> ...but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. Can you suppo

> ...but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. Can you support this claim, please? As far as I can see, they publish everything that they do. The way I see it, a political organisation needs strong leadership, because a unified voice is what gives it clout. If members want something else, then they should organise elsewhere and get it done. I don't want to donate to an organisation that dilutes its impact by being pulled in fifty directions by its members. I want it to do one thing well. To me, what's most important is that the ORG openly (and accurately) states what it is doing with members' money. Are you claiming that they are corrupt in some way, that they aren't doing what they say they're doing, or that they are accurately reporting what they're doing but you disagree with it? > You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. Please quantify this. ORG publishes annual financial reports. Is this not enough for you to state exactly how the founder's lifestyle is inappropriate?