Well what qualifies "Unreasonable Income"? A lawyer could have a field day arguing this. Could we not set a percentage that administration costs could not exceed? If you looked at some of the Non Profit Org. and look at how much money is spent on the cause I think most of us would be saddened. (ie Red Cross, United Way, etc.) That is why I think the government shoud put a cap on this. However, here is the Catch 22. If the government puts caps on these amounts does it not become a step toward socialism? I mean if the government is putting its hand in on everything then people get upset saying the government is controling our lives then when they sit back and let this happen some blame them for allowing orginazations that abuse it (churches, banks, CEOs, etc.) for not doing anything.
In my opinion I believe the Government should control any area that receives tax breaks such as this or money for bailouts. We have an obligation to the people that pay this (you and I). I don't think it is a democrat or republican thing. I think it is a moral responsibility because it is obvious that people have corrupted and taken advantage of the system in place. It has failed and needs to be re-evaluated. Just opinion though.
Sorry if I turned this into a political discussion but that is something that they mentioned in the article.
Here is a website I look at before I donate any money. Just take a look at administrative costs on some of your favorites.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/