6 ms·

You could argue that this is what the ACLU is. They need better funding.

by Sargos 6y ago

ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
ACLU donation link for the lazy https://action.aclu.org/give/now https://action.aclu.org/give/now I personally have a monthly recurring donation. Give what works for you.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I wish they could let you donate to specific issues. I agree with much of what they do, but I disagree on specific issues.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - robocat 6y ago
    You point is true for all organisations that cover many issues, and do not concentrate on one single small issue. You end up not donating to anything, even if your donation would have a large net positive. Tagging money for specific issues is problematic because the organisation doesn’t change its budget percentages for small donations (money is fungible), and organisations find tagging difficult to manage [TODO insert article link here].
    - novok 6y ago
      I've been in organizations that allowed earmarked donations for certain funds / projects. The ACLU can totally allow earmarked donations for projects they are undergoing. Ex: A policy of %80 towards earmarking & %20 towards the general fund to help boot up new projects / general admin would be totally fine with many donators.
  - yardie 6y ago
    Call them and ask. There is usually a fund manager who can direct the money into different causes at the benefactors wishes. Now, if you only donate a minimal amount that will go in to the general fund. They wouldn't expend the same energy for a $35 donation that they would for a $3500 donation.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      If I were able to donate thousands, then I'd probably use it to file a civil rights case for a recent issue we've experienced.
      - jimz 6y ago
        If it's a civil rights case and there's merit to your claims, you might be able to find public interest lawyers to help out for much less than that. Call around, there are firms in most large cities.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I've contacted one. They said we have a case, but that the federal courts don't really care about rights violations unless there were substantial financial impact. In theory, the DOJ is supposed to investigate our complaint and take injunctive action to correct any agency policy, practice, or pattern that violates the rights of defendants/people. We'll see how that actually works, but I won't hold my breath.
  - not2b 6y ago
    Organizations that say that they let you donate to fund specific issues are fooling you, unless the amount you plan to donate is huge. The reason is that money is fungible. Let's say I need $200k to fund issue A, and $200k to fund issue B. You say that you want to support only issue B. Fine, I just put your money in the issue B bucket and move a corresponding amount of unrestricted funds into the issue A bucket. Unless almost everyone restricts their donations they can always do that. They can backfill any unrestricted money to fund any of their priorities that are, for some reason, less popular with donors.
    - novok 6y ago
      That only works if earmarking for issue B is not common, but if some media story suddenly made earmarking for issue B 50x the general fund / issue A, by people in aggregate, your not going to be able to do that well. What you talk about is much like the arguments against voting, while such logic makes society lose it's prisoner's dilemma for change.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
ACLU has mostly shirked their core mission and embraced whoring around their brand recognition for political gain in recent years. Basically the NRA but for the other side of the isle. But yes, they kind of used to do that.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Actually, they've supported some gun cases in the recent past.
  - jimz 6y ago
    They, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation, have actually had some success fighting states for discriminatory laws that deny 2nd Amendment rights to specific populations. After all, the Constitution wouldn't work if it doesn't apply to everyone, but states have spent a lot of effort putting up roadblocks to everyone from legal immigrants to medical marijuana patients and states would selectively refuse to renew CCWs and licenses without cause or bar legal gun owners from receiving Section 8 vouchers and imposing categorical bans on legal gun owners attempting to foster or adopt children. In a sense they are the exact opposite of the NRA, who haven't done much to address the lack of equal access to the Constitutional right for quite some time when the complainants don't fit a particular mold.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      That's not really true. The NRA has fought for shall issue and even constitutional carry, which removes the discriminatory possibilities under may issue schemes. They worked with an African American in the Chicago handgun ownership case, the PA mother arrested after crossing into NJ, etc. They have shied away from ambiguous or complicated cases, regardless of demographics.

You could argue that this is what the ACLU is. They need better funding.

by Sargos 6y ago

You could argue that this is what the ACLU is. They need better funding.

ACLU donation link for the lazy https://action.aclu.org/give/now https://action.aclu.org/give/now I personally have a monthly recurring donation. Give what works for you.

giantg2 6y ago
I wish they could let you donate to specific issues. I agree with much of what they do, but I disagree on specific issues.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- robocat 6y ago
  You point is true for all organisations that cover many issues, and do not concentrate on one single small issue. You end up not donating to anything, even if your donation would have a large net positive. Tagging money for specific issues is problematic because the organisation doesn’t change its budget percentages for small donations (money is fungible), and organisations find tagging difficult to manage [TODO insert article link here].
  - novok 6y ago
    I've been in organizations that allowed earmarked donations for certain funds / projects. The ACLU can totally allow earmarked donations for projects they are undergoing. Ex: A policy of %80 towards earmarking & %20 towards the general fund to help boot up new projects / general admin would be totally fine with many donators.
- yardie 6y ago
  Call them and ask. There is usually a fund manager who can direct the money into different causes at the benefactors wishes. Now, if you only donate a minimal amount that will go in to the general fund. They wouldn't expend the same energy for a $35 donation that they would for a $3500 donation.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If I were able to donate thousands, then I'd probably use it to file a civil rights case for a recent issue we've experienced.
    - jimz 6y ago
      If it's a civil rights case and there's merit to your claims, you might be able to find public interest lawyers to help out for much less than that. Call around, there are firms in most large cities.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        I've contacted one. They said we have a case, but that the federal courts don't really care about rights violations unless there were substantial financial impact. In theory, the DOJ is supposed to investigate our complaint and take injunctive action to correct any agency policy, practice, or pattern that violates the rights of defendants/people. We'll see how that actually works, but I won't hold my breath.
- not2b 6y ago
  Organizations that say that they let you donate to fund specific issues are fooling you, unless the amount you plan to donate is huge. The reason is that money is fungible. Let's say I need $200k to fund issue A, and $200k to fund issue B. You say that you want to support only issue B. Fine, I just put your money in the issue B bucket and move a corresponding amount of unrestricted funds into the issue A bucket. Unless almost everyone restricts their donations they can always do that. They can backfill any unrestricted money to fund any of their priorities that are, for some reason, less popular with donors.
  - novok 6y ago
    That only works if earmarking for issue B is not common, but if some media story suddenly made earmarking for issue B 50x the general fund / issue A, by people in aggregate, your not going to be able to do that well. What you talk about is much like the arguments against voting, while such logic makes society lose it's prisoner's dilemma for change.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

ACLU has mostly shirked their core mission and embraced whoring around their brand recognition for political gain in recent years. Basically the NRA but for the other side of the isle. But yes, they kind of used to do that.

giantg2 6y ago
Actually, they've supported some gun cases in the recent past.
- jimz 6y ago
  They, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation, have actually had some success fighting states for discriminatory laws that deny 2nd Amendment rights to specific populations. After all, the Constitution wouldn't work if it doesn't apply to everyone, but states have spent a lot of effort putting up roadblocks to everyone from legal immigrants to medical marijuana patients and states would selectively refuse to renew CCWs and licenses without cause or bar legal gun owners from receiving Section 8 vouchers and imposing categorical bans on legal gun owners attempting to foster or adopt children. In a sense they are the exact opposite of the NRA, who haven't done much to address the lack of equal access to the Constitutional right for quite some time when the complainants don't fit a particular mold.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    That's not really true. The NRA has fought for shall issue and even constitutional carry, which removes the discriminatory possibilities under may issue schemes. They worked with an African American in the Chicago handgun ownership case, the PA mother arrested after crossing into NJ, etc. They have shied away from ambiguous or complicated cases, regardless of demographics.