal community could explain this downward trend. One hundred public affairs master’s degree programs were randomly selected for involvement in this study. From the programs invited, 26 programs agreed to participate, and 552 master’s degree– seeking students responded to a survey. While the findings confirmed that career interest in government is related to a number of factors, such as gender, work experience, interaction with professionals, and involvement in a professional association, these findings did not fully explain the declining interest among students in graduate programs in public administration. Implications of the findings are discussed.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to determine Generation Y communicators' interest in government communications.Design/methodology/approachThis paper outlines the results of a descriptive quantitative survey conducted with 39 students and recent public relations graduates at Calgary, Canada's Mount Royal University.FindingsThe results from the small, purposive sample confirm some assumptions employers have about Generation Y and challenge others. The results identify key themes requiring future research.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited in its sample size, but is not meant to be representative. It is a purposive, exploratory study that provides valuable insight into future research.Originality/valueThe paper sheds further light on this important topic and fills a gap in the research specific to Generation Y government communicators, offering valuable insight into the recruitment and retention of Generation Y staff in Canadian governments.

BackgroundThe commercial determinants of health (CDoH) drive the rise of NCDs globally, and their regulation requires multisectoral governance. Despite existing recommendations to strengthen institutional structures, protecting public health interests can be challenging amidst industry interference and conflicting policy priorities, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the need for rapid economic development is pronounced. Small island developing states (SIDS) face even more challenges in regulating CDoH because their unique socioeconomic, political, and geographic vulnerabilities may weaken institutional conditions that could aid health sector actors in protecting health interests. This study aims to explore the institutional conditions that shape health sector actors’ capability to protect public health interests in tobacco governance in Fiji and Vanuatu.MethodsWe employed a qualitative, exploratory case study design. We applied the administrative process theory to inform data collection and analysis. Seventy interviews were completed in Fiji and Vanuatu from 2018 to 2019.ResultsThe findings show that the protection of health interests in tobacco governance were not supported by the institutional conditions in Fiji and Vanuatu. While the policy processes formally ensured a level playing field between actors, policies were often developed through informal mechanisms, and the safeguards to protect public interests from vested private interests were not implemented adequately. SIDS vulnerabilities and weak regulation of political parties contributed to the politicisation of government in both states, resulting in high-level government officials’ questionable commitment to protect public health interests. The system of checks and balances usually embedded into democratic governments appeared to be muted, and policymakers had limited bureaucratic autonomy to elevate health interests in multisectoral policymaking amidst high-level government officials’ frequent rotation. Finally, capacity constraints aggravated by SIDS vulnerabilities negatively impacted health sector actors' capability to analyse policy alternatives.ConclusionsHealth sector actors in Fiji and Vanuatu were not supported by institutional conditions that could help them protect public health interests in multisectoral governance to regulate CDoH originating from the tobacco industry. Institutional conditions in these states were shaped by SIDS vulnerabilities but could be improved by targeted capacity building, governance and political system strengthening.

THE purpose of the present article is to clarify and suggest improvements in national income and product concepts as used particularly by the Department of Commerce. In developing the proposals, major problems of definition, duplication, and conceptual difficulty will be presented, together with a brief survey of the development of ideas, including some of the recent debates which focus attention on unsettled questions. Broad relations between the national income and product series developed by the Department of Commerce are indicated in Chart i, the various bars being drawn approximately to scale, as of I952.1 In national income accounting the emphasis on net value added by, or income accruing to, the various economic factors, as a result of productive services currently rendered, is well understood. On the whole this represents current money income (with some imputations), but it omits three important money income items: realized capital gains (losses), unproductive transfer payments, and government interest. It also omits one imputation of major significance: the value of housewives' services. Of the two main subdivisions of what are regarded as nonproductive government outlays, transfers and government interest, the latter was shifted from productive income in the official revisions of July I947. These conventions and changes, though generally recognized, are by no means universally accepted by specialists in the field. In fact, some of them are receiving renewed discussion in recent debates.2 All the factor shares on productive account are now entered in the Commerce national income totals before direct taxes are deducted. The addition of indirect taxes and depreciation or capital-consumption allowances raises these net totals to the Commerce gross national product totals, but this development has created confusion over the meaning of net product and the extent to which double-counting is involved in the gross totals.3 The Commerce Department also takes the national income as a base for developing its personal income series. By subtracting corporate profits (before direct taxes are deducted but after dividend allocations) and adding transfers and government interest (in the main), the Department secures a mixture of productive and nonproductive items of personal income and savings. Realized capital gains and losses are still omitted however.4

Civil society exists at the intersection of networks and solidarity as opposed to markets or command and its agents have the potential to guide markets and state action. It may serve as a means of self-responsibilization as well as self-emancipation. It comprises a heterogeneous set of institutional orders and pluralistic set of agents, many of which are operationally autonomous and resistant to control from outside – whether through market forces, top-down command by the state or horizontal networking. This chapter presents the theoretical background to interest in governance, shows the etymological roots of the concept, offers some reasons for the explosion of interest in governance in the 1960s and 1970s, and describes the main features of governance practices.

Public service motivation (PSM) research has demonstrated the association of PSM with interest in government and nonprofit careers. Perry’s PSM instrument also sheds light upon a less studied aspect of career interest among college students—the perception that the nonprofit sector, and not government, provides the better outlet for altruistic values. The author argues that given the lack of confidence in government and negative perceptions toward government work, only the attraction to policy making dimension predicts interest in government careers. In contrast, commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice should explain student interest in nonprofits as well as teaching—both fields of work students see as more directly helping and serving people. Analyses of data from an Internet-based survey of 529 upper-division students at two upper-Midwest universities confirm this “divide” between the rational and normative/affective dimensions of PSM and suggest that confidence in institutions should be incorporated in PSM research.

This research explains how the government legal politics in the field of waqf with the tug-of-war of various interests that influence this, both the interests of the government, society and the waqf law itself. To achieve this goal the author uses library research, where the data sources were obtained from books and articles that were offended by the topics discussed. Data was sorted out and analyzed using content analysis. This study found that the government legal politics regarding waqf can be seen from the condition of the government's relationship with Muslims. When the government's relationship with Muslims is tenuous, then the rule of Islamic law "appears to be slow and stagnant". On the other hand, if the relationship was harmonious, the rules of Islamic law, especially waqf, will develop. This is evidenced that since the Dutch colonization until the Old Order, the rules regarding waqf seemed to "stay in place". In other words, waqf regulations only regulate existing waqf practices, without any improvement in terms of both legal substance and utilization. The new waqf rules appeared in the second half of the New Order era and reached their peak during the Reformation period. Government legal politics regarding waqf is influenced by the interests of government and society on the one hand, where waqf can help improve people's welfare. On the other hand, Islamic law, especially waqf law, is growing in Indonesia through various emerging regulations.

Eunuch political influence is not strange to students of Chinese history. In many periods of history it was of decisive importance. The Ming Dynasty, however, marks the zenith of eunuch power. One of the most basic characteristics of Ming political history is the degree to which the imperial authority came to be directly wielded by eunuchs. Traditional Chinese historians have related the existence of powerful eunuchs to a decline in the quality of the emperors and to the shrewdness of some eunuchs. There is, of course, an element of truth in this position. In most periods, eunuch influence was greatest during periods of weak emperors. In Ming, it is possible that eunuch abuses would not have reached such extremes had the later emperors been possessed of more interest in governmental matters. From I47I to I497, Hsien-tsung (I465-I488) and Hsiaotsung (I488-I506) held no audiences with their ministers. Wu-tsung (I506-I522) held no audiences as he was more frequently engaged in wandering about in disguise. For forty-five years of his reign, Shih-tsung (I522-I567) held only one audience. From I589 to I602, Shen-tsung (I573-i620) met his ministers only once and this because of an attempt on the Heir Apparent's life. Given the nature of autocracy, it was logical that power would be delegated to those the emperor felt would represent only the interests of the imperial family. Eunuchs appeared to meet this criterion. Throughout these periods, contact between emperor and bureaucracy was thus carried on almost entirely through eunuchs. There is, then, a correlation between the decline of the emperors' interest in government and the increase in eunuch power; but concentration on this