Every example you cited is a for-profit company. Carson was in business to make money for himself. Ditto McMahon. WSJ and Time exist to add to the shareholders bottom line of Newscorp and Time-Warner, respectively.
Non-profits need to raise money too! Whether the money is to cover profits or operating costs it should not matter. There's nothing in free market economics that differentiates between for-profits and non-profits.
Bryan is one of the principal public faces of the Boy Scouts of America, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is "The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using methods which are now in common use by the Boy Scouts."
So Bryan is helping to promote the purpose of BSA by helping units work with "other agencies" to raise money to support their (the unit's) program and the overall goals of Scouting. I see nothing in that statement that says, "Thou shall not accept money from sponsors".
Unlike firearms, museums, camping supplies, and even coca-cola, this was a sponsored post. That, to me, implies express approval of the product.
So did McMahon really give his approval for Alpo? Did he even own a dog? Rhetorical, so forget that.
BSA allowing rifle or popcorn companies to sponsor ads is just as much as an endorsement of their product as using Bryan's space. Maybe Bryan eats the candy. Maybe he has more popcorn tins in his house than a hoarder. Maybe he protects that house with his BSA OA Henry Rifle.
How does Bryan's endorsement cheapen his opinions or commentary? Are you going to question his credibility when he advises you to take WRFA prior to going to Philmont?
Edited by Krampus, 20 October 2015 - 02:03 PM.