Hello my fellow fiduciaries,
As the Wikimedia DC treasurer, one of my responsibilities is to segregate funds so that money intended for a particular activity is used on that activity. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation graciously awarded us a $5100 grant earlier this year, I made sure to classify it as a separate asset account so that only items pertaining to the objective of the grant could be spent with that money. Of course you all know what the pitfall of earmarked donations is: you're less capable of prioritizing spending, allocating money where it is most needed. Charities generally prefer unrestricted gifts for this reason.
Yet in the course of soliciting organizations for money, you want to be able to sell them sometimes. "Contribute to Wikimedia DC, and you will make [Event] possible." If a sponsoring organization is giving for the sake of [Event], but you end up running a budget surplus, you will want to re-allocate that money. (The assumption here is that donations are governed by contracts that require money to be used toward a specific function.) I am wondering what the best solution is so that money is used in as non-restrictive a sense as possible while the donor gets what they want. I am thinking that in exchange for imposing no restriction on the gift, the donor receives some kind of perquisite (such as a banner or poster), but the donor is going to get that anyway. What are your thoughts?
For the American subscribers to this mailing list, when donors earmark their donation by simply requesting that it go toward a particular purpose but otherwise not requiring any sort of contract, to what extent would we be obligated to honor that request under law?