This is less clear than I’d like to see propagate. The tax code permits 501(c)(4) groups to accept donations without having to declare them as income. It does not permit the donors to deduct the donations from the donors’ income and thereby reduce the donors’ taxable income.

However, I think it is the ability to not declare the donors’ names that motivated the growth in 501(c)(4) organizations, because it meant that organizations could hide their backers (and perhaps hide inferences about their true intent). If a famous conservative financially backed a group titled “Save the Whales,” we might reasonably ask, “save them for what? dog food?” instead of just donating to what surely must be a good cause (since we didn’t know the name of the donor).

Also, there has been a civil RICO case in Oregon which found improper use of funding donated to nonprofits, imposed an injunction, and so far there have been four successful contempt actions against persons or entities violating the injunction.

I really don’t understand any of this. How do these news outlets expect to grow their audience and develop more revenue opportunities if they make it such a pain in the neck for people to engage with their content? Maybe I can understand it, A LITTLE, with a paper such as the New York Times, LA Times, or Wall Street Journal — although even then, I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot. But then when these tiny little papers you’ve never even heard of start doing this crap, I’m just amazed. Seriously, the Orange County Register??? Unless someone lives in that immediate area or have some deep interest in the immediate area, they’re not going to bother. They’re ENSURING that their audience stays as small and limited as possible! And their typical audience, the type of people who still actually subscribe to their paper, is probably aging. Unbelievable! I just don’t see how severely limiting your audience on purpose is a smart strategy for growth, or even sustainability.

I’m not sure how I will respond (partly because they haven’t announced details or pricing yet). My first inclination is to subscribe in some form, but I know we’ve had bad luck at starting and stopping subscriptions with them in the past.

But I also have in the back of my mind that, for what I tend to read from them, maybe I should just rely on the local TV sites…and choose another paper to digitally subscribe to…either for news from back home in Canada or for a “better” paper for national and world news coverage.

I just find that too many news sites charge more on the digital side than seems warranted (since they don’t have to ship physical copies and pay people to deliver them door-to-door).