Slavery and “Separate but equal” were once perfectly legal

by David Safier
OK, so the headline is over the top. Guilty as charged. Sue me.

I just want to make the point that when Yarbrough says his ties to the tuition tax credit legislation and his financial gains from his STO are perfectly legal, even if he's right, that's a pretty thin answer. All it means is that he's on the right side of the law. It doesn't mean he's on the right side of what's right.

We're dealing with two separate questions here. One, has Yarbrough broken any laws? Two, should the laws be changed to protect against unethical behavior, and against legal looting of state revenues?

It may be that Yarbrough has broken a few laws. If, for instance, his STO could have gotten the same services it pays Yarbrough's HY Processing for at a better price — if the $400,000 charge is more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered — Yarbrough could be in a bit of legal trouble, with the IRS if not with the state. The same goes for the rent he charges and the legal counsel he provides. A 501(c)3 organization cannot overcharge for goods or services, especially if the beneficiary is someone connected to the organization.

But if he hasn't broken the law, he may still have acted unethically. Yarbrough's STO is the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization. Yarbrough has been connected with Christian private schools. Assuming he takes his religion to heart, he must understand that it's possible to break the spirit of a moral and ethical code while staying within the letter of the law. If a law allows unethical behavior, the behavior is still unethical. Slavery before the Civil War is an extreme example, but it makes crystal clear the distinction between what's legal and what's right.

When questioned about his STO, Yarbrough always hides behind the law. The law may just reach around and bite him on the behind, I don't know. But even if what he's done is legal, sometimes the law, like false patriotism, is the last refuge of scoundrels.