The Red Cross will not use donated money to pay the fine, but instead will rely on operating funds, including revenue from the sales of blood products, [Red Cross spokesman Ryland] Dodge said.I can't see how it matters whether the fine is taken from operating or non-operating (i.e., donated) revenues. Money is fungible. Any expenses that would have been covered by operating revenues diverted to fine payment will have to be covered by non-operating revenues instead. One way or another, the Red Cross is out $4.2 million. Sounds to me like the Red Cross is being disingenuous to make its donors feel like their money is being spent on good deeds instead of fines. It's like a kid saying he paid his library fine with his allowance money instead of his birthday gift check from Grandma.
(I confess I've had almost zero training in accounting, so maybe the distinction between operating and non-operating revenues affects the Red Cross's management decisions in some way -- though I don't see why it should in this case, given that the fine is presumably a one-time fixed cost, and thus should affect no marginal decisions. Maybe someone with an accounting background will enlighten me.)