Slashdot Mirror

Before donating to any such charities, please do a quick search with charitynavigator or charitywatch:
https://www.charitynavigator.o...
https://www.charitywatch.org/

> I'd say both have been into unethical behavior equally,

I'm sorry but no fucking way.

Clinton's "unethical behavior" was so huge that when the AP reported on her malfeasance they spent 11 paragraphs on the 'scandal' of when Clinton tried to help Muhammad Yunus a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. When the NYT reported on her ethical failures, they spent nearly an entire story on the "expose" of how she arranged for Bill Clinton to rescue political hostages from North Korea. Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation received top scores from Charity Navigator and Charity Watch.

The only reason people think trump is at all equivalent to clinton is because trump's olympus-sized pile of shit caused outrage fatigue and the media tried to do its false balance reporting schtick by digging for bottom of the barrel stories on Clinton to somehow even out the coverage in the name of being 'objective.' But that's only a valid approach when they are actually equal.

6% of the Foundation funds goes to charitable works, 90% goes to paychecks and benefits.

This is absolutely false, and another shining example of an untrue "news" story that so many people took as fact. Only 6% of the foundation's funds go to grants to other charities, which is where that number on the tax filings came from. (Speaking of tax returns... But I digress.) The foundation does a lot of its own charitable work out of its own funds. Those funds aren't given as grants to other charities, so they don't appear on IRS Form 990, Line 13.

Let me phrase this another way. If you raise $100, and you donate $6 to the Red Cross, and you spend $82 on food for homeless people, you didn't "only" give 6% to charity. You gave 88% to charity. The actual numbers for the Clinton foundation are closer to 88% charity, 12% overhead.

Well, people who know about how charities work seem impressed by it, and it doesn't "lobby" for good causes, it provides grants for them.

Got a link? Why is someone a shill for stating a fact: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...

I mean, that's the real crime--not what Hillary did.

Uh, you're writing sarcastically, but you do understand that this is correct, right?

Trump did encourage others to engage in unlawful activity, eg hacking. While this is the leaking of a donor list of a charity that the Clintons run that does things like fight AIDS in Africa. It is not illegal to fight AIDS in Africa. It's not illegal to run charities that do so. It's not illegal to donate to charities that do so.

This isn't a fake charity like the Trump Foundation, it's a real honest-to-god A-rated group that does good things. Every mention of it should increase Ms Clinton's position in the polls.

I have a very hard time finding the evidence for your conclusion based on any sort of independent, non-partisan, non-cherry-picked evaluations:
Four Star, 93%+ rating from Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.o...
Charity Watch: A Rating, 88% of funds go to programs not administrative costs: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...

The actual evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of the money that goes to the Clinton foundation actually goes to what it's ostensibly for - charitable causes themselves. That's almost the exact opposite of a "slush fund" or a way to hide money, because they're not getting anything back out of it in any appreciable form. 12%? They'd keep more of the money if they paid standard taxes with no deductions!

They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.

Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.

The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.

No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?

Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.

Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.

https://www.charitywatch.org/h...

It says America but it's still valid for you. There's likely a UK (?) equivalent.

Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A, saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).

Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, the director of the CIA, and the largest corporation in the world.

It is when you're violating the law to set it up to avoid FOIA requests.

And then direct your underlings to strip classification markings from secure data and "send it insecure".

Oh yeah, there are emails from Hillary!'s server where she tells an aide to to just that.

Grow some balls and Google "Hillary email remove classification".

Better yet, since you've obviously drank deep of the Klinton Kool-Aid:

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure"

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Well, no fucking wonder the classified emails that Hillary! saw on her illegal server weren't marked!

Hillary! told her aides to remove the markings!

Charity Watch, anyway, gives The Clinton Foundation an A, saying that 88% of donations goes to charity (the other 12% going to salaries, fund-raising, etc.).

Jesus Christ this whole scandal makes no sense. Every public figure and business should have a secure server. Really. But nobody does. If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, the director of the CIA, and the largest corporation in the world.

>> while streamlining IT can often be painful upfront for IT managers, the payoff for sticking with it can feed into saving more lives.

This made me giggle. The CEO of the American Cancer Society pulls down more than $2M a year. Any IT savings are much more likely to be plowed back into executive bonuses than charity work. https://www.charitywatch.org/c...

Evidence: existence of https://www.charitywatch.org/home

Thank you very much. The only sites I knew of were:

http://www.charitynavigator.or...
https://www.charitywatch.org/

It is amazing how many egregious NPOs are out there and even more amazing how many people do not pay attention to this. Chances are that if they are paying a huge sum of money to buy expensive ads and then place those ads then they are not a very good charity. So, if you are seeing them advertise on all the channels during prime slots there is probably no reason to donate to them, they can use the ad money to further their cause. (This is not exactly true in all cases and it may be different as I have not watched television in a number of years.)

I tend to donate "in the name of" and oft use the name of the site that I got the idea from. Thus this donation would be in the name of Slashdot members and so I like to ensure such donations go to good causes. Not too many people like them here but I am thinking that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a good cause but I doubt they take BC. EFF is a good cause too but I am not sure how they spend their cash so I will check into that.

Anyhow, do you have a charity in mind that you prefer? It is going to be, sort of, in your name too. They have to accept BC obviously. The total current value is a little over $11,000 (I have 48 of them, I checked) so it is not an insignificant sum to some folks. I think it would make somebody's day to see that message in their inbox. Also I am a bit shocked at how much they are worth. It is less than they were worth the last time I checked but it is still worth a lot more than the time and electricity I put into it. I am sure that this is because I did this within, literally, a month of them coming out with the software and whatnot. And, no, I am not going to give it to Dice.

Here is a great place to go to find a charity that best fits your needs. http://www.charitywatch.org/az...

The solution to your problems and wrongs is not to take it out on others or to create even bigger more inefficient uncaring government programs. government programs do not help, they enslave. they trap its users in the machine.

PS. nice try, but alas just more progressive class/race/gender warfare designed to divide and empower bigger government.

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Corporate officers can't profit either. But employees -- especially top management -- can make out like bandits. Most don't, of course, but employees of a non-profit can make $1,000,000+ salaries quite legally.

But The Color Run is not a non-profit.

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich

That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?

Charity Watch (aka American Institute of Philanthropy) has been doing this for years and does a damn good job of it. You can subscribe to their ratings guide and always have it on hand if you're interested.

---Alex

These people seem to disagree with you. To get on this list, 75% or
more has to go to program services.

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Haiti.html

Right now food, medical care, and water are needed today. So I would throw in, The Red Cross, Catholic Relief Services, AmeriCares, UNICEF, and Doctors Without Boarders.
Here is a list of the most highly rated charities http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Haiti.html
I doubt that you can do wrong with any of them.
Oh and hats of the ARRL. A friend of mine is a HAM radio operator that works with the State of Florida Emergency management services. He was joking that he was offered an "all expenses paid two week vacation in Haiti" yesterday. He can not go because his wife is in a wheelchair and he is her care giver but other members of his group are heading off to provide radio communications for Haiti.
Last I heard the phone cable to Haiti was cut by the quake. Until that is repaired they will have to depend on satellite and radio to contact the outside world.
 

You can also check out some charities on sites like the American Philanthropic Institute.

Apparently to raise money among the "money-ed" people, non-profits often throw elaborate parties for the money-folks to press the flesh and be seen (and eat some fancy meal and get to experience some donated entertainment).

Seems to me that if you really wanted to help people in far off places, you would just write a check. However, that apparently doesn't keep all the local mouths properly fed (e.g., the executives and workers for the non-profits, the preferred catering and event planning companies of the money-folks, the professional fund-raising telemarketers, etc, etc)

Actually I often find it quite amusing to read thing like this... "In AIP's view, $35 or less to raise $100 is reasonable for most charities." To me, that's a sad statement on the efficiency of typical fund raising activities. It's almost as if many charities exist mostly to service/employ their executives and workers, rather than actually doing whatever beneficial work they should be doing.

If you also take in consideration that the money that charities/non-profits raise is tax-advantaged (donor gets a tax break and the charity doesn't have to pay tax on the "income"), vs say like a company that has to get money from the customer after tax and additionally has to pay tax on it, the situation is actually quite sad.

Actually, I don't fully blame Negroponte. It's really the system of non-profit charities that makes this type of business plan even remotly viable. It's a good gig if you can get it, too bad we are all (collectively) paying for it with tax preferences.

I admit I've been around this planet for only 27 years, but I have yet to see money being used for good.

Have you ever seen a local shelter, food bank, charity, helping all sorts of unfortunate folks? How about a charity golf tournament used to raise money for cancer research? Ever donated money to a cause you believed in? Or dropped a quarter into one of those red pots with Santa ringing his bell? Have you ever bought a Nintendo DS game for a children's hospital? Donated money to the Red Cross for victims of a hurricane, tsunami, or earthquake?

If you haven't seen money being used for good, you haven't been looking all that hard.

Not unusual at all.

If you look around, there's a lot of charaties that perform similar functions. Sometimes they target the same demographic group, sometimes they are bound by the same activity, sometimes they are tied to the same organization.

For example, there's more than one charity that caters to childern in hospitals. Toys for Tots, Child's Play, Get Well Gamers, Candlelight Foundation, Make A Wish Foundation, and The Shriner's Organization. Apologies to those I've missed, as I can not even begin to list them all.

There's more than one charity that appeals to a particular activity. Runners can attest to every race being tied to one charity or another, the organization coordinating the race basically survives and coordinates the race by taking a small cut from the charity proceeds. It's not illegal or unethical, as few runners will pony up charity money un-prompted but most will not gripe about an entrance fee if a portion is going to promote public goodwill. Bingo is a simliar activity driven revenue source for charities, with bingo parlors happily donating a protion of the earnings to charaties to offset ill will towards gambling in the community, and the players love it as they can soothe their losses by knowing that some of the money went to a good cause. I know of bingo parlors in Texas where every game donates to a different charity.

Organizations are another binding agent in the distribution of charity money. If you donate to your alma mater or local college / university, you often can put stipulations on the donation which effictvely makes the organization a multi-charity. One example is to specify that the dontated money is to only be spent on the library, or the departement of Biology, etc. The US Goverment also accepts charity money under such circumstances, and have a departement to distribute charity funds to the correct recipients. I have known a few people who have placed clauses in their wills to have their assets forwarded to paying off the national debt.

So it's not a great travisty to have identical, or near-identical charities competeing in their various arenas. Without competition, even in charaties, they would soon fall prey to the problems inherit with any monopoly. For charaties, that would spell beaurocratic processes for donation, department-based "kingdom building", excessive administration, and less of the donation arriving to its intended recipient.

Be glad you have a choice, one day you may find that a charity is very inefficent in distributing funds, and you might consider changing charities to another that still fulfills your wishes, but is ran by someone else. Consumer reports did a published study of charity comparison, and it was shocking to see how some squandered over 60% of the funds in (mis-)management of the distribution of such funds.

There's an excellent description of the problem at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/personal-financ e/charity-watchdogs-1205.htm

And if you want to donate, http://www.charitywatch.org/ is useful in separating out the dogs from the winners.

Check out Charity Watch . The Red Cross is consistantly one of the best to donate to. United Way is consistantly one of the worse. The religious organizations vary. Charities quickly set up to help one cause, like a specific natural disaster, are usually run by amateurs or scammers, and either way most of the money gets frittered away, either through avarice or incompetance. And, I guess this goes without saying, ever give money to a "charity" that cold-calls you.

I saw this site http://www.charitywatch.org/ on ABC news. They review the tax returns of charities and rank them by how efficiently they are run.

How would I know where their money goes? They refuse to file financial reports like most charities by claiming a religious exemption. I demand transparency before any charitable organization reasonably expect any cash from me.

The AIP did eventually get the Salvation Army to do some disclosure, but it was back in 1998. But other religious charities, like Christian Aid regularly release their financial statements without a hassle.

Charities exist in a privilaged place in tax law that can easily be abused. So, with the privilage of not paying taxes, charities need to be transparent with their finances. The Salvation Army's use of religious exemption is unacceptable.

Even legitimate charities are sometimes a bit sloppy with how they spend the contributions they get. Many non-profits spend a considerable portion of their donations on fund-raising (read: telemarketers) and compensation of management. One of my favorite non-profits is the American Institute of Philanthropy which is a watch-dog organization that releases reports that "rate" the charities on various criteria. Given the fact that there are so very many organizations that are set up to aid the tsunami victims, I encourage my fellow slashdotians to give their money to an organization that gets an A rating in the guide.

GMD

Here is a very very short list of American charities that do work that impacts the world. I'm only listing a few to give you a few links. You can find a gazillion others.

http://www.pedaids.org/

http://www.cancerresearch.org/

http://www.children.org/home.asp?sid=98BD1FD2-E8B7 -42F2-B0A7-BC88E745D831

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/home

http://www.afsc.org/

http://www.accion.org/default.asp

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=49986

You can get a nice list of the top ranked (in terms of money raised being used wisely) charities online

According to American Association of Fundraising Counsel" Americans gave $241 Billion to charity in 2003.

<sarcasm>

That's only ~$1000 per person in the US, which probably does seem a bit niggardly to other countries who like to envision the United States Citizens as fat bloated and heartless. Look at it this way: The average income for a family of 4 in the US is $40k. Giving $4000 for that family is just down right cheap.

</sarcasm>

Certainly if you look at the charts you'll see that Americans did indeed give the Lions share on internal charity, because charity does in fact begin at home, but the amounts spent on international charities, plus the amounts spent for medical research that will eventually benefit the world are hardly insignificant. Donations to save the environment benefit everyone, as does charitable giving in many scientific and medical areas of research.

So, there are some of my figures. If I may turn the tables, you said :The hike in interest rates in the 1980s, caused indirectly by Star Wars expenditure, raised these repayment rates to crippling levels. Would you return the courtesy and post some documentation/facts/figures to back up that statement? I know that the "Star Wars defense was proposed in 1983, and that $60 Billion had been spent on Star Wars in the last 20 years. Yet, if Americans gave away 241 Billion in 1 year, I can't see how 60 billion over 20 years would have caused a hike in interest rates.

I also agree that debts can be crippling, which is why now there are policies established such as the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (run by USAID) call for forgiving foreign debt (at least in South and Cetral America) in return for children's welfare reform. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative also makes sure that countries are able to survive their debt. I would very much like to see Iraq be forgiven the debts that their Dictator amassed in their name, but it seems Iraq's creditors will have their pound of flesh.

You can bet that the bill will be footed from here, and we

The Sacramento Bee did a series on environmental orgs and their practices, the good ones, the bad apples titled Environment, Inc. An article from the series, "Mission adrift in a frenzy of fund raising" cited some statistics related to how much fundraising overhead eats up contributions, and came up with 42% for the Sierra Club from IRS form 990 info and American Institute of Philanthropy. I just wish I could be a member of the local, and not fund a big marketing machine. I think the American Institute of Philathropy and Guidestar are pretty good places to start for info. Perhaps they have info on the mailing list sharing that goes on between these npos.

The Philanthropy Institute. Their specialty is 'helping donors make informed giving decisions.' And from what i've seen, they really do. They may be the people to contact, because they can put you in touch with the people looking for such things.

One tool that I've come to value in helping me decide what non-profit organizations to donate to and how much, has been the information put out by The American Institute of Philanthropy. They publish a Charity Rating Guide that lists pretty much every non-profit org that you can think of along with information on such things such as how much cash they have in reserve and what percentage of donor's contributions actually goes towards programs and what percentage goes towards paying the costs of fund raising. Let me tell you: the ACLU does not get high marks. Read the Guide for yourself to decide whether the marks are "high enough" for you to decide whether to give them money or save your contribution for a similar, but more efficient, organization.

Obviously many factors must go into your decisions but knowing some of their finances can really help you out. I have stopped giving to some non-profit orgs whose missions are strongly aligned with my own values based on the data I gleened from AIPs Guide. In fact, I actually gave some of that money previously reserved for other charities to AIP so they can continue doing their good work. I encourage all slashdotters to get a copy of the Guide.

GMD

When people think about overpopulation, they often think of India and China which have very obvious problems. But the biggest threat to the environment in overpopulation in the US. Why? Because our standard of living (a euphimism for how much which consume) is so high. An American consumes far more of the planet's resources than a European or an Indian or a Chinese. The larger the population in the United States, the faster the drain on the world's resources.

As crazy as it sounds, if you're concerned about the environment, you need to be concerned about rampant illegal immigration. I am NOT against legal immigration. The "melting pot" concept is one of the reasons the US is such an incredible country. What I'm against is a flood of immigrants coming here faster than our system can handle. And if you're an environmentalist, you need to be concerned about this, too. Consider spending some of your philanthropic dollars on a population control group (but check The American Institute of Philanthropy first).

Of course, the real cure would be to get Americans to quit using so much gas, food, electricity, etc. but, let's be realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

GMD

Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.

Quite true and it seems as though the largest and most well-known charities are often the most wasteful.

I URGE anyone who gives money to any charity -- environmental or other -- to spend $3 and get the Charity Watchdog Report produced by the American Institute of Philanthropy . This group analyzes the financial books of over 400 charities and summarizes it for you so you know how wisely they spend the money they collect from you. I, myself, have quit supporting several charities I used to (and gave the money to other charitiable organizations in the same field) because of what I've read in the Watchdog Report.

GMD