Every week, our Anonymous Lobbyist answers your questions about how laws get made and why they probably shouldn't. If you have a question about the dirty business of doing business in Washington, ask her . This week: dirty money for clean water. I work for a non-profit organization- for the sake of anonymity, let's say we're called the "National Society for Water Filtration" and that we're a long-established professional society. In addition to that work, we have a government grant to do really important humanitarian development work in a part of the world that really needs it. In the mean time, a group of former Hill staffers started a shell of an entity with a mom-and-apple-pie name like "Clean Water for Poor Countries, " but they have no experience, no expertise and, as far as we can tell, no real ability to bring about sustainable progress. If you can't guess, despite working out asses off to get the money for our project through the proper channels, they get much more funding for their projects than we do because their Hill presence is much better than ours. Is that pretty much the way it's always going to be? Don't the people authorizing the funds care that they are throwing money at an entity with no real expertise in the area that they are supposed to be improving?
Define Evil
Define Evil
Define Evil
Every week, our Anonymous Lobbyist answers your questions about how laws get made and why they probably shouldn't. If you have a question about the dirty business of doing business in Washington, ask her . This week: dirty money for clean water. I work for a non-profit organization- for the sake of anonymity, let's say we're called the "National Society for Water Filtration" and that we're a long-established professional society. In addition to that work, we have a government grant to do really important humanitarian development work in a part of the world that really needs it. In the mean time, a group of former Hill staffers started a shell of an entity with a mom-and-apple-pie name like "Clean Water for Poor Countries, " but they have no experience, no expertise and, as far as we can tell, no real ability to bring about sustainable progress. If you can't guess, despite working out asses off to get the money for our project through the proper channels, they get much more funding for their projects than we do because their Hill presence is much better than ours. Is that pretty much the way it's always going to be? Don't the people authorizing the funds care that they are throwing money at an entity with no real expertise in the area that they are supposed to be improving?