There are no real advantages for an individual to incorporate, it mostly adds paperwork.

The vehicle needed might be to follow the lead of the UK and form a permanent Friends of Mudcat U.S. It could be set up either as a nonprofit corporation or foundation, either of which then makes grants to Max's operation (and/or to the progation of folk music in any other way, for that matter--the vehicle could run a festival or print a book or make other grants, etc.) Leave the Mudcat operation to be done the way Max prefers, just have a more organized way for friends to contribute funds. Advantage to the 501 or foundation is it makes it easier to leave legacy gifts when we pass on to the great hootenanny in the sky.

I beg to differ, and hope Big Mick sees fit to leave this post in place, because it is important.


We're talking about a great web organization that we understand and derive personal and professional benefit from. It could be much larger, smoother, more sophisticated in its offerings, and given real resources, Max could do great things beyond the shoestring operation it is now. How can you set up a 501(c)(3) to support a guy who has computers in his house that has a virtual membership that may or may not be quantifiable? Imagine what happens to that Friends corporation if something happens to Max's operation--Friends groups are put in place to support stable or protected entities. It would be better to pull up your socks and support Max by letting him incorporate and protect himself instead of setting up a Friends group, that given the number of malcontents we have around here, could hijack and bankrupt Mudcat by not turning over funds. . . you see my drift? Pardon my bluntness, but this is "shit or get off the pot"--either fund Max in a way where he has control and some security, or don't do it at all.

There are many (I emphasize again--MANY) corporations in the U.S. alone who have giving programs. Companies experience great tax advantages by putting money into accounts for charitable and educational purposes and then finding various ways to choose who receives it and how much, how often, etc. People write grants to get those dollars, and as Mudcat, Inc., someone could write grants to support the organization.

None of those big corporations are going to give substantial HELPFUL MEANINGFUL dollars to a guy who runs a web site from his dining room table. Unless they're part of the Mudcat culture they aren't going to understand how important the work is here. And even if they are, it's difficult to justify what looks like a kind of odd grant to a guy with computers limping along in his dining room or in the basement next to the washer and dryer.

This group needs to understand that the "let's put on a show" approach of Andy Hardy doesn't work today (this was mentioned before by someone else--not intended to be derogatory, but to illustrate a certain naivete towards fund-raising). Mudcat is an important site, and so far it has stayed under the radar for whatever reason. But it may have reached a critical mass where either it jumps to the next level to survive or it fades away. (Pardon the mixed metaphors--technically speaking, if it were "critical mass," it would blow to bits. I hope that doesn't happen!)

SRS