Reply #3: "usually a non profit' Wrong and misleading

[No Elephants]

Contrary to popular belief, the term is not "non-profit," which implies profit is non-existent.

The correct term is "not for profit," meaning that the corporation was not organized making a profit.

Education and religion are classic "not for profit" purposes.

It has nothing to do with whether the corporation turns a profit or not.

Plenty of corporations that are legally classed as "for profit" do not turn a profit and, indeed, operate at a loss.

Conversely, plenty of corporations that are class "not for profit" for legal and tax purposes rake in the dough. And said dough usually goes out of the corporation as wages to executives, wages being one of the most secure ways to get money out of a corporation. if the corporation goes bankrupt, lenders get on line behind salary claims.

Despite all of the above, though, most people practically equate "nonprofit" with corporate halo. It ain't necessarily so.

Charter schools want to be public schools so they can get taxpayer's money. Then they want to be private so teachers can't unionize.

What about the point of the ruling, though?

Doesn't everyone who contracts with the government get taxpayer money? Blackwater, Halliburton, Bechtel, whomever.

How is this different?

I am not saying this to support charter schools or union-busting as I dislike both those things. I am, though, puzzled as to how it is different.