DAFs are essentially investment accounts for charitable giving according to Fidelity Charitable, one of the largest DAF providers in the country. The number of DAFs has more than tripled since 2014, making DAFs the fastest-growing charitable giving mechanisms in the United States, according to National Philanthropic Trust. The 728,563 DAFs in the U.S. as of 2018 were responsible for doling out $23.42 billion in grants that year, up from around $10 billion in 2012, as noted by Philanthropy Daily.

DAFs have increased in popularity among smaller donors because they give these donors of relatively modest means increased control over how and when they donate to charity. Individuals are able to place cash and other assets that are not easily transferable to charities   — such as stocks or cryptocurrencies — into these funds, according to Fidelity Charitable.

Not only do DAFs offer philanthropic individuals more flexibility, according to Fidelity Charitable, but they also help donors’ dollars go further because the fund may grow tax-free over time while the investor decides what cause is worth their donation.

Just like typical donations to charity, investors become instantly eligible for certain tax deductions based on the kind and size of the donated asset when they place assets into a DAF. Once an individual puts an asset into a donor-advised fund, the asset cannot be returned to the individual for personal use.

Under current law, if an individual places cash to a DAF, that individual becomes eligible for an income tax deduction of up to 60% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), according to the American Endowment Foundation. If an individual decides to donate stocks or securities to a DAF, they’re able to increase their donation amount, according to Fidelity Charitable. The donor also becomes eligible for an income tax deduction of the full fair-market value of the asset, up to 30% of their adjusted gross income, according to the American Endowment Foundation.

The Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving’s reforms are attempting to change that.

For DAFs, the Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving proposes placing a 15-year time frame for DAFs to distribute their charitable funds, according to their website. The reforms leave the door open to donors who want to extend their donation horizon past 15 years. However, the donor will face a delay receiving income tax deductions on their DAF contributions until those funds are distributed. By delaying tax benefits in certain circumstances, critics believe it will depress charitable giving.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a video conference meeting with Larry Fink, CEO of one of the world’s leading investment managers, BlackRock. Geld stinkt niet en alles en iedereen is koopwaar. Als een president zich hiervoor laat gebruiken komt dat neer op landverraad, verraad aan de bevolking die hem gekozen heeft.       BLACKROCK PLOTS TO BUY UKRAINE BlackRock will be creating a…

“The people who really run the United States of America have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again,” wrote Michael Anton in Compact Magazine on July 28. “You don’t have to imagine. They tell you every day.”

Less than two weeks later, former President Donald Trump released a statement saying that Mar-a-Lago, the Florida club that functions as his primary residence, was “currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents."

…

CBS News first reported that the raid had nothing to do with January 6, as some speculated, but rather a warrant to search the premises as part of an investigation into documents allegedly mishandled by the former president that may have included confidential information. Quickly thereafter, the New York Times and Politico were able to confirm the same: that the root cause of the raid was a supposed violation of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all presidential documents and records pertaining to his duties to be handed over to the National Archives.

Previously, the National Archives claimed that Trump delayed returning 15 boxes of requested records that the former president took with him from the White House and potentially included classified information. The National Archives also claimed that Trump only cooperated under threat of more substantial action. Trump reportedly returned the 15 boxes in January, which contained mementos, gifts, letters, and documents subject to the Presidential Records Act—including documents that the National Archives claimed contained “classified national security information.”

…

Dr. John Eastman, the founding director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told The American Conservative via email that there is no lawful justification for this unprecedented raid on a former president's residence. "What I suspect is going on is a fishing expedition," Eastman claimed. "They can’t just get a warrant for all his records—that would be an unconstitutional 'general warrant' that the Fourth Amendment was specifically written to prohibit. But using the National Archives Act as a pretext, they now can rummage through and see what they can find."

"Hopefully the courts will soon put a stop to this egregiously unconstitutional conduct," Eastman said.

While violations of the Presidential Records Act do not carry their own harsh penalties, other criminal statutes could come into play. U.S. law forbids individuals from “willfully injur[ing] or commit[ting] any depredation against any property of the United States." Public office holders who, “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys … any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited," could also be slapped with criminal charges. The former carries a fine and up to one year in prison, the latter, up to three.

The second aforementioned statute also includes a provision that says those convicted of mutilating or destroying these records are, “disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” But in the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court found that Article I’s Qualifications of Members Clause include the only reasons why a member of the House of Representatives that has been duly-elected may be prevented from holding office. While Powell v. McCormack dealt with members of Congress and not the president, the same logic probably applies to Article II, Section I, and likely renders the statutes provision of disqualification for public office unconstitutional.

Eastman believes that the current regime will eventually try to indict Trump. "But even if he were to be indicted and then convicted on a felony charge (anything short of 'insurrection'), that would not be disqualifying. Neither the Congress nor the Executive (or the Judiciary, for that matter) can add to the limited qualifications for the office set out by the Constitution. As for 'insurrection,' section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars from office those who were engaged in an insurrection (namely, the civil war). It is an open question whether that even applies to the office of President, and it was also mostly eliminated by statute in the 1870s," Eastman said.

"And, of course, there was no 'insurrection,'" Eastman added.

…

The regime, the corporate media, and the liberal activist apparatus know that everything else: the Russia hoax, January 6, two impeachments, alleged viol­a­tions of the Emolu­ments Clauses, and social media banishment hasn’t stuck. If they weren’t before, our enemies just openly told us they’re all on the same page. They know this is likely their last chance to take Trump down before he declares his candidacy. They simply can’t afford to come up empty once again. If next time the feds make their way down to Mar-a-Lago it's to take the former president out in handcuffs, or the regime finds some other way to bar Trump from taking office come Jan. 20, 2025, and they get away with it, imagine what they can get away with doing to you. With 87,000 more IRS agents, a FBI that goes after conservative parents and presidents, an intelligence apparatus that can spy on American citizens with ease, an allied corporate media that won’t hesitate to destroy your life, and Silicon Valley tech giants that can erase you from digital communication and finance platforms with the push of a button when all else fails, surely its nothing good.

I'll leave you with a few last words from Anton:

The decision was highly contentious, as the 11 magistrate ruling was split six to five, according to The Associated Press. The ruling is in response to a lawsuit the right-wing Vox party filed against the government for imposing lockdowns that began March 14, 2020.

The lockdowns were implemented in the midst of a COVID-19 surge that left hospitals crowded. When the lockdowns went into effect, Spaniards could not go outside to exercise for six weeks, the AP noted. The government has since slowly repealed COVID-19 public health precautions.

While many of the public health provisions enacted by the government due to COVID-19 were upheld, the court decided that Spain’s lockdowns that kept people in their homes except for short trips for goods, commutes and other business activities were unconstitutional, the AP reported.