~ Citizens for Global Solutions ~ 2017

DONATION  

Donation From people and Organizations

Public money can only be donated and expended for public purposes.
Mollnow v. Rafter, 89 Misc. 495, 152 N. Y. Supp. 110.
There is great conflict and confusion among the adjudicated cases as to what purposes are so far public in their nature as to permit public money to be expended in order to promote them. While the promotion of the inter- est of individuals may result in the advancement of the public welfare, such an incidental benefit to the public is not enough to justify the ap- propriation of money to aid them;
but the validity of an appropriation or donation is to be determined by the essential character of the ob- ject for which it is made, which must be such as will subserve the purposes for which the government was created. Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454.
But state authority is not confined to those expenditures absolutely necessary for the continued existence of organized government, but embraces others which tend to make that government subserve the general well-being of society and advance the present or prospective happiness and prosperity of the people. People v. Salem, 40 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400.
Thus, the legislature may appropriate money for a state exhibit at a world's fair. Daggett v. Colgan, 52 Cal. 53, 28 Pac. 51, 14 L. R. A. 474.

OUR FRIENDS

 

Quotations

See John Bolton speaking on these issues.

photoJohn

It seems that, within reasonable limits, the legislature should be the judge of what constitutes a public purpose, and, therefore, the question before the court in all such cases is one of legislative power and not legislative policy. Daggett v. Colgan, supra.

In order for a municipality to make a valid donation, the object for which it is made must be both public and corporate. Hubard v. Fitz- simmons, 57 Ohio St. 436, 49 N. E. 477. There are many objects which may be considered public objects as regards the state government, but

not as regards municipalities because they confer no distinctive public benefit on the municipality. Wasson v. Wayne County, 49 Ohio St. 622, 32 N. E. 472, 17 L. R. A. 795.

► 

►  There is much apparent confusion among the decisions as to the power of a city to donate money to secure the location there of nonprofit organizations schools and colleges. See Livingston County v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 470; Livingston County v. Weide, 64 111. 427; Burr v. Carbondale, 76 111. 455.