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."

Comments

Charities?

[Jojoba86]

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.

Re:Charities?

[CRCulver]

Many organizations in the US that push for policy changes are federally registered as 501c3 charities.

Re:Charities?

[Culture20]

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.

Plenty of anti-abortion groups are about helping and educating pregnant women, not advancing political change. Anti-abortion doesn't always mean anti-choice (as strange as it sounds). The MPP probably believe they're helping glaucoma patients. I don't know what the SSDP does.

Re:Charities?

[maxume]

It's simpler to refer to 501c as a tax status and leave the charity part off.

Re:Charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine they're in the business of getting you high as fuck, bro.

Re:Charities?

[ClioCJS]

It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction. Because of course taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar isn't exactly the best way to minimize marijuana's impact on people's lives. The wierd thing is is that the punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself.

Re:Charities?

[Whatshisface]

But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws. Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.

Re:Charities?

[m.ducharme]

You need an education to be blue-collar these days. Marijuana convictions create a growing class of criminal entrepreneurs, not blue-collar workers.

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Really? Slavery, abortion and infanticide is all centuries old. Unfortunately only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

That has got to be the stupidest argument against abortion I have heard yet. Let me try another triplet. Stoning, religion and castration are all centuries old. Unfortunately, only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

Re:Charities?

[AK Marc]

Seriously, the anti-choice movement is quite evil.

They believe abortion is murder. They are willing to go all the way to murder of their own if they think it will stop them. They try to distance themselves from the clinic bombers, but rarely do you actually hear full-out condemnation. And yes, they'll lie to stop abortions. But what I think is most horrible is that one of the proven most effective way of stopping abortions is sex ed combined with free available contraception. And the anti-choice people object to that. That makes then not pro-life, but evil anti-choice people that do not have the best interests of children at heart, but want to push their personal and religious beliefs on others against their will in a manner that they know harms others. It's not lying to prevent murder that makes them evil. It's lying to cause the situations that cause abortions, then calling abortion murder.

The few principled ones who want to stop abortions and think abortion is murder usually end up pro-choice because they realize that pro-choice pushes education and doesn't push abortions. They realize that making it illegal will still result in abortions, but that the illegal ones jeopardize not just the baby's life but the mother's as well, and they realize that a parent that wants to kill their kid before the child is even born may not be the best environment for the child, and that aborting this one so the next, when the time is right, will have a family ready to receive it and a better life is the best thing for all involved (and of course, the hind sight to realize that education and contraception would have prevented the whole situation).

Re:Charities?

[fluffy99]

If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.

Chase did explain their policy, both upfront and after these groups started whining. They simply weren't eligible in the first place and got culled out after the first round of voting. Wikipedia describes SSDP as a "non-profit advocacy group", which is not the same thing as a charity. Below are some relevant quotes from the articles.

Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission “aligned” with the bank’s corporate social responsibility guidelines.
"Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant."

Mr. Evangelisti said the 100 finalists “reflect those organizations that received the most votes among eligible participants.”

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Jojoba86]

As TFA states:

Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant.

Pretty straightfoward really, no lawyer techno-bable there.

Non-embarassing charities

[192939495969798999]

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."

So disqualify them...

[tomhath]

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.

Marketing, not charity

[xzvf]

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.

Like Darth Vader said:

[kurt555gs]

" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".

Banks, Ugh!

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[thetoadwarrior]

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[thetoadwarrior]

Remove them from the beginning rather than letting them think they have a chance.

Amex did it better...

[klubar]

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.

Re:Good for Chase.

[quarrelinastraw]

there are other human being starving and dying and suffering

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.

A Credit Card company changing the rules?

[duncan]

Wow, a credit card company changing the rules in the middle of the game.

How Shocking!

Re:Good for Chase.

[DavidTC]

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.

501(c)(3) defined by the IRS

[drew30319]

I run a 501(c)(3) that I formed in 2006. My organization was also in the running for the Chase Contest but was not one of the winners. While disappointed, I'm pleased that Chase undertook this contest using this approach. Generally corporate contests and donations go to the large charities; Chase at least gave us a chance. Following is the IRS information on being a 501(c)(3); note that the first paragraph states "[...]it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities[...]"

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Hold on

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Hold on

[jayme0227]

Even if most people support marijuana law reform, they aren't actually proponents, just not opponents. In both the Obama survey and the Facebook survey, results that seem to show that marijuana law reform has a lot of proponents are skewed because the style of survey trends towards over-representing the young and the vocal. It still remains that most Americans just don't care enough for anything to come of it.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[geekboy642]

Well, please do invent the absolute worst kinds of inhumane treatment to prove that women must have no control over their own bodies. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and if you can make out an expression on a fetus that's less than 12 weeks old, you've got an imagination too vivid to be anonymously yelling on the internet. Of the vanishingly small percentage of abortions that are performed when the baby has passed the normal age of viability, the vast majority of those are performed to save the life of the mother, or to prevent the infant from having a short, brutish, and pointless life. The misogynistic organizations are attacking a strawman that was never relevant in the slightest.

The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby. Late term abortions are performed to save lives and limit suffering. We find it sane to put down a dog that's been grievously injured, but for some reason ending the suffering of a child born without a brain is some gross unjust cruelty, and you somehow believe that a child cursed to die before their first birthday should be forced to live through a year of brutish suffering, rather than being given the only kindness we have.

Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.

Re:Medical use

[Urza9814]

I'm a member of SSDP. I'm also a member of Amnesty International - and I've been with AI much longer, and am much more involved with them - I've worked with the regional office in D.C. on a couple campaigns even. But I don't think it is at all fair to say that Amnesty's cases are any more important than those of groups like SSDP. And even if you think they are, in this specific case Amnesty wasn't one of the organizations SSDP was competing against. Neither was the Red Cross. Or Doctors without Borders. The organizations that _won_ this contest included things like the "Stella Adler Studio Of Acting". Now, I'm not going to get into what organizations are more worthy of the money, but seriously, if it's worth giving to art education programs then surely it can be worth giving to drug education programs as well.

Now, as for SSDP and similar organizations not being worthy in general - it sounds like you are thinking we are NORML or other legalization organizations. We aren't. We are not a "weed pushing organization", we are a drug policy reform organization. Look at cases like University of Michigan student Derek Copp - he was shot, through his lungs and liver by a police officer over what was later described as "a few tablespoons" of marijuana. A _misdemeanor_ offense in the state of Michigan. He nearly died over it. Look at our prisons - how many hundreds of thosands of people are in prison for no reason other than minor drug offenses? These are not violent people, these are people whose crimes are far less severe than those that Amnesty tries to free. I mean honestly, Amnestly works to help people proven guilty of murder in some cases. So what, we should try to save those people, but if your crime is just smoking a joint, you deserve to rot in prison forever for it? SSDP fights to restore financial aid to students convicted of drug offenses. I have a friend, who's extremely intelligent but from a very poor family. He had financial aid covering his entire college expense. And he got caught once smoking weed. Now he's working at McDonald's trying to save up enough money to go back. SSDP works to help people like him. SSDP works to promote _real_ drug education - the amount of people addicted to illegal drugs hasn't changed at all in nearly a hundred years - yet in just a decade, through _education_ not incarceration, we managed to cut the number of people addicted to nicotine (one of the most addictive substances we know of) in half!

So tell me this - why is saving lives lost to drugs not worth anything? Why is providing a good education to good kids not worth anything? Why is keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison not a worthy cause? I mean ok, I can accept you ranking the red cross up there higher than groups like SSDP - I mean they're purely about saving lives. But things like Amnesty International - they are only different from SSDP because of their size. They're both extremely political organizations trying to save the lives and freedoms of people who _they_ feel haven't done anything wrong.