Today’s Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the Law School Admission Council has given $250,000 to One United Michigan, the umbrella organization leading the fight to preserve racial preferences in Michigan.
The LSAC, according to its web site,
is a nonprofit corporation whose members are more than 200 law schools in the United States and Canada. All law schools approved by the American Bar Association are LSAC members. Fifteen Canadian law schools recognized by a provincial or territorial law society or government agency are also included in the voting membership of the Council.
… [T]he the Council is best known for administering the Law School Admission Test….
So, some funds from Canadian organizations are used to influence a state vote to amend its constitution? (Apparently having a Canadian-born governor is not enough for Michigan liberals.) Canadian influence notwithstanding, with some exceptions non-profit organizations are prohibited from spending large amounts of money to influence political campaigns, and, indeed, the Chronicle article reports that
The American Council on Education considered donating to One United Michigan but decided it could not based on its tax status, said Terry Hartle, the group’s senior vice president for government and public affairs. Instead of donating money, Mr. Hartle said, “we have communicated with college presidents around the country to make sure they know what the stakes are for this vote, and we have been in regular contact with the campus presidents in Michigan as this has evolved.”
James M. Vaseleck, associate counsel for the Law School Admission Council, said his group had consulted with an outside lawyer and “got the OK to go ahead” to donate money because “supporting diversity is integral to our mission.”
I wonder if the “outside lawyer” (doesn’t the LSAC have any “inside” lawyers?) was preferentially admitted to his or her law school, since that advice would also seem to give the green light to contributing directly to Democratic candidates for office, contributions at least in high dollar amounts that are widely regarded as prohibited.
John, have you seen Dave Neiwert’s critique of Ward Connerly’s acceptance of KKK support in Michigan? If you have time after the elections, I’d love to know what you think of it! Thanks.