In Minnesota, non-profits like faith-based groups, hospitals, charities, schools and other organizations do a lot of great work. They're often rooted in the communities they serve, closer to understanding needs than bureaucrats located in St. Paul (not that the bureaucrats are cads--it's simply a matter of proximity).
Sometimes, they received state grants to help them do this work.
This wouldn't be allowed if a bill proposed by Scott Newman were to be passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Dayton.
Newman has introduced SF 1096:
S.F. No. 1096, as introduced - 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Apr 04, 2011
1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to state government; prohibiting grants to nonprofit groups in certain
1.3areas;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 16C.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. [16C.36] GRANTS TO NONPROFITS PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN
1.6SITUATIONS.
1.7No person, corporation, or entity doing business as a nonprofit entity shall receive
1.8public funding to provide goods or services if the same or similar goods or services can be
1.9provided by a state agency or a private for-profit business entity.
Newman is the only author in the Senate and there is no House companion bill as of now.
One has to wonder what problem this bill is aimed at solving. Are private non-profit colleges somehow less worthy of funding than a local MNSCU institution or the nearby jingle-singing mall outlet of a for-profit diploma mill charging jacked-up prices? Or are mental health services provided by the local hospital here in Hutchinson--a recently privatized non-profit--somehow less deserving than therapy at the regional treatment center in St. Peter or a private psychologist?
If I recall correctly, Newman brought this up during the campaign and I was puzzled then about precisely what the problem is. It seems like a solution looking for a problem--and one that would cut out qualified service providers from bidding on projects or applying for grants. Does this create jobs? Does it save money? Just what purpose does this restriction serve?
Let's hope the Minnesota Council for Non-profits is on this one.
Wouldn't this eliminate government funding for Legal Aid? Private for-profit entities do provide those legal services; Legal Aid just does it for those people who can't afford a lawyer. A significant portion of Legal Aid's funding comes in the form of gov't grants and other gov't assistance. A basic reading of this clause suggests that it would forbid the state from issuing the grants that support many attorneys who serve the poor.
One more example of a GOP attempt to screw the poorest and neediest in the state, or just another clueless legislator with no idea of the implications of their proposals?
Posted by: Josh | Apr 05, 2011 at 02:53 PM
Don't read too much into this. He just doesn't have any investment in the "Little Sisters of the Poor". Can't make money at it, not worth doing.
On the other hand, I might support this. Would this restrict school vouchers for private schools?
Posted by: Spit | Apr 05, 2011 at 06:26 PM
Does that mean Girl Scouts troops won't get to use school property for free because they compete with Nabisco?
Posted by: Susan Rego | Apr 06, 2011 at 09:46 PM