Should charities decline donations based on source?

[Lynda/WA]

Should major charities decline donations based on who is making the donation? Either because of external pressure from a group or because board members disagree with what the donator does/ beleives in?

Here's an example. A pair of reporters wrote a book about Timothy McVey. They spent over 70 hours interviewing him in prison but doesn't sound like it is pro-McVey in anyway. The authors say one of the purposes is to make others aware of what people like McVey are thinking. My understanding is that they tried to donate to a fund specifically for the victims but was turned down. The Red Cross initially said yes and even sent them a letter staing where and who to send the check to. A couple of weeks later the Red Cross changed it's mind. The resonon of the reporters in giving to the Red Cross is that they are the ones to help out during terrorists bombings so they could use the help. It sounded like the Red Cross had received pressure from some of the victims who were angered that a book was written. The reporters plan on finding a different charity that will accept money from authors of a book.

I feel that if an author is involved in the crime they shouldn't make any money. In case the reporters are taking a crime and finding a way to help the organizations that will be called upon the next time this happens (regardless of the personal finacial gain). I think at least the Red Cross should have accepted the money.

[angie r]

I saw on the Today show the head of the Oklahoma City Memorial talking about this. He said that the authors wanted to give money to the memorial fund and they would not take it because they didn't want to take money that could tarnish the memorial. I was thinking "take it, why not?" when I was watching the show. In McVey's case he didn't benefit from the book and had no say in what the book actually said.

I don't know but it seems kind of like....someone kills a loved one of yours, they write a book and donate some profits to buy your child/husband/mother a gravestone. I think I would be too ticked off to take the money too. It would feel like "dirty money."

Also, in line with your question I was thinking about Rosie O'Donnell. Would she ever take money from the NRA to benefit her kids foundation?

I think major charities should decline donations based on who is making the donation.

[Lynda/WA]

I can see why the Oklahoma City Memorial wouldn't want to accept donations from what they considered *tainted* money. They are a relatively small and personal group. Any money they get will be for a specific purpose and chances are those making the decisions on whether to accept the money are the same people that will actually use it.
However, I can't see why a large diverse group like the Red Cross shouldn't receive money from authors of a book about a tradgedy. Would they also decline money from authors of a book about earthquakes or famine? Somehow I doubt it.

[TXmom]

Here's a copy of an e-mail I received today that helps to explain why it's too painful for the OKC bombing victims to take any money from the book.

Dear Friends,
> > I will not forward the excerpt from the book that has been
> written by two reporters and a couple of shrinks about Tim
> McVeigh.
> > It was sent to me by someone I respect, and I have checked
> it out to be sure that the quote was accurate. And, it was.
> > I fully expected to read this book. I wanted to know a lot of
> things. And, I believe that the book is an accurate account of
> what Tim McVeigh has said. I wanted to know why he picked
> Oklahoma City. I wanted to know if he implicated anyone else.
> I wanted to know if he took responsibility.
> > But, I won't read the book. After reading the excerpt I know
> that it doesn't matter. It won't change a thing.
> > I have to address this. So, buckle up, because here goes. And,
> before I start this tirade, I want to say that what follows I
> know to be fact because I saw it.
> > My husband sat up a tent across the street from the building,
> right next to Little Ceasar's pizza, who also sat up a tent and
> made pizza's on the spot. Jim's company donated all the
> coffee and tea and equipment, and we funneled the water
> and cokes and other supplies that were donated through that
> little blue tent and to the rescuers, and the workers. So, we
> saw what happened, and we know. My husband, whose heart
> is so soft he swerves to miss a turtle on the highway, stood in
> that carnage, unflinching, on a knee the size of a basketball
> and did everything he could. This,to me, is the measure of a man.
> > Tim McVeigh says, and this is the only quote from the man
> you'll get from me "It was my choice and my control to hit
> that building when it was full. ....I understand what they felt
> in Oklahoma City . I have no sympathy for them."
> > First of all, I don't think Tim McVeigh feels at all, and second,
> no one in Oklahoma City asked for any sympathy of any kind.
> Least of all Tim McVeigh's.
> > While he was cowering away from the scene, with ear plugs
> in his ears, the people of my town were running toward the
> mess he had created. There were not just 168 bodies to be
> recovered. There were almost 1000 injured people to be
> triaged and helped. That was done. And, it was done with
> a speed and an accurancy that stunned the people who came
> later to help us.
> > Our construction companies had cranes in place within the
> first hour. Our hardware companies turned their shelves
> over to the effort. Vets came to help with the rescue animals.
> Doctors came and worked along side construction workers
> and lay people. Engineers kept that wreck standing until all
> but three bodies were recovered And no matter what the
> conspiracy people say, that was a damned miracle. When the
> wind blew, even a little, that building swayed and groaned so
> loud it was audible for blocks.
> > When other States sent rescue units to help us, my town fed
> them, clothed them, held their heads when they vomited at
> the carnage and comforted them when they cried.
> > Being close to that building wasn't easy during those 19 days.
> It was bloody, it stank, and it was dangerous. And, in spite of
> this, we had trouble getting people to stand down and take a
> rest.
> > Thank you, New York Urban, and Pheonix, and Fairfax, and
> Dade County, and Denver, and Everyone else who came. You
> showed up on our door step like a good neighbor, with your
> equipment, and tears in your eyes, and we will forever be in
> your debt. You are heroes to the person, and always in my
> prayers. Saint Michael's heart beats in you all.
> > Buildings around the site stood wide open. Their foundations
> sprung to the extent that their doors wouldn't lock. But,
> locking the doors wouldn't have mattered anyway, since the
> windows were all gone. There was not one incident of looting.
> Not one.
> > And, Joe Q. American did everything else. By midnight, that
> first day, we had an ample supply of blood for all. I saw people
> lined up around the Oklahoma Blood institute. Hundreds of
> people lined up, waiting for hours, to donate their blood.
> Business men in suits talked casually to homeless people who
> felt the blast and came.
> > And, the resuers didn't just exist on dry sandwiches. Oh no.
> Little Cesear's, and the Outback, and Subway, and local
> Barbecue and Steak houses, and Hooter's, and Taco Bell,
> and Sonic, and other's too numerous to mention, some from
> Texas and Kansas fed everyone well. And for free. And this
> wasn't easy. Food had to labeled as to date, origin, and time
> of arrival, and kept clean and cold in a very inhospitable
> environment. And, this was done. Everyone at the site was
> sick, but it was never because of the food.
> > And, by the way, this was all done with a finesse that preserved
> ample evidence to get Tim McVeigh's sorry ass strapped to a
> gurney and taken care of. That coward won't kill anyone else's
> babies.
> > While we tended to the needs of the resuers, the FBI, the ATF,
> FEMA, and the Oklahoma City Police Deparment worked around
> us, and under our feet, sometimes with tweezers, and plastic bags, picking
> up minute pieces of the barrels that held the explosives,
> and pieces as big as the axle of the Ryder Rental truck. They
> were professionals all, and sensitive to our feelings.
> > When the authors wanted to donate a portion of the proceeds
> from the book to our Memorial, the Memorial committee quietly
> said "no thank you." I am so glad, and so proud of them. No
> sympathy, or no money needed here. We'll handle it, thank you.
> > Don't buy the book. Send the $20. to the Memorial, or to the
> Red Cross, or to the Education fund for the children of the
> victims, or to the Oklahoma City Fire Department, or the Pheonix
> Fire Department, or Dade County, or to Feed the Children.
> > This is not about Tim McVeigh. It's about the human spirit.
> And, it's here, and it thrives, and it asks no sympathy.
> > Love to All,
> Donna

[kat]

> > Don't buy the book. Send the $20. to the Memorial, or to the
> Red Cross, or to the Education fund for the children of the
> victims, or to the Oklahoma City Fire Department, or the Pheonix
> Fire Department, or Dade County, or to Feed the Children

Much more appropriate. Thanks Donna.

[Lynda/WA]

O.K., most people seem to be saying yes large charities (ie Red Cross) should decline donations based on the source. What if the authors of that book paid for a commercial about respecting others? Aren't they in effect helping others the same as if they donated to the Red Cross? Why is it worse if the money is given to a charity?

Do you think companies like Phillip Morris should pay for commercials against Spousal abuse? Isn't that just a direct contibution to a cause? Is that really any better than if they just donated to the Red Cross?

My point is that I think a big charity like the Red Cross is hurting more people than it is helping by turning down donations based on not wanting to offend a small segment of the population. I can see why a small organization like Oklahoma City bombing fund wouldn't want to accept the money. After all, there is a direct connection between the source of the money and the recipients. In the case of the Red Cross I can't understand it. The people that will be effected by floods could sure use that money. Great idea to contribute your own money but face it, this book will generate more money that could be helping alot of natural disaster vicitms even if others boycott the book.