4 ms·
I can't believe this practice is so ubiquitous all over the world. It is such a clear cut case of conflict of interest and should be made a textbook example tha
by potamic 5y ago
I can't believe this practice is so ubiquitous all over the world. It is such a clear cut case of conflict of interest and should be made a textbook example that ends all discussion but here we are. An organisation that apparently has no funds to do its job, spends all its funds in employing people to gather funds so that it can continue to keep paying salary to those people gathering funds.
- AlbertCory 5y agoFor other examples, look at "administrative costs" at 501(c)(3) organizations, via Charity Navigator.
- maratbn 5y ago501(c)(3) corporations typically do not have armed robbers walking around in public robbing anyone they please.
- AlbertCory 5y agoThe comment was specifically about orgs that spend most of their money raising more money.
- relaxing 5y agoBut it’s not a conflict of interest for a charity to do so.
- AlbertCory 5y agoThat depends on what you consider a conflict of interest. Avoiding any actual names: if Charity X advertises itself as a leading way to fight hunger / homelessness / animal abuse / poverty, but 90% of X's budget goes to raising more money, I call that "a conflict of interest." (90% is not a disqualifying amount, by the way.) As a donor, if you think you're fighting <whatever> but what you're really doing is providing salaries for friends and family of the founders, then you're actually doing something else. What would you call it?