Are Charities Corrupt?

Quote: billryan

As an owner of a business, I can throw my leftover food in the dumpsters, where the hungry can get it.

OR

I can call my local food bank, where a "volunteer" will examine it, decide it isn't allowed to be given to the poor and hungry because of some foolish rule, and instead distributes it to the other "volunteers" who bray about not having to buy groceries as they get all they need from the food bank.

You have to love America, where "volunteers" make out so well. I suppose if we can eliminate hunger and homelessness, these "volunteers" might have to find jobs.

Perhaps the "volunteers" could invite some of the hungry to their homes where they can enjoy the foods that were intended for them in the first place.
link to original post

A truly ignorant post disparaging the law, volunteers who freely give of their time and money, filled with inconsistencies with the use of quotation marks, rhetoric that seeks to promote hatred and possibly jealousy of other members. Classic billryan.

tuttigym

.
I work as a volunteer for a charity - visiting an elderly guy who is lonely once a week - it doesn't involve food - but I spend time in his house - it's called the "Friendly Visitors Progam"

maybe someone would like to take the opportunity to accuse me of being corrupt

from reading this thread a person would be led to believe that a high % of those working for charities are corrupt

.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
I work as a volunteer for a charity - visiting an elderly guy who is lonely once a week - it doesn't involve food - but I spend time in his house - it's called the "Friendly Visitors Progam"

maybe someone would like to take the opportunity to accuse me of being corrupt

from reading this thread a person would be led to believe that a high % of those working for charities are corrupt

.
link to original post

If you were to bray about not having to pay for groceries as you helped yourself to whatever was in the old persons' fridge each visit, I'd get on your case about it.
I suspect many people here do much that is selfless and are to be commended for it. Don't let one person pilfering his local food bank be anything but a bad example.

I guess there's no chance on splitting this post to a charity discussion thread and letting the original thread have air to continue?

If you have an extra room or two in your house, that you don't need to use, you can put stuff in there not affected by heat (or cold}. block the vents, and close the door.

I think you can also fry your eggs on the sidewalk.

Quote: Talldude90

I guess there's no chance on splitting this post to a charity discussion thread and letting the original thread have air to continue?
link to original post

There's a chance. Not a bad idea, actually.
(I can't get to it today. Dieter business.)

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.

link to original post

I thought you loved loved loved living in Frisbee or Busybee or wherever it is you live and now you're moving? What happened, the truth finally set in?

I came in here late but have not seen a few things discussed.

Some charities are good, others are nothing but the charity-industrial complex we have in the USA. That they pay their management is fine with me, if the thing is big enough it needs professional management. Paying them 7 figures I have a huge problem with. Try to get retired Lee Iacocca-types who have the skills and are set for life but still want to do something. It goes beyond that when you peel things back.

I was in the Jaycees when I lived in Rochester. We had professional fundraising, the company was started by a guy in our chapter then he branched out. He took 75% off the top to do the fundraising, and that was because we were his first client, the usual was 85%! We went to 85% in return for a guaranteed goal. Then a huge chunk of that went upstairs to our state who in turn had to pay dues to the national. Lots of what remained was spent on things like our conventions or T-shirts for our members. Then you had guys who tried to do blatant skim, like our former president who wanted to travel to visit our "sister chapter" somewhere in the Caribbean Islands. The guy who did the fundraising put a stop to that one for the blatant theft it was. But he had other skims, letting us be overcharged for the aforesaid T-shirts just one we found out about. We were paying I forget the exact numbers, but about twice what we should have.

Then there are the "local" chapters of various national causes. They do things to raise money "locally." What they do not tell you is the money mostly gets kicked up to their national cause mafia-style (franchise style for those not as cynical as me) but lets a local person have a job and small office to go to. This might not be "corrupt" but it is not clean.

The fundraising machines are the problem. Commercials of sad dogs with sad music and somber voice-over. What they are doing is using the dogs to help raise money not the other way around as it should be.

There is an iron law about these kind of organizations. That is they attract two types. Some want to genuinely help. Some just want power and to run things. The second group will always end up in charge and will always corrupt the place. ALWAYS! Just a matter of time.

I don't know if it exists, but there was an issue with some organizations taking on similar names. One was "Save the Children" vs some other similar named organization. One was much better than the other, but they relied on people confusing the two.

I think maybe the ASPCA cleaned up their act. But it was said the national organization didn't actually represent the small local groups. The local groups were often better in distributing funds and taking care of animals.

Quote: rxwine

I don't know if it exists, but there was an issue with some organizations taking on similar names. One was "Save the Children" vs some other similar named organization. One was much better than the other, but they relied on people confusing the two.

I think maybe the ASPCA cleaned up their act. But it was said the national organization didn't actually represent the small local groups. The local groups were often better in distributing funds and taking care of animals.
link to original post

That happened many times. One was some prevention of heard disease thing. They had a $10,000 sweepstakes you had guaranteed won. No donation needed, but they asked for one. I sent it back won like $0.20 cents. Never cashed the check and found it 25 years later in some book I used it to bookmark. Probably still there,

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.
link to original post

The end result was the police found a way to remove the panhandlers, at least for now.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.

link to original post

I thought you loved loved loved living in Frisbee or Busybee or wherever it is you live and now you're moving? What happened, the truth finally set in?
link to original post

Like the Great Jengis, I pillage for three years and move on, allowing the residents to rebuild for my return next cycle.

My side business is at the point where it almost needs another person. I've six shops in Cochise selling my merchandise. If I can move to Tuscon and get ten shops, I'll be able to hire help and turn it into passive income.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.
link to original post

Its protection is kind if murky. It can be considered commercial speech which can be regulated since it is soliciting money. You also cannot be harassing to people. There are laws against standing on the road in such a way as to cause a danger. Governments could do more to stop it if they wanted to. In some places you will get rousted quickly. In others they will harass the people just trying to protect their homes and businesses from the panhandlers.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.
link to original post

Its protection is kind if murky. It can be considered commercial speech which can be regulated since it is soliciting money. You also cannot be harassing to people. There are laws against standing on the road in such a way as to cause a danger. Governments could do more to stop it if they wanted to. In some places you will get rousted quickly. In others they will harass the people just trying to protect their homes and businesses from the panhandlers.
link to original post

It's protection is rather unmurky. SCOTUS has ruled that "solicitation to pay or contribute money is protected under the First Amendment.” Harassing people is different. Physical threats of force is different and unprotected, standing in certain locations is not protected, while others are. Governments could do more in hey wanted to, but the ones that do do certain things or make certain conduct or speech illegal keep losing in court. The US has freedom of speech, and sometimes it gives us strange results, or even protections we don't like for others.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.
link to original post

Its protection is kind if murky. It can be considered commercial speech which can be regulated since it is soliciting money. You also cannot be harassing to people. There are laws against standing on the road in such a way as to cause a danger. Governments could do more to stop it if they wanted to. In some places you will get rousted quickly. In others they will harass the people just trying to protect their homes and businesses from the panhandlers.
link to original post

It's protection is rather unmurky. SCOTUS has ruled that "solicitation to pay or contribute money is protected under the First Amendment.” Harassing people is different. Physical threats of force is different and unprotected, standing in certain locations is not protected, while others are. Governments could do more in hey wanted to, but the ones that do do certain things or make certain conduct or speech illegal keep losing in court. The US has freedom of speech, and sometimes it gives us strange results, or even protections we don't like for others.
link to original post

That's the very definition of murky. Where does solicitation and harassment cross? Where can you stand? I think it would be possible to have a "no approach" law, but enforcement might be a hassle.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: billryan

The police in Tucson can't arrest panhandlers as long as the person stays within certain boundaries.
Some agencies recently started putting up signs at corners asking people not to support panhandlers, but to donate to legit charities.
The panhandlers destroyed the signs in short order and the police arrested a handful for destruction or theft of official signage.
I can't decide if this was a well-laid trap or the culmination of a series of errors.
link to original post

Panhandling, or charitable appeals for funds, is a protected First Amendment activity. Hanging signs asking the public to not donate to panhandlers is a protected First Amendment activity. Series of errors? Nope. That's just the First Amendment in action.
link to original post

Its protection is kind if murky. It can be considered commercial speech which can be regulated since it is soliciting money. You also cannot be harassing to people. There are laws against standing on the road in such a way as to cause a danger. Governments could do more to stop it if they wanted to. In some places you will get rousted quickly. In others they will harass the people just trying to protect their homes and businesses from the panhandlers.
link to original post

It's protection is rather unmurky. SCOTUS has ruled that "solicitation to pay or contribute money is protected under the First Amendment.” Harassing people is different. Physical threats of force is different and unprotected, standing in certain locations is not protected, while others are. Governments could do more in hey wanted to, but the ones that do do certain things or make certain conduct or speech illegal keep losing in court. The US has freedom of speech, and sometimes it gives us strange results, or even protections we don't like for others.
link to original post

That's the very definition of murky. Where does solicitation and harassment cross? Where can you stand? I think it would be possible to have a "no approach" law, but enforcement might be a hassle.
link to original post

Where does solicitation and harassment cross? I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it...

It is simple and unmurky. Wherever a person can stand on a traditional public forum (a specific legal term-look it up) with a sign that says "Eat At Joe's", or "The End of the World is Nigh", a person can stand with a sign saying "Homeless. Please Help," SCOTUS looks very askance at free speech restrictions based on content. And if a person can approach a passersby for non-panhandling reasons, so can a panhandler approach passersby. SCOTUS has already ruled on this many years ago, and state supreme courts are striking down many anti-panhandling laws.