Some rational thinkers have trouble understanding moral thinking. It’s not that they’re immoral (or ‘against morals’), but purely rational thinking is amoral (literally, ‘without morals’). Often the two ways of thinking align and arrive at the same result, but since they are fundamentally different, they can, do and should diverge on many issues. A corporation must act in the financial interest of its shareholders, and while issuing a press release about a modest charitable act may only indirectly further that interest, the goal remains strictly mercenary: to improve the public image of the company to sell more widgets. It’s foolish to expect a corporation to act against their financial interests, voluntarily.

Frequently, national park units begin with regular folks who are interested in preserving some bit of history or nature for future generations, like some high schoolers and others who decided that the story of their town’s concentration camp should be remembered. These are acts of charity, volunteering time or money to provide a needed public service. Later, eventually, politicians follow the example set by their constituents, but in a great many parks, the origin story comes down to the generosity and foresight of a few, regular people who cared enough to do something good. Often, the work of some of our most moving sites come down to single, individual caretakers, like the Reverend Paul Carter at Harriet Tubman’s or Paul Cole at Kate Mullany’s home. Clear, moral thinking is what drives such devotion to public service.

On the other end of the spectrum, I sometimes visit sites that seem particularly designed to serve the interests of wealthy, neighboring property owners. Eugene O’Neill’s house in California and the Green Springs in Virginia seem to be examples of this false charity. If the reason you support a park next door is primarily the rational self-interest of improving your property values, and you are not interested in encouraging members of the general public to visit the site, then you are thinking rationally and not morally. I can think of examples in every region of the country where folks seem to go out of their way to preserve their historic neighborhoods for their own interests, instead of the general public. Sometimes it’s impossible to park, park roads are left in poor condition to dissuade drivers, signage is poor or even misleading, and fences and gates block walking paths that once were open to all.

I believe that the definition of charity requires that the recipient be “needy”. Unfortunately, the US tax code has a far broader definition for tax-exempt organizations, one with plenty of loopholes.

“The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

That means that a church that primarily benefits its pastor financially is exempt, for example. An elite private school, offering horseback riding or sailing, need not admit the poor to enjoy being tax free. If the beneficiaries are primarily needy folks, then I believe that our tax policies should not burden those organizations. But when the beneficiaries all own multi-million dollar homes and go out of their way to restrict public access to historic sites or public monuments, then I think they are benefitting from federal designations or public tax dollars unfairly. I love the symphony, opera and ballet, but if the organizer is tax exempt, like Wolf Trap, then I expect them at least to make some tickets available to needy people, like Wolf Trap below does.

If there were requirements that a minimum percentage of the people who benefit from the services offered by tax exempt organizations be low-income, then we would see a dramatic increase in free field trips from schools in poor communities to beautiful and important places in wealthy communities. And I believe that would be an excellent use of tax dollars.