To make myself clearer (yes, I've been asked to do that, and I'm not just babbling on. well, maybe I am, but it's been requested), what I'm trying to say is that just because some people don't feel right taking money for what they felt is volunteerism doesn't mean that other people that don't feel that ethical conflict are inherently less scrupulous. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any unscrupulous types would be so stupid as to hope that something they do for free will be the one thing that the governement is going to decide to reimburse them for. If that was their intention, I'm sure that there's more than enough government contract money floating around that would be a better bet. (Well, maybe Halliburton subcontract money.)

On the other hand, just because I don't think that these organizations are inherently unscrupulous for taking money doesn't mean that they should be given that money unless they meet the standards required by the government to receive those funds. Certainly those organizations that don't want to abide by those rules shouldn't be prevented from, uh, charitizing, but they shouldn't expect to get reimbursed, either. None of them should expect it, actually, but those that don't abide by the rules for it should expect not to get reimbursed. (Maybe that would actually make them more charitable. I don't know.)