This is not a discussion on the legal aspects of the National Herald case, I am not a legal expert on corporate law in India. This is about nonprofits and charities, campaign finance and the connection to a recent charity announcement - Mark Zuckerberg’s $45 billion “not so non–profit” LLC.

Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, announced the arrival of their baby daughter Max and pledged to donate 99 percent of their Facebook shares over the course of their lives to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Those shares are currently worth some $45 billion. The couple said they set up the initiative with the mission to "advance human potential and promote equality in areas such as health, education, scientific research, and energy,”

The controversy arose from the initiative's status as an LLC, or limited liability company, rather than a nonprofit. "Zuckerberg is not 'giving away' 99% of his FB wealth. He's 'donating' his FB shares to an LLC that he controls, for minimizing taxes," according to vocal members of the twitterati.

Zuckerberg responded "The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is structured as an LLC rather than a traditional foundation. This enables us to pursue our mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates -- in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need," Zuckerberg wrote on his public Facebook. "Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission."

Foundation, non profit, LLC, tax benefits… all of this is gobbledygook to the aam aadmi. To me that is the challenge with regard to National Herald case - seems to be too complicated for the common man and even the average lawyer.

Here is a summary of National Herald case for those interested in reading than clicking through memes.http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/national-herald-case-explained-in-six-simple-points/story-8N8812CZtHPChPmqnZCpIN.html

The key questions out there are around the intent of the transaction vs the legality of the transactions. Swamy claims that the transactions were illegal while the Congress maintains that YIL was created “with the aim of charity” and not for profit. It also claims it was not a financial transaction but a ‘commercial’ one. It also calls Swamy’s complaint ‘politically motivated.’

The legal situation may take time to get sorted out, but the bigger question for the Gandhis is the morality surrounding the case. Should the party scions should be sucked into such murky financial transactions?

I hope this will lead to more scrutiny on the sources and uses of party funds of ALL political parties. Am I being too hopeful?

For more netamaker perspectives – http://www.netamaker.com/zing.php