"Your link, not mine"? Real damning...except you only proved that you read the link quite selectively and/or didn't even comprehend my argument.

That link contains two arguments, and not even the one you quoted actually said what you're implying it said. What it really said was that the IRS probably won't choose to read the statute in a way that punishes this scheme. It did not say they can't. The other argument, presented above the one you quoted yet conveniently ignored in your response, said the IRS very well can and very well might interpret statute and/or policy against the scheme.

Either way, they both agree with my argument that this is not settled policy and the charity is misrepresenting the situation to their recipients.

Nice try.