Letters to the Editor

This is not a complete list of letters to newspapers but I might build it up over time.

Printed in the Kansas City Star on November 16, 2025

Slate Debate

We continue to be blessed with strong local candidates.  However, candidates in many locales run for non-partisan positions such as school boards and community college trustees on slates with party backing and party identification.

That might help voters identify candidates' overall philosophies, and if you feel strongly about a particular issue, you might want to vote only for people who take that particular stance.  But many issues are not clear-cut, and decisions benefit from robust, constructive discussion and careful consideration of alternatives.

Although I expect candidates to bring strong opinions, I fear that party affiliations and slates "label" candidates, setting them up to be more rigid in their positions, seeing themselves as having a duty to support their slate and a particular constituency, and viewing people who disagree as opponents rather than associates.

I believe the most valuable diversity is diversity in how people think.  So, I generally prefer to have balance on a board rather than to elect a uniformly-minded slate.  Election results suggest that voters are (blindly?) voting based on the slates.  I suggest that voters take the time to select strong candidates from each slate.

Submitted October 18, 2025 to WSJ (slightly shorter version to KC Star)

I have documentation of being a “never Trumper” since at least 1988, but I blame Democrats for the government shutdown.  Democrats could have refused to fund the government because the Trump administration is acting unconstitutionally, undermining separation of powers.  Democrats could have demanded that Adelita Grijalva be seated in the House (which Republicans are blocking to avoid release of the Epstein files), that President Trump get Congressional approval for military action in the Caribbean, etc.  Instead, Democrats shut down the government because they don’t like a law that was legally passed.  That’s a terrible reason to shut down the government.  Worse, Democrats are objecting to the APRA of 2021 which is a law drafted, promoted and passed by Democrats in the Biden administration!  Democrats don’t like what they did, so they are shutting down the government.  Democrats insult the public’s intelligence by saying “Republicans control the government, so the shutdown is their fault”.  Obviously, if the Republicans had complete control, the government would not have been shut down.  The shutdown is not only wrong, it is stupid because it gives the administration opportunities to shut down projects most precious to Democrats.  Chuck Schumer consistently strongly criticized such government shutdowns until the leftist support for Mamdani in NYC increased his fear of losing the Democratic nomination for his seat to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, prioritizing personal ambition over the good for the country.

Printed in the Kansas City Star on January 5, 2025 

Don’t publicize 

In 1999, I temporarily boycotted The Kansas City Star and corresponded with its editor to protest printing the names and pictures of the Columbine High School shooters on Page 1A. I feared such publicity would stimulate copycats and maintained that showing their pictures was unnecessary. Their names could have been printed in an article continuation on a back page. 

A photo widely circulated on the internet showed the recent Wisconsin school shooter wearing a shirt similar to one sported by one of the Columbine killers. Might we have had fewer than 426 school shootings since Columbine if the press had publicized the shooters less? 

Now the media seems to be doing everything it can to publicize the name and picture of the person who allegedly shot a health insurance executive. We may see more such murders because of this media behavior. - Claude Thau, Overland Park

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/article297652243.html#storylink=cpy

Submitted to WSJ on December 20, 2024

In 1999, I temporarily boycotted my local newspaper and corresponded with its editor to protest printing the names and pictures of the Columbine HS shooters on page 1.  I feared such publicity would stimulate copycats and maintained that showing their pictures was unnecessary and their names could have been printed in an article continuation on a back page.  The recent Wisconsin shooter wore a shirt similar to the Columbine shooters’ shirts.  Might we have had fewer than 426 school shootings since Columbine if the press publicized shooters less?  Now the media is continually publicizing the name and picture of the person who shot the insurance executive.  Might we see more such murders because of this media behavior?

Published in the Kansas City Star, October 27, 2024

More choices 

Both major parties oppose ranked choice voting, which would be banned in Missouri if Amendment 7 passes, because this simple system lets you vote for a candidate without risking being a spoiler. You simply rank your first choice, second choice and so on. 

Assume Anne, Edward and Mary are running. You favor Mary, who has little chance. So, list Mary first, list Edward second and don’t list Anne (whom you want to lose). 

If someone wins a majority of first-choice votes, she or he is elected. Anne wins in the first round if she gets more votes than Mary and Edward combined. Mary wasn’t a spoiler because if Mary’s votes had all gone to Edward, Anne would still have won. 

If no one wins the first round, the last-place candidate’s votes are redistributed to their voters’ second choices. If Mary comes in third in the first round, your vote switches to Edward for the second round. It’s like the first round never existed. You got to vote for Mary and still pick Edward over Anne. 

Ranking candidates is easy — no different from “I’d like chocolate chip ice cream, but if they don’t have that, I’ll take vanilla.” 

Extremist candidates hate ranked choice because it can benefit the voter’s second choice.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article294409164.html#storylink=cpy 

Printed by the Kansas City Star December 14, 2023

Hamas’ plan 

I’ve criticized Israel’s response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, but the fundamental Palestinian problem is that many Arab leaders reject peace, favoring destroying Israel. In 1948, 700,000 Arabs left Israel, whereas 15-20 million Muslims and Hindus left India and Pakistan a year earlier. Why don’t we have a corresponding Pakistani problem? 

The answer: Muslim countries (except Jordan) have done little to welcome Palestinian refugees or help Palestinians develop economically. Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon have welcomed more than 4.5 times as many Syrian refugees in the past few years as Palestinians in 75 years.

Many Arab leaders rely on Palestinian suffering to bash Israel. For example, Hamas’ plan was that its butchery would stimulate Palestinian civilian deaths. Readers should consider Coleman Hughes’ “The Struggle for Black Freedom Has Nothing to Do with Israel” at colemanhughes.substack.com 

Terrorists hijack commercial airplanes; deploy suicide bombers; offer bounties, martyrdom and special favors from Allah to murderers; and use human shields and hide fighters in schools, hospitals and mosques. Many Israelis care more about Palestinians than some Arab leaders. 

I am sympathetic to Palestinians and think Islam is a great religion. Unfortunately, extremists hijacked Islam, and most Arab leaders have served their people poorly.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article282969423.html#storylink=cpy

Published by the Kansas City Star on September 22, 2023

A double problem 

The Star’s Sept. 11 editorial about No Labels exposed inappropriate Republican actions but suggested Democrats support democracy. It also ripped the nonprofit No Labels as not truly centrist, suggesting that “preserving the republic” requires a vote against its candidates. Sadly, both of America’s dominant political parties oppose democracy.

• Democrats spent millions in 2022 to twist GOP primaries in 12 states to nominate Republicans who would be easier to beat. 
• Democratic “election reform” bill H.R. 1 would enable vote harvesting for federal elections. 
• Democrats recently went to court to block a third party’s ballot spot in Arizona. 

Each party paints its opponents as immoral villains, seeking to divide us. Since 2010, No Labels has encouraged respectful exchanges between the parties. It encouraged the Problem Solvers Caucus (Democrats and Republicans in Congress who meet to find solutions). 

Previously, about 25% of House members could block a vote on a bill supported by 75%. The Caucus upped that to 33%, which The Daily Beast lamented as “weakening the power of party leaders and committee chairs.” 

In the 2018 midterm elections, No Labels supported 17 Democrats and 17 Republicans, all centrists. How can The Star justify calling that “faux-centrist” and quote a critic saying it wants “to punish the Democratic Party”? 

Find more information about No Labels’ positions at nolabels.org

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article279560149.html#storylink=cpy

Published by the Kansas City Star on April 8, 2022

Turn it around 

Congratulations on your editorial endorsing ranked-choice voting. (March 30, 12A, “Ranked choice voting can break the extremist fever”) For many years, both political parties have worked hard to divide American citizens. Ranked-choice voting can help turn that tide. Thank you.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article260170745.html#storylink=cpy

Submitted maybe in 2018

Written to Max Londberg (jlondberg@kcstar.com) and Mary Kate Metivier (mmetivier@kcstar.com) of the Kansas City Star.

Thank you for managing the KC Star survey on the trustworthiness of the media.  I am writing to you to expand on my response to your survey.

Before I provide specific concerns in this regard, including specific circumstances in which I feel the Kansas City Star has performed poorly, it would be helpful for you to know more about me so that you can judge my comments in context.

I have been a subscriber to the KC Star continuously since I moved to the Kansas City area in 1996 (exception: boycott, explained further later).

I am an Independent voter.  For example, in this century I voted for President Bush and for President Obama the first time each of them were Presidential candidates but against each of them when they ran for re-election.  I voted for Ian McMullen in 2016, having been a very early modified “Never Trump” person.  (Modified because my position was “Never Trump” unless the alternative is Cruz.)

I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  However, as I have aged, my social viewpoints have become less liberal, less so because my opinions have changed as compared to changes in our population at large.  For example, I have always been in favor of gay rights, which was a liberal position in my youth.  But I have not favored redefinition of the word “marriage”, which caused my position during our recent debates to be more middle-of-the-road than liberal.

I perceive myself to be a political moderate.  For example, I respect Hillary Clinton.  I believe she sincerely wants to help people (especially children and women) and is a bright, hard-worker with energy.  However, I don’t agree with her politics and see her as a divider rather than a unifier (albeit not to the unprecedented extent of President Trump).  In my view, she is a sad example of “power corrupts”.  Because she is so convinced that her motives are pure, she does not subject her actions to adequate ethical screens.  (“How could I do anything unethical when I’m just trying to help people?”)  I’m referring to this as a moderate position because so many people seem to either love Hillary or consider her to the devil incarnate.

I am the son of Jewish people who immigrated during World War II.

I have been a professional actuary, which was a suitable career for me because I view issues based on long-term impact.

In my opinion, the greatest contributory factor to the success of the United States has been the separation of powers.  As a youth, I supported strong central government, but less so as I have aged (i.e., I have shifted to what is typically considered to be governmental conservatism).  I often quote Winston Churchill who said something to the effect that “If you are young and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart.  If you are middle-aged and not a conservative, you don’t have a brain.”

Being a holocaust descendant may also influence my concern regarding potential long-term effects and for process.  I cringe when people tell me “that could never happen here” because such sentiments increase our risk, in my opinion.

Our society believes “the ends justifies the means”, endorsing inappropriate action by their political party while excoriating the same actions by the other side.  Such lack of integrity is very damaging to our country.  Furthermore, in general, “the ends justifies the means” is a slippery slope.

As a former inner city school teacher, I have traditionally maintained that our under-performing education system is our country’s biggest problem.  I now consider fake news to be our biggest risk.

In 1994, I saw the movie “Forrest Gump”.  It was a wonderful story, but I am the only person I know who hated the movie.  It sent chills up and down my body as I saw pictures of Forrest Gump with Marilyn Monroe and JFK.  Such technology was new to me.  It terrified me that people could be convinced of false information with doctored pictures and would develop distrust of accurate evidence on the belief that it might be false.

********************

Moving to your survey, the problem is not “typically not trusting media”.  Most information in the media (and the KC Star in particular) is correct.  The problem is the minority of material that is either inaccurate, misleading, biased, or irresponsible.

For example, the KC Star recently commented on Trump’s stance relative to Russia, contrasting it to President Obama’s administration by referring to “after eight years of being tough on Russia”.  I think that is an accurate quote and apologize if it is not.  I had two problems with that statement:

1)     My biggest problem was the characterization that President Obama had been tough on Russia, particularly for 8 years.  He had an extended “reset” philosophy and mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for identifying Russia as a threat.  I give President Obama credit for creating meaningful sanctions on Russia as a result of the Russian annexation of Crimea and actions in Ukraine, but he arguably could have done more.  He was weak in Syria.  President Obama did not appear to get extremely upset with Russia until Russia revealed accurate information about his favored successor.

2)     The media seems to be anxious to cast Trump as a pawn of Russia.  Initially, he said that Putin was a stronger leader than President Obama.  That was not praise for Putin, it was criticism of President Obama and was entirely related to foreign policy, not domestic action.  Unfortunately, with President Trump’s personality, mischaracterizing his actions can push him in the wrong direction.  Nonetheless, when has Trump ever been a pawn of anybody?  In some respects, Trump has already been tougher on Russia than President Obama ever was.  Trump has selected strongly anti-Russia people for his cabinet (e.g., Mike Pompeo) and threatened Russia with a nuclear build-up if Russia grew its nuclear weapons.

In the above-mentioned situation, the KC Star reporting was clearly inaccurate and misleading.  I wondered how that “after 8 years” comment could get printed.

******************************

My following correspondence from 2016 discusses another occurrence which undermines trust in the KC Star.  As noted above, I cherish process.  Free speech is very important to me.  The KC Star took a strong position against free speech and at the same time took steps to re-write history (a very scary action).  By the way, I did not boycott at the time, but I blame myself for not having gone to the trouble of doing so at that time.

From: Claude Thau

Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 9:15 PM
To: Tony Berg (tberg@kcstar.com) <tberg@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (readerrep@kcstar.com) <readerrep@kcstar.com>; oped@kcstar.com
Subject: Article about rape

Dear Mr. Berg,

When I read Saturday’s “Midwest Voices” article about rape, I was uncomfortable with it, as explained below.  However it can be valuable to read things that make you uncomfortable. 

My wife and I did not discuss it until she showed me your commentary today (http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article88705437.html), expressing her disagreement with your stance.

At the time you published Ms. Herrick’s article, you could have published an editorial comment that the KC Star does not agree with it.  Your Sunday opinion would have been acceptable if it had been limited to such a comment or apologizing for not having included such a comment on Saturday.  I think a “Midwest Voices” article, by its nature, reflects the writer’s thoughts, not those of the Star.  So I don’t think such an editorial comment was necessary, but, as noted, I would not object to such a comment.

However, in my strong opinion, you did not give adequate reason for censorship and re-inventing history by purging Ms. Herrick’s article.  Your justification is largely based on “If a person is incapacitated and someone takes advantage of them sexually, the law considers that rape or sexual assault and the victim is blameless”.  Does that mean if I disagree with a law, I have no right to be heard?

My above comments would apply had Ms. Herrick suggested that the man was somewhat less responsible because of the woman being intoxicated.  However, it is worth noting that her second and third paragraphs made it clear that her stance is that the man is not absolved at all! 

In the middle of her fourth paragraph, she appears to segue from rape to situations of consensual sex that are regretted by the female later.  That transition troubled me because it is not well-written.  It would have been good for the Star to encourage her to clarify her writing.  It is conceivable that the Star may have contributed to the confusion by failing to start a new paragraph when she wrote “And if you wake up…”, but I don’t know that she intended a new paragraph. 

I strongly disagreed with what I inferred she was saying when she wrote “If a woman was too drunk to know what she was doing and should be excused for what happened, then why are men not allowed to be too drunk to make good decisions?”  A state of created incapacity cannot absolve someone of a violent crime against another person.

I also disagreed with her suggestion that her son should run the other direction rather than help a drunk, unconscious woman.  But recently a man was victimized in just such an occurrence.  Her advice is improper in my opinion, but the issue is real and is important.

I understand that in McClenahan v. Cooley, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that “"Leaving a key in the ignition of an unattended automobile in an area where the public has access, be it public or private property, could be found by a reasonable jury to be negligent, whether or not a prohibitory statute is involved."  This theory of negligence seems related to the position taken by Ms. Herrick.  I don’t think that any such “negligence” reduces the responsibility of the person committing either crime.  But I don’t think someone who would consider such action to be negligence should be censored.

I experienced two ironies related to your opinion today:

1.     Just prior to my wife showing me your commentary, I had sent off an email related to a university which had published papers with dramatically inaccurate conclusions based on atrocious methodology.  Nonetheless, while criticizing them, I gave them credit for good points they made.  I suggest that in disagreeing with Ms. Herrick, you should have made more effort to recognize the good points she made.

2.     This morning I considered canceling my subscription because I did not get paper delivery twice this past week and did not get a Home Section/Classified today.  I quickly decided that the poor service did not justify cancellation.  However, I am considering cancelling in protest of your censorship.  (Note: I have been subscribing to the Star since I moved to KC in 1996.)

Why should I not cancel my subscription as a protest for your commentary today?

Respectfully,

Claude Thau
Phone direct: 913-403-5824
**********************

The KC Star is clearly left-leaning.  Its left-leaning attitude comes across regularly, without generally being acknowledged by the Star.  A striking example occurred in 2015 as documented by my correspondence below. Steve Kraske chose not to respond to my email of August 8^th, 2015 nor to a second email from me 3 days later, after I received a response from Derek Donovan.  (Kudos to Derek, by the way.)

From: Claude Thau
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:20 PM
To: Steve Kraske (skraske@kcstar.com) <skraske@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (ddonovan@kcstar.com) <ddonovan@kcstar.com>
Subject: A Striking Contrast between two recent articles of yours

Thanks for the articles you write in the KC Star and your KCUR and UMKC contributions, etc.

Today, you discussed a study by Patrick Miller and wrote that “Miller’s research… showed that 38 percent of partisans from both parties agreed that their parties should use any tactics necessary to win elections.  Brace yourself: That includes voter suppression, stealing and even lying.  It includes cheating and physical violence.”  You wrote other appropriate (in my opinion) critical comments about such behavior.

In contrast, a couple of days ago you explained Democrat Claire McCaskill’s substantial investment of money and effort to help Todd Akin win the Republican nomination to run against her, because she felt that he was the only potential Republican candidate that she could defeat.  I did not notice any criticism of her behavior.   Generally, I think Claire McCaskill is a good person.  But I think it is extremely unethical to interfere with the political process in the way she did.  Good people can do bad things, especially if others lack the courage to challenge their behavior.   The press, in particular, has such responsibility.

Why did you not express a value judgment regarding her behavior?  People reading the two columns consecutively might well conclude that you are one of the dangerous partisans of whom you wrote today.

I hope you will explain what I’m missing here.  If you criticized Claire McCaskill and I missed it, I apologize and will be very happy to be so informed.

Thank you.

Claude Thau

Phone direct: 913-403-5824
*********************

I boycotted the KC Star after it printed front-page (color, if I remember correctly) photos of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold after the Columbine shootings.  I don’t think their pictures belong in the paper at all and I don’t think their names belong on page 1.  I could compromise to accept front-page names with small pictures on distant back pages.  Newspapers justify such actions by saying their customers demand such sensationalism but I think that is partly because newspapers train readers to expect such material and I think newspapers should use better judgment.  In my opinion, the publicity which the KC Star accorded these perpetrators was irresponsible and encourages copy-cats.

*********************
Nationwide, there has been a lot of poor reporting related to Trump.  One example is the big hullabaloo about him accepting a call from Taiwan.  Trump was assailed for violating protocol by accepting that call.  Much more importantly, when President Obama then broke protocol by taking significant unnecessary foreign policy steps on the eve of Trump taking over apparently without discussion with Trump, I saw no media reports questioning President Obama for having failed to consult Trump.  It is possible that there were some private backroom discussions, but I think you’d also believe that is very unlikely.

Regardless of whether you support abstaining from the UN vote on Israel and the sanctions on Russia, it is hard to imagine anyone really believing that a President should take such actions in the last few weeks of his tenure without discussion with the incoming President.

*********************

I am opposed to President Trump’s travel ban.  At least parts of it were unnecessary.  It was not properly vetted (as I tell people, executive orders, as well as immigrants, need to be vetted).  Key members of the administration were not informed and it was poorly written.

It has run into legal difficulties, probably due to the ambiguity as to its applicability to green card holders, etc.

Many people opined that it was unconstitutional and/or illegal to favor minority religions over the major religions of the 7 primarily-Muslim countries cited.  However, NONE of the news reports I heard or read acknowledged that that wording in the executive order was immediately preceded by “to the extent permitted by law”.  NPR posted a highlighted and annotated copy of the law on their web-site.  Their highlighting in this area started with the first word after “to the extent permitted by law”.  I don’t understand how a provision can be unconstitutional or illegal if it contains such wording.  The implementation of the law may be illegal, but the provision can’t be illegal.

 

You can understand now why I wanted you to know that I was a “never Trump” person.   I still am very disappointed that he is president and am scared of the impact he might have on the world.  But the press has sometimes egged President Trump to be more extreme and has sadly made his anti-media statements into exaggerations rather than falsehoods.

Declined Claims and Insurance Fraud

I was disappointed by Dana & Parks’ (local KMBZ radio show) one-sided diatribe against health insurers.  They asked to hear from various people, but pointedly left out those who might defend/explain insurance industry practices.  (It is hard to get comments to them, I had to cut this into 5 separate comments).

Clearly it is appropriate to highlight wrongfully-denied claims.  But we have a lot of insurance fraud; our costs reduce if insurers deny fraudulent claims.  The Anthem BCBS plan to limit anesthesiologist payments was the result of overbilling, which Dana & Parks failed to report.  As noted in #2, you should criticize insurers for paying improper claims as well as declining proper claims.  This would be a more unique contribution, as it is an example of the “tragedy of the commons” (I can explain that principle if you are unfamiliar with it).  Here are examples I have experienced:

1. My insurance covered 80% of dental cost.  When I wasn’t billed for my 20%, I contacted the dentist’s office to pay my share.  They told me it wasn’t necessary.  They had raised their prices 25%.  When my insurer paid 80% of their inflated bill, it covered the dentist’s full intended charge.  Thus, the insurer inappropriately paid my share.  I imagine the dentist had good repeat clientele due to their practice although I never went back again.
2. I drove a person home from a car accident.  He assured me he was fine.  I watched him sprightly walk to his house (his entrance was very recessed from the curb).  I later learned he sued for severe neck damage and was told the insurer knew it was a bogus claim, but he was represented by a known shyster lawyer, and it was cheaper for the insurer to pay the claim than to incur legal costs fighting it.  Insurers’ failure to deny such claim fosters fraud should be exposed..
3. My heart doctor was explaining that my heart test was fine, when we were suddenly interrupted so he could speak with his partner.  Suddenly, I needed a heart monitor installed.  I was dubious; in several years since, my heart monitor has detected no abnormalities.  Doctors prescribe unnecessary treatment to protect against our flawed malpractice lawsuits.
4. I locked my key inside my company car.  An attendant at the garage offered to get into my car.  I agreed to save my wife from having to bring my spare key.  When he jimmied into my car, he broke the lock on the passenger door.  I asked our insurance agency where I might get this problem fixed inexpensively.  They told me to send in the bill.  When I responded that I was going to pay for the repair because I had caused the damage, the person repeatedly urged me to “just send the bill to us”.  It concerned me that he was causing premiums to rise.  I did not send the bill.

How Matching Grant Offers Have Gone Awry

I was an early advocate of matching grants.  However, most matching grant programs now are unethical, deceptively telling prospective donors that their donation will have much more impact than is the case.

Non-profits continually send out appeals such as: “Generous donors will match our [Giving Tuesday] donations [5-to-1], up to a total of [$500,000]!  So, each $1 you give now will go [five] times as far!”

However, in most cases, that $500,000 has been fully committed.  The non-profit will get that $500,000 even if no one responds to the solicitation.  If you donate $1, the non-profit gets only $1 more, not $5 more.

Not only have non-profits falsely re-characterized donations as a “matching grant” so they can mislead donors into donating more money, some non-profits have brazenly solicited funds to be pooled into a false matching grant fund.

In an open-ended true matching grant program, if there is 1-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $2 for every $1 you donate.  If there is a 5-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $5 for each $1 you donate.  The higher the multiple, the better for the non-profit.

If a true matching grant program is going to be fully-subscribed, it is better for the non-profit if the match is a lower multiple.  That is, if the full $500,000 is going to be used:

·       With a 1-to-1 match, it will take $500,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with $1,000,000.

·       With a 5-to-1 match, it will take only $100,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with only $600,000.

The 5-to-1 true match is better only if there is no cap or the cap is not reached.

With a false matching program, a higher multiple attracts more donations but the deal for the non-profit is worse.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “1-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $1,000,000. 

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “2-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $750,000.  That is, $250,000 were “matched” 2-to-1, resulting in a $500,000 “match”.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “10-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $550,000, as $50,000 soaks up the full $500,000 “match”.

The incentive is to create as high a ratio as people are likely to believe, which exposes that the messaging is intentionally misleading.  It would be honest to say that they've received a "challenge grant" hoping that people will complement that donation.  Donors who think their donation is being leveraged by a false match are being deceived.  

If a for-profit organization used such misleading messaging, these non-profit executives would think it is horrible, even if the for-profit company is seeking a cure for cancer!

Why would non-profit executives resort to such unethical approaches?  Probably because their mindset is that they are just trying to help people.  Therefore, anything is justified if it helps them raise more funds so they can do more good.  “Ends justify the means” is a slippery slope.  

You might want to question non-profits which offer such "matching gift" programs.  You might even want to reduce your annual contribution or defer it to encourage them to be honest.