[LockeWatts]

Yes, clearly the non-profit sector is far less influential than the for-profit one, in spite of donating vastly more money. Education as a whole donated $6.3M to Obama, the for-profit sector donated $145k to John Kline and $107k to Romney [1].

This argument doesn't make any sense. He just spelled this out for you, but I'll try it again.

Individual donations from non-profit education employees are not lobbying on the part of an industry. They're citizens playing an active role in politics.

Corporations in the for-profit education business are lobbying in an attempt to further increase their profit margins despite providing a product that is comparatively worthless.

Oh wait, my mistake - I live in the real world, where $6.3M > $145k, and politicians target for-profits for special rules and throw more money at non-profits.

Just as they should. For profit schools are student farms, churning them out and providing predatory loans to their uneducated students.

Nobody gives a degree from a for-profit school any kind of respect, it carries no more prestige than a high school degree. That makes their product worthless. They're attempting to legislate around their failings, not improve their product to a competitive level with the non-profit education system.

Seeing as the non-profit schools are supposed to be public institutions created to better the country, it's appropriate for them to receive federal funding.

[yummyfajitas]

Just as they should. For profit schools are student farms, churning them out and providing predatory loans to their uneducated students.

I'm confused. The "gainful employment" rule seems to target low quality schools. If, as you assert, non-profits are of higher quality, why exempt them from the "gainful employment" rule? After all, the rule won't affect them (if you are right).

The answer is, of course, that if you are wrong and some non-profits are also low quality, the employees of those schools will have less money to donate to Democrats.

But I'm sure no politician anywhere cares about that.

[LockeWatts]

First, let me point out rather amusingly that you did not respond to any of my points on the nature of campaign contributions. I'd ask again for you to do so.

As for your questions.

I'm confused. The "gainful employment" rule seems to target low quality schools.

Incorrect. Your false assertion here completely derails the remainder of your post, making it irrelevant. If you would like a correct explanation of the gainful employment rule, let me know.

[anamax]

> Individual donations from non-profit education employees are not lobbying on the part of an industry. They're citizens playing an active role in politics.

Yeah right.

Interestingly enough, no one makes that distinction when it comes to oil company executives.

> For profit schools are student farms, churning them out and providing predatory loans to their uneducated students.

You seem to think that everyone at a non-profit works for free. They don't. They benefit from the money that comes in.

The only difference between non-profits and for-profits is whether the investors get any direct dividends. There's no difference wrt the employees.

And, non-profits do figure out ways to indirectly compensate their donors.

For example, they arrange for and vigorously defend various tax breaks.

In fact, they lobby for high tax rates to make deductible donations more attractive. Gee thanks - I'm paying for your donation.

[anamax]

> Seeing as the non-profit schools are supposed to be public institutions created to better the country, it's appropriate for them to receive federal funding.

Shouldn't we ask whether they actually do better the country at some point? And, suppose that other institutions also "better the country", shouldn't they get money too?

> That makes their product worthless.

Really? Where do you think that your auto mechanic learned his trade? How about the plumber? And so on.

The for-profits tend to serve people that the non-profits have largely abandoned. Why don't those people count?