Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#41

Post by dylan604 »

Frieren wrote: post #22

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

Susan G Koman is infamous for this. So many people assume money raised is for cancer research, when it's actually meant for awareness. Yes yes, we're well aware that breast cancer exists. Let's cure it with the money instead.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#42

Post by GoodJokes »

welder wrote: post #24

Only donate to smaller non-profits, get to know them first, find out if the administrators take any income from the non-profit, then make up your mind to donate or not. For example, one charity I like [0] runs a school and the administrators don't take any income from it. [0] https://www.dominino.de/spenden-helfen

[dead]

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#43

Post by ben_w »

elaus wrote: post #28
ben_w wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill. A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money. I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at. And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the m…

But why would hospitals have to cover the cost of skydiving accidents if they didn't even organize the fundraiser? (side note: Living in Europe, I never heard of skydiving as a popular way to do fundraisers – interesting!)

I forget the region, but by way of example:

My understanding is that in the UK, the NHS is underfunded by taxes and therefore the hospitals do accept charitable support, but also very few people have private insurance on top of the HNS and the NHS hospitals will treat you no matter the cause.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#44

Post by jzebedee »

ben_w wrote: post #26
Frieren wrote: post #22

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill. A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money. I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at. And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the m…

At these scales, the difference between intentional fraud vs. incompetence or negligence is meaningless. Millions of dollars purportedly for charity are being laundered tax-free and enriching someone else.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#45

Post by SloopJon »

Although a lot of the comments so far refer to charitable fundraising, this story is about political fundraising, often confusingly similar to charities; e.g., the American Breast Cancer Coalition. The kicker is that some of the parties involved have previously been "banned from all charitable fundraising for life."

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#46

Post by sparcpile »

Charities can hide their percentages when they self-deal with people on their board. It's highly unethical.

Wreaths Across America is notorious for this. All the money they raise goes to the wreath making company that the board members own. When they put out RFPs, as per legal requirements, Worcester Wreath Company is always sole-source provider. https://popular.info/p/the-truth-about-wreaths-across-americ...

Worcester Wreath Company lost its contract with LL Bean due to their bad busines practices. Wreaths Across America was created by Morril Worcester as a way to sell more wreaths. It's a grift all the way down.

https://files.mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decis...

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#47

Post by [deleted] »

foreigner wrote: post #36

Many years ago my sister had a job going door to door asking for donations for environmental causes. I was shocked to discover that the people doing the canvassing immediately pocketed half of the donations as they walked away from the door. And that was only the percentage taken by the people on the front line!

[deleted]

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#49

Post by sfn42 »

foreigner wrote: post #36

Many years ago my sister had a job going door to door asking for donations for environmental causes. I was shocked to discover that the people doing the canvassing immediately pocketed half of the donations as they walked away from the door. And that was only the percentage taken by the people on the front line!

I met a girl who was selling subscriptions for save the children once. Ended up meeting up with her later and asked her about the job. If I had signed up for the thing, paying about $20 a month, she would pocket the first three months. Not sure what her employer would take after that, but knowing they were flying these people around, paying for hotels year round, and probably taking a decent profit on top, I'm guessing I'd be paying for close to a year before any hungry African children would see any money.

They also frame it like you're paying for a specific kid, telling you their story and showing pictures etc, but it's the same picture and story they show everyone. Total scam.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#50

Post by mNovak »

Frieren wrote: post #22

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

While this is also true, the article is more about the direct scam that is fundraising companies. These are in principle separate of the charity, basically running a call center and collecting the funds, and that company pockets 90% of the funds people think they're donating to the charity. Of course the 'charity' is aware of this and is complicit, either because they have no other means of fundraising, or (as seems to be the case in this article) the charity is also a scam, basically just having a good name to plug into the script.

Point is, it's more than just writing off parties and entertainment or high salaries, it's directly taking cash in pocket.

Post reply on HN