We chose to donate to charities that we wish to. Why should the nanny state go bothering those charities to see whether the state approves of what they do? Not all of us want to donate to the needy or to the arts or to improve society. We may want to send those running the charity on vacations instead of focusing those dream vacations on people with terminal cancer.

The nanny state shouldn’t judge those charities we choose to donate to. But of course that doesn’t stop the nanny state.

The Federal Trade Commission and 58 law enforcement partners from every state and the District of Columbia have charged four sham cancer charities and their operators with bilking more than $187 million from consumers. The defendants told donors their money would help cancer patients, including children and women suffering from breast cancer, but the overwhelming majority of donations benefitted only the perpetrators, their families and friends, and fundraisers. This is one of the largest actions brought to date by enforcers against charity fraud.

They don’t know the thoughts of those giving to the charity. We are not fools. We don’t give money away without studying how it is spent. If we needed the nanny state to tell us how to spend our money we would ask.

According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations for lucrative employment for family members and friends, and spent consumer donations on cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition, gym memberships, jet ski outings, sporting event and concert tickets, and dating site memberships. They hired professional fundraisers who often received 85 percent or more of every donation.

When we choose to give it to organizations that treat their staff well that is our choice.

The complaint alleges that, to hide their high administrative and fundraising costs from donors and regulators, the defendants falsely inflated their revenues by reporting in publicly filed financial documents more than $223 million in donated “gifts in kind” which they claimed to distribute to international recipients.

Donors certainly understood this. The nanny state acts as though they know better than us what we want to give money to support.

Read more about the nanny state actions – FTC, All 50 States and D.C. Charge Four Cancer Charities With Bilking Over $187 Million from Consumers

Related: Nanny Staters Think the Government Should Protect People From Fraud – Nanny Staters Expect Sidewalks to be Maintained – Nanny State Shouldn’t Bother Food Service Workers To Use Safe Health Practices