Idealism in Charity

[Green October Z]

Charities and non-profits, they depend on donations to survive and fulfill their mission objectives. They may be political organizations seeking to advance a political goal or it may be a charity organization that seeks to help provide for the poor, homeless, sick, or hungry. With politics comes principals (cough), so it is certainly understandable that an organization seeking to advance some kind of political goal may only accept donations from people whose values line up with their own. That said, an organization that only seeks to help the vulnerable would be willing to accept donations from anyone. After all, the more money and resources they have means the more money and resources they have to provide for the homeless, hungry, poor, and sick. Right? Well, it turns out that that is not always the case.

Earlier today, a highly controversial person named Daniel Hernandez (AKA: Tekashi 6ix9ine) attempted to make a $200,000 donation to a charity called Hungry Kids. Hernandez grew up in poverty and since making it big as a rapper, he has had a habit of donating fairly large sums of money to various charity groups and even to the downtrodden themselves in person. Making such a large donation to Hungry Kids wouldn't be out of character for him. However, 6ix9ine is also notorious for his extensive criminal history including his former affiliation with a violent street gang called the Nine Trey Gangster Bloods (Tr3yway). Because of his highly controversial history, Hungry Kids rejected 6ix9ine's $200,000 donation, stating that they rejected it because they feel that 6ix9ine does not represent their values. As I said earlier, it is certainly understandable that political organizations may reject donations for this reason, but it seems mind-boggling that a charity group would since doing so would be deeply counter-productive for their mission.

While I certainly see nothing wrong having ideals and upholding said ideals, the question is should charity organizations have such strong idealistic convictions even when it interferes with their mission? Or should charity groups be more pragmatic and accept money from even questionable sources when it means that they can help more people? Should their only ideal just be to help people and nothing more?

In my view, if a group is seeking to help others, then helping others should be their only ideal and they shouldn't let any others get in the way. Especially since rejecting donations is tantamount to denying help to the very people you are trying to help.

What are your thoughts?

[Adriatican]

As an individual who actually runs a multinational non-profit corporation, there's a lot of politics that play into the decisions a Fundraising Executive, Executive Director, or Board of Directors must make, in considering whether or not an individual or their donation is too controversial to accept.

These authorities must take into account, their stakeholders, their target constituencies, their Board dynamic, their partnership relations, the media response (if the individual is high profile), and the financial position of the organization, as well as what return inkind, the donor would like, if applicable, in addition to what, if any, effect taking the donation would have on the credibility of the organization with their various internal interests, the public, and the mission.

As much as I would love to say it's typically as simple as "I don't care who you are, give me money", it's really not, and whilst I'm not privy to what considerations were factored in when this organization rejected this individual's donation, one is led to think that it was decided internally that, whatever would have been lost by taking the money, far outweighed anything the organization would have gained by taking it.

[Bombadil]

As an individual who actually runs a multinational non-profit corporation, there's a lot of politics that play into the decisions a Fundraising Executive, Executive Director, or Board of Directors must make, in considering whether or not an individual or their donation is too controversial to accept.

These authorities must take into account, their stakeholders, their target constituencies, their Board dynamic, their partnership relations, the media response (if the individual is high profile), and the financial position of the organization, as well as what return inkind, the donor would like, if applicable, in addition to what, if any, effect taking the donation would have on the credibility of the organization with their various internal interests, the public, and the mission.

As much as I would love to say it's typically as simple as "I don't care who you are, give me money", it's really not, and whilst I'm not privy to what considerations were factored in when this organization rejected this individual's donation, one is led to think that it was decided internally that, whatever would have been lost by taking the money, far outweighed anything the organization would have gained by taking it.

Maybe one consideration is that he was charged with sexual relations with a 13 year old, which he was even stupid enough to put in his music video.

Not exactly the message Hungry Kids want to be involved with.

[Green October Z]

As an individual who actually runs a multinational non-profit corporation, there's a lot of politics that play into the decisions a Fundraising Executive, Executive Director, or Board of Directors must make, in considering whether or not an individual or their donation is too controversial to accept.

These authorities must take into account, their stakeholders, their target constituencies, their Board dynamic, their partnership relations, the media response (if the individual is high profile), and the financial position of the organization, as well as what return inkind, the donor would like, if applicable, in addition to what, if any, effect taking the donation would have on the credibility of the organization with their various internal interests, the public, and the mission.

As much as I would love to say it's typically as simple as "I don't care who you are, give me money", it's really not, and whilst I'm not privy to what considerations were factored in when this organization rejected this individual's donation, one is led to think that it was decided internally that, whatever would have been lost by taking the money, far outweighed anything the organization would have gained by taking it.

Maybe one consideration is that he was charged with sexual relations with a 13 year old, which he was even stupid enough to put in his music video.

Not exactly the message Hungry Kids want to be involved with.

That is understandable, but still $200,000 is a lot of money and I find it hard to imagine that any possible losses they would have experienced would have been even close to 200K.

[Albrenia]

I guess saying "Fuck you but thanks for the cash" isn't an option?

[Green October Z]

I guess saying "Fuck you but thanks for the cash" isn't an option?

Apparently not

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

I guess saying "Fuck you but thanks for the cash" isn't an option?

or just misattribute it to your allies

[Adriatican]

Maybe one consideration is that he was charged with sexual relations with a 13 year old, which he was even stupid enough to put in his music video.

Not exactly the message Hungry Kids want to be involved with.

That is understandable, but still $200,000 is a lot of money and I find it hard to imagine that any possible losses they would have experienced would have been even close to 200K.

Access their donor list on Guidestar, look at who they've partnered with, and check out their Board.

Value doesn't have to be translated via $$$, it can be in; access, networks, knowledge, and other residuals as well.

Take me for instance, without naming names, I had to reject a $50,000 donation to my organization, because the individual attached to it was a former controversial U.S State Governor who had made derogatory remarks against key organizational partners and operational constituents.

Yeah, it was 50k, but if I had taken the money, I'd have severely damaged or even completely lossed, key partners, their networks, and the opportunities they provided for my organization, as well as significant credibility with the individuals I was trying to help.

A loss not in money, but still greater in value than what was being offered.

[Green October Z]

That is understandable, but still $200,000 is a lot of money and I find it hard to imagine that any possible losses they would have experienced would have been even close to 200K.

Access their donor list on Guidestar, look at who they've partnered with, and check out their Board.

Value doesn't have to be translated via $$$, it can be in; access, networks, knowledge, and other residuals as well.

Take me for instance, without naming names, I had to reject a $50,000 donation to my organization, because the individual attached to it was a former controversial U.S State Governor who had made derogatory remarks against key organizational partners and operational constituents.

Yeah, it was 50k, but if I had taken the money, I'd have severely damaged or even completely lossed, key partners, their networks, and the opportunities they provided for my organization, as well as significant credibility with the individuals I was trying to help.

A loss not in money, but still greater in value than what was being offered.

It feels wrong to me that people would actually cease their support for such reasons.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't trust charities. They paid themselves with the money I donated.I prefer to participate in targeted crowdfunding to help others.

[Adriatican]

Access their donor list on Guidestar, look at who they've partnered with, and check out their Board.

Value doesn't have to be translated via $$$, it can be in; access, networks, knowledge, and other residuals as well.

Take me for instance, without naming names, I had to reject a $50,000 donation to my organization, because the individual attached to it was a former controversial U.S State Governor who had made derogatory remarks against key organizational partners and operational constituents.

Yeah, it was 50k, but if I had taken the money, I'd have severely damaged or even completely lossed, key partners, their networks, and the opportunities they provided for my organization, as well as significant credibility with the individuals I was trying to help.

A loss not in money, but still greater in value than what was being offered.

It feels wrong to me that people would actually cease their support for such reasons.

In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't.

In any event, it's a key ability, especially because donations sometimes come with control, and you don't want someone like a neonazi group waltzing in, donating a ton to gain control of a Holocaust Rememberance Museum (a nonprofit), and then using their control to change the purpose of the organization from remembering the Holocaust to denying it, all because "hey, it's money, why wouldn't you take it".

Nothing is free, and so the real question here isn't "why not take the money", it's "can you afford to".

[Albrenia]

Does a large donation come with control?

Say a KKK group donated money to a holocaust museum for some horrible reason, if that money is taken do they get to say what it done with it? Or can the people in charge just take the money, and then call the police to escort the nice gentlemen in the white sheets to the nearest gutter where they belong?

[The Iron Wizards of Blacktower]

If the organization has enough money and isn’t look to, or otherwise doesn’t have the technical capacity to expand, then it doesn’t specifically need to accept the donation regardless.

[Bombadil]

Maybe one consideration is that he was charged with sexual relations with a 13 year old, which he was even stupid enough to put in his music video.

Not exactly the message Hungry Kids want to be involved with.

That is understandable, but still $200,000 is a lot of money and I find it hard to imagine that any possible losses they would have experienced would have been even close to 200K.

Accepting 200K to essentially rehabilitate someone's image, who was also found guilty of paying someone 20K to kill someone, is not in the business interests of a charity.

In fact the newsworthiness of publicly refusing it will probably lead to far more than 200K in donations from others, from the increased awareness to those who feel they should make up the shortfall.

[Adriatican]

That is understandable, but still $200,000 is a lot of money and I find it hard to imagine that any possible losses they would have experienced would have been even close to 200K.

Accepting 200K to essentially rehabilitate someone's image, who was also found guilty of paying someone 20K to kill someone, is not in the business interests of a charity.

In fact the newsworthiness of publicly refusing it will probably lead to far more than 200K in donations from others, from the increased awareness to those who feel they should make up the shortfall.

I would say that's a strong possibility, yes.

[Geneviev]

The organization made the right decision to not take the money. It would definitely have hurt them more with the lost donations. And there's nothing wrong with idealism.

[Accelerationist Poland-Lithuania]

It makes sense to deny a donation as a charity for PR reasons, since people donating to you is contingent upon people seeing you as a decent group. They can attract more donors with the stink they kick up over it looking all sanctimonious too.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

They probably would have lost more funding from other people, in the long term, if they had accepted the donation. Reputation is crucial for charities.

[Green October Z]

The organization made the right decision to not take the money. It would definitely have hurt them more with the lost donations. And there's nothing wrong with idealism.

After doing more research in the matter, I can certainly see that point now. Still, it doesn't sit well with me that people would actually withhold donations to charities just because they don't like some of the other donors. Especially not if it is a charity to help kids.

[Nolo gap]

does idealism have any other point then charity?

[Geneviev]

The organization made the right decision to not take the money. It would definitely have hurt them more with the lost donations. And there's nothing wrong with idealism.

After doing more research in the matter, I can certainly see that point now. Still, it doesn't sit well with me that people would actually withhold donations to charities just because they don't like some of the other donors. Especially not if it is a charity to help kids.

I understand that. But, people might think that the organization supports the things that other donors are doing. Then you have to wonder if they're actually helping kids.

[Rojava Free State]

Idk I don't wanna take blood money to help kids.

[Green October Z]

After doing more research in the matter, I can certainly see that point now. Still, it doesn't sit well with me that people would actually withhold donations to charities just because they don't like some of the other donors. Especially not if it is a charity to help kids.

I understand that. But, people might think that the organization supports the things that other donors are doing. Then you have to wonder if they're actually helping kids.

That is a good point.

[Green October Z]

Idk I don't wanna take blood money to help kids.

Nice pun

[Bear Stearns]

As an individual who actually runs a multinational non-profit corporation, there's a lot of politics that play into the decisions a Fundraising Executive, Executive Director, or Board of Directors must make, in considering whether or not an individual or their donation is too controversial to accept.

This guy gets it. The non-profit game is all politics and signalling. My aunt is on the board of the largest Christian non-profit in the state of Connecticut and I see a lot of this first hand.