[lone_haxx0r]

> Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout

Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.

[bb88]

So MIT should be able to accept money profited from Child Traffickers and Drug Cartels?

[loeg]

Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.

I don't understood the argument for non-politician organizations returning donations from problematic people. By keeping the money, you're enriching your organization, at expense to the bad person. Win-win for society.

For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery, so in that case I can understand demands to refusing contributions from bad donors. (But even there, better to redirect it to a good charity than to return it to the "bad donor.")

[bb88]

> Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.

I think that just confuses the issue.

> For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery.

1. Alice accepts money from Bob

2. Alice discovers Bob is running a underage sex trafficking ring on the side.

3. Alice continues to accept money from Bob.

So let's ask the following questions:

1. Is Alice implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?

2. Does Alice look like she's implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?

3. How does the public know what the true motives of Alice are? Does she support underage sex trafficking or not?

4. How do we know if Alice is telling the truth as long as she accepts money from Bob?

5. How does this affect Alice's reputation? Would you go to Alice to seek help with trying to stop underage sex trafficking? Or has Alice been "tainted" with Bob's money?

[lone_haxx0r]

Yes, though that's probably illegal on the donor's side, but I see no problem with MIT receiving it.