The Walter H. McClenon Fund, Inc.

Special Report

Institute for Justice

901 N. Glebe Road #900

Arlington, VA 22203

This is a recommendation that we categorize the Institute for Justice as eligible for contributions from both endowments, and that we currently nominate it from both endowments.

I have been favorably impressed, for my personal giving, by the Institute for Justice. I first heard of them through local newspaper coverage. I think that I first read about their work in Louisiana, where the local funeral industry had managed to get a law passed that made it a crime for anyone but a licensed funeral director to sell “funeral merchandise.” The Institute supported the monks of a local Abbey, who faced fines (and possible jail time) for making and selling simple wooden caskets to provide for their Abbey. (I had not thought about “selling” caskets for resident monks; I suppose their families may want to provide for burials in family-selected locations.) As I remember the case, it would have taken about a school year for a monk to qualify as a licensed funeral director. (That case may still be pending somewhere.) Very soon after my being impressed by the Institute, they appeared in the Washington, DC news, where they have been supporting the case of a couple who teach Segway operation, in part by conducting sample rides in the tourist parts of the Nation’s Capital City. The two cases are good illustrations of the impact that can come from mandatory occupational licensing. (I recently read about another similar problem, represented by a hairdresser whose small salon was bought by a larger company, where she could not work without proof that she has a license, which she did have when she was first employed in that shop. O.K., that’s the Institute and my early approval.

The Institute was founded in 1991 as a civil liberties law firm. Their mission: We challenge the government when it stands in the way of people trying to earn an honest living, when it unconstitutionally takes away individuals’ property, when bureaucrats instead of parents dictate the education of children, and when government stifles speech. At July 1, 2009 they had assets of almost $17 million, about $6 million of which were restricted. In the year ended June 30, 2010 they received about $9 million in new contributions and they released the restrictions on about $4 million of the earlier assets. They spent about $9 million in the year, leaving total assets of about $20 million, including about $5 million restricted. What more can I say? They sound great to me! I think they qualify under most of the sections of By Law III D, any one of which would be enough to make them eligible.

Paul McClenon, 1 Dec. 2010