http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/04/prokofy-linden.html

Pixeleen, is this an April Fools joke on Prok’s part or genuine?

Read up here among many such sites:
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/Ryanhistory.html

Individual states or cities have laws — or in some cases, merely guidelines strongly suggested by states’ attorney generals — about what percentage a fund-raiser may take out of funds raised for his expenses. These could be defined as 10 or 20 or 25.

So these kiosk deployers could say that they take 5 percent for labour or tier or whatever, and be compliant with a local law. In fact 5 percent isn’t even such a horrible percentage, and commonly taken by many non-profits or fund-raisers to assist others. Guidelines could say in some cases that taking more than 10 percent isn’t ethical or 25, depending on various factors. If you look at different legal cases, they are prompted by concern that fund-raising outfits just burn too much on themselves and even their lavish lifestyles, and not enough on the cause they raise money for. United Way went through this sort of scandal, for example.

Some of the most reputable fund-raisers make a point of saying they do *not* take percentages, but just a flat fee, i.e. they don’t take 5 percent out of $5,000 raised, which then becomes a bigger amount if they raise $10,000, they just take a standard consulting fee.

I’d like to see a reference to the law and cases applying the law to see what’s being referenced here. It could be another matter that misrepresenting oneself as a public charity and stealing the name is at issue.

Haha course that statement could be applied to the people who run ACS and RFL (The CEO of which, pulls in over 500,000 dollars a year salary, which is quite a bit for a non-profit organization) who are notorious for having the highest overhead and the least amount of the charitable money actually going to cancer patients and treatment of cancer.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495

Never doubt people’s ability to take advantage of a situation for themselves, no matter how shitty it’d be to do so.

My first thought was that it was some pretty bold reporting for the Herald to expose the scam of one of their own. Then I remembered that it would be standard procedure for one Herald reporter to dish dirt on another.

Sadly, the truth was far less interesting, far more predictable, and far more pathetic. Seriously people, trying to profit from charitable donations? Not cool.