Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...
Yes, but to my way of thinking, 30% for overhead is on the high end of acceptable. The Salvation Army does better than that, and helps people who might not get any help from anybody otherwise. Candidly, I don't think of events with sports figures as "charities," no matter how they're marketed. There are questionable activities and expenditures all over the place. That's why local BBB's publish ratings of charities in their locations. But the horror stories and fake charities are not the rule, they're the exceptions. Church charities do an enormous amount of good work. Personally, I can't stand the coercive collection techniques of United Way*, but in the main, they seem to do a good job.
Years ago you used to be able to buy in joke stores slotted donation cans of the type then in use with this label: "Support Mental Health or I'll cill you."
*Any charity that intrudes in my relationship with my employer or has the brass b*lls to create a form listing "my fair share," doesn't deserve a penny, IMO. Having my employer ask me for donations is inherently coercive, period.
Just an example, but the Fiesta Bowl is a charity. Part of their non-profit venture is apparently to help teach the strippers at the local clubs the proper technique for a lap dance. There are plenty of stories out there about fake charities. Not to mention the charitable activities by athletes. Either the Globe or Herald discovered that something like 30% of proceeds from the Beckett Bowl actually made it to Josh's charity. For Jeter's event it was closer to 25%. You're supposed to strive for 70% going to charity, 30% for "overhead" not the other way around.
Yes, but to my way of thinking, 30% for overhead is on the high end of acceptable. The Salvation Army does better than that, and helps people who might not get any help from anybody otherwise. Candidly, I don't think of events with sports figures as "charities," no matter how they're marketed. There are questionable activities and expenditures all over the place. That's why local BBB's publish ratings of charities in their locations. But the horror stories and fake charities are not the rule, they're the exceptions. Church charities do an enormous amount of good work. Personally, I can't stand the coercive collection techniques of United Way*, but in the main, they seem to do a good job.
Years ago you used to be able to buy in joke stores slotted donation cans of the type then in use with this label: "Support Mental Health or I'll cill you."
*Any charity that intrudes in my relationship with my employer or has the brass b*lls to create a form listing "my fair share," doesn't deserve a penny, IMO. Having my employer ask me for donations is inherently coercive, period.
Last edited: