Slashdot Mirror
Charities Upset Over Chase Facebook Contest
ssv03 writes "The New York Times is reporting that Chase Community Giving of Chase Bank recently held a contest on Facebook in which users were encouraged to vote for their favorite charities. At the end of the contest, the 100 charities with the most votes would win $25,000 and advance to the next round to have a chance to win $1 million. Initially, the vote counts for each organization were made public, but two days before voting ended they were hidden, and the final totals have still not been released. While Chase had no official leader board during the voting, several organizations were keeping track of projected winners. Those projections were almost identical to the final results, yet several organizations including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists. They had been performing very well (some within the top 20) until the vote counters were removed. Chase Bank has so far refused to discuss the issue with the organizations. SSDP has spoken out in a press release (PDF) and is calling for a boycott."
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists
In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.
Something in the fine prints of the contest rule, about which nobody but lawyers care, must allow this to happen.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups don't sound like very charitable organizations. They sound like political groups that may be non-profit.
Chase was the first bank to pay back TARP over six months ago. Chase was perfectly healthy anyway. They sold all their subprime assets in 2005. The only reason they took TARP in the first place was because Bernanke/Paulson/Geithner held a gun to their head and forced them to.
Obviously Chase meant the top "non-embarassing to a big company" charities. Can you imagine if Chase had to donate $1M to the Marijuana Policy Project? I'm sure the board freaked out at the thought of "chase" and "MJ" being in the same sentence and said, "do whatever is necessary to make sure we don't get that association."
stuff |
I wouldn't have a problem if Chase had declared an organization ineligible, but that's not what they did. Instead they wimped out and hid the vote tallies, probably blocking votes to organizations that those running the contest don't support, without even saying who or why they were disqualified.
The reason a corporation give money to a charity isn't because it believes in the charity, but because it will get a blurb in paper saying how good they are and increase the brand good will. Does anyone really expect a corporation to spend $25000 so it can be on the news with a headline "Chase supports legalizing Drugs". I won't even get to the quagmire around abortion. I'm sure if they do this again, they'll pre-screen organizations that are allowed to participate. Frankly I'd been more concerned if they screened out an organization that helps people get out of credit card debt.
" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".
Banks, Ugh!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.
I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
from SSDP.org:
"Values Statement
Students for Sensible Drug Policy neither encourages nor condemns drug use. Rather, we seek to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse and drug policies. As young people, we strive toward a just and compassionate society where drug abuse is treated as a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue. We recognize that the very real harms of drug abuse are not adequately addressed by current policies and we advocate measures that would effectively help those who develop drug problems. Yet, we also believe that individuals must ultimately be allowed to make decisions for themselves as long as their actions do not infringe upon anyone else’s freedoms or safety."
American Express (AmEx) did something similar in the Boston area. However, they thought it through first. An organization that wanted to participate had to submit a proposal on what they would do with the money and description of the organization's misson. AmEx selected about 40 (all worthwhile) organizations to vote on. AmEx got a reasonable selection of charities to participate--some of the really large ones, and a few highly specialized. The organizations used their participation to encourage their members to vote and become engaged to the organiztion goals.
I think every organization that was selected got some funding (perhaps at the $1000 level) so there weren't hard feeling from the losers.
Goes to show you that Chase != American Express.
The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?
I often masturbate instead of thinking of the hungry.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The people who are voting for the drug organizations are idiots who need to put down the bong for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering. The thought that people are putting the legalization of a recreational drug over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.
While throwing someone in prison for smoking or growing something completely natural, destroys their credibility, severely affects their ability to get most jobs and ruins their life isn't such a problem with you?
I'm not saying people who are starving are unimportant, far from it, but to say that it's simply a matter of a recreational drug is pure ignorance on your part, and it is you who sickens me.
Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
And the thought of people's lives being ruined over doing something that did no harm to anyone doesn't sicken you?
That's the problem with democracy. People might vote for something you don't like. This is a lesson that many dictators learned the hard way (and solved in the same way as Chase). It's really better to start cheating from the very start and just pretend people are actually voting.
Yeah, like the many people dead or wounded due to gang violence fueled by the street drug trade, or the many people addicted to drugs who can't get medical or treatment help because they will get arrested or simply ignored, the people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq due to terrorist groups funded largely by the heroin trade.
I could go on, but you're an idiot if you think the current US policy toward narcotics doesn't cause starving, dying and suffering.
People who think caring about drug policy is for bong-toting fratboys sicken me.
The thought that people are putting giving someone a hot meal over say giving a good professional education sickens me.
The fact is that most of the people whose lives have been destroyed by drug-related arrests are not bored college kids looking for recreation. If your dad is rich enough your arrest will be stricken off police records. If you can pay a good enough lawyer you'll get probation. If you are poor you'll get a rap sheet that will haunt you forever.
Disclaimer: I have never used drugs, not even marijuana. But I support total legalization of all drugs.
The people who are voting for the drug organizations are idiots who need to put down the bong for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering.
That's precisely what pisses a lot of us off! Our society is currently spending untold $billions right now harassing potheads who are hurting no one but themselves. We could (and should) be using those resources to help those who are starving, dying, and suffering.
The anti-choice side just want full control over a woman's body. To them a woman is nothing more than livestock that they own.
The anti-life people are just in it because, frankly, killing babies is fun and they can't quite figure out how to legally have Friday night baby killing parties.
Now... figure out which side I'm on :-P
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself? What kind of crap is this?
Nobody is taking anyone's education away, why are you using hyperbolic stupidity that borders lying to prove your "point"(which isn't much of a point even if you weren't making shit up).
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
Wow, a credit card company changing the rules in the middle of the game.
How Shocking!
As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
--
You are 100% right. I think we should start with a comprehensive national program to provide free abortions for everyone who is not of the sinful white race. We would educate all the mothers of minorities that they have rights, provide for them, with a special tax on white people, perhaps, because of their sinful state, to pay for it.
In fact, knowing that our planet is so terribly overpopulated, we could even work to save our beseiged planet and creatively encourage pregnant mothers of minority children to make the correct choices through the use of govnerment aid for her existing children as an incentive.
This is my sig.
It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.
I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.
Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.
Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.
It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.
Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Chase is pretending that they are donating money to charities that are selected by a vote, but in reality they're donating money to charities they choose themselves. They have every right to do so, but pretending otherwise is churlish.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
they suck.. when are people going to realize this? stop doing your banking with these mega corporations.
You keep empowering them everytime you put your money into them.
I'm not saying hide your money under your bed or in your backyard, just stop doing business with these megacorporations.
including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups
My first thought was "hey, if you set up a vote like that, you've gotta accept it if people happen to like, say, pro-marijuana projects" and then I saw "anti-abortion groups", at which point I was thinking "obviously they can't fund religious nut-job terrorists." Then I realized that I was being a hypocrite, and I'm still sorting through the cognitive dissonance fall-out.
For patients that would be far better off with medical weed than with current medication, this is helping people in need. Especially in the US, people who have used marijuana as a medicine have ended up in jail. How much more need do you want?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?
It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.
"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "
Religion isn't agianst the law.
Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.
"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."
They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.
How is that different than saying "Sorry, you needed 4 Advanced Placement classes for this scholarship, but you only took one. You made a choice not to make yourself eligible".
It's not different, and I don't really think any of your points hold up.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
...taste better after a little sensible drug use. Allegedly.
If this is simply Chase giving money - their own money - to a charity, they can legally give it to whoever they want. It might be different if this was a lottery and the organizations had money invested, but they don't. This is just a popularity contest. If you're a finalist on American Idol, you're in the top 3, and they decide to boot you off the show because they find out you used to use pot, then you're shit out of luck, you know? If Chase decided "screw it, we're not giving money to anyone", they have a right to do that.
I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.
Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.
And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.
So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.
So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?
Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.
In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?
HOW DARE YOU?
There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.
MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.
Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.
He was wrong.
And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction
If you're concerned about the supposed consequences of that law, then I suggest not smoking pot. Or at the very least, don't go out in public when using or under the influence.
taking someone's education away
That statement is factually incorrect. No law can take someone's education away - you can't force someone to un-learn what they have learned. Even if the law denies them access to certain financial aid channels, that is dramatically different from what you suggest.
punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself
That statement is factually dubious at best. It is clearly a statement of your opinion, as opposed to your earlier statement where you seemed to be trying to state fact. Though you should try to be more clear when you are stating your opinion, in comparison to when you believe yourself to be stating something factual.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
At issue here is their social agenda, not their efficient use of bailout monies.
This is highly reminiscent of when Obama asked for input from Americans for issues they wanted to see addressed; the very highest rated issue was legalization of marijuana and amnesty for those imprisoned or otherwise punished.
So what happened? When the time came to address the issues, Obama laughed it off, literally laughing about it in public, during the program for talking about these issues, and acting like it was "crazy talk."
The people running this country - and you'd better believe that includes the people running the banks and other major players in the financial system, such as the insurance companies - are completely out of touch.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Read about what happened in Portugal.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.
I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.
Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.
Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.
It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.
Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.
Wish I ever had mod points when I saw posts like this.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
I've always hated Chase, their fees, and etc. and this article isn't helping.
Who are Chase to interfere? Well they're the ones fronting the money.
I'd say they have a basis to intervene.
I take it a step further. I support the government manufacturing and giving drugs away for free.
No more black market drugs. (No money in trying to sell something the government is giving away.)
No more gang violence to control drug turf.
No more bad drugs on the street.
No more prostitution to support drug habits.
No more prisons full of drug addicts and drug dealers.
Some addicts will die; very quickly. Other addicts will die; very slowly.
We need to accept that addicts are people and will make choices; some of those choices will have self-destructive consequences.
No more saving people from themselves. The point is to reduce the collateral damage to society as much as possible.
It beats the "War on Drugs" by a long shot.
Absolutely they have a right to, but it sorta defeats the process of the whole voting process if they're going to override what the public wants. They should have said "choose which charities we give our money to" they should say "recommend which charities we give our money to and we'll consider it".
I don't know... is it really a good idea to fire a guy holding a sledgehammer?
Just set the pile on fire to spite all crybabies. Then point to this thread when little johnny the orphan asks for new socks.
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?
It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.
Religion gets "special protections" as a choice because the government isn't allowed to establish religion. Seems like a paradox, but somebodies decided that denial of government aid (loan, etc) due to religion is tantamount to supporting one religion over another, which can be tacit establishment.
No, that's Chinglish, not Ebonics. They're fucking chinks.
(But thanks for proving that the AC racism trolls are so dumb they can't even be competent at bigotry, and for letting me blow off some steam at the same time. For all our differences, AC, we can agree on this: those fucking spammers need to go down.)
Why would Chase be concerned with ignominy? Any charitable organization (except those chase found to be exempt) winning is purely fortuitous. The true commercial nature of this contest is adverse to the charitable benefits anways.
Just realize the interest rate they're giving on Savings accounts is .01% not 1% or a 10th of a percent, but a hundredth of a percent, practically zero. There is no incentive to save your money with chase.
Is this really surprising, people? REALLY? They're just playing CYA. Chase obviously doesn't want to step on any political "hot buttons" on either side of the aisle, so they're somewhat arbitrarily disqualifying charities affiliated with both "liberal" causes (less restrictive laws on marijuana) and "conservative" causes (anti-abortion). Although I'm sad to see the former disqualified, if it means one of my banks (full disclosure: I am a Chase customer) doesn't give money to some anti-choice lunatics, I'm happy.
Chase might not have predicted that highly politically charged charities would make it into the top $foo list. Not every charity is something everyone can get behind, like the Stop Grinding Baby Kittens Into Soup Foundation. (I will now stand back and wait for one of you knuckleheads to talk about how you support the grinding of baby kittens into soup...)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
that analogy is nothing short of brilliant. a guy punching holes in the walls with a sledgehammer == our government's solution of criminalizing marijuana.
*** once i really listened, the noise just went away. -liz phair
It's Chase's money, go fuck yourself.
Chase = Crooks, See http://www.chase-sucks.com/
I cancelled my Chase Visa this week. Not because of the boycott but becaue their customer service sucks donkey balls. The kicker was it took talking to about 8 people to cancel an account. My favorite was the stupid bitch who wanted my birthday (which was supplied with year) AND my age. I told the "fucking bitch" to do the math herself (this was asshole number 7 - ok not that I am a saint). She had to transfer to someone with the sense to go off script and cancel the account without an exact birthdate and age. What was the issue? They admitted receipt of money, on time, that they fucked up, but wouldn't let a $25 paypal purchase go through for 24 hours until after they fixed their own fuckup. I don't need a "business" credit card like (purchases of thousands are not uncommon as are travel/meal expenses - who wants to find out about a problem because their card was declined? And the CC company can't fix? Even after seeing their mistake?). Any other good card would call if their is a problem.
If you say anything to the last three but, "take care of the baby until you can turn it over to someone else who can," then you know what, I'm calling it like it is: you're wrong, and it's sinful, and you need to repent. (And spare me the contrived cases ... the woman who truly doesn't have the food to carry the baby to term, rape, incest, etc., because they (a) don't represent the majority of abortions and (b) the point is that any decent person will care for a child or die trying.) As for the "judgmental" thing--Jesus wasn't afraid to call it like it was, and he wasn't afraid to call for people to stop sinning. See for example Jn 8:9--after one of the most beloved stories of Jesus' "non-judgmental" nature, Jesus goes on to say "go and sin no more."
As for the first question, I truly question whether "human" means anything if we start to draw such an arbitrary line as to when one is human and when one is not.
What changed my opinion forever when it came to abortion was fatherhood, and realizing that my children had recognizable personalities, preferences, and everything else from birth and even in the womb.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The trolls posting to slashdot are the idiots who need to put down the keyboard for long enough to see that there are other human being starving and dying and suffering. The though that people are putting their frivolous opinions online over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.
Why the disclaimer?
Have you had a cup of coffee, a drag from a cigarette, a glass of beer? Then you are a recreational drug user.
When you use these false dichotomies in your arguments, you are implicitly validating them.
Kudos for your position.
Chase is a major portion of the Central Bank (also known as the Federal Reserve Board). I saw that ad on Facebook and thought: "Yeah, right, Chase, charity. Uh huh." They have as much interest in charity as I have in another Bush regime.
Some cute intern probably came up with this great idea thinking it would be small time and had no real implications other then doing a good deed for some charity, and thought it would be down played. Whether there was any "special" treatment to win the contest, I think definitely the person who thought this idea up, did not foresee the fact that make something visible right to the end, then make it invisible, would make it evidently problematic for them.
Sounds like you're all offended over something I never said. (No, this isn't a troll this time.)
I've known for some 15-20 years that alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined. Who put the stick up your ass?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com