Hollywood Celebs Cashing In On Charities (BARF Alert)

PABAAH: Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood ^

[jonalvy44]

When small charities have big dreams about fund-raising, they often set their sights on the stars -- Hollywood stars. The Evanston-based charity consulting firm, Alford Group, advises them to c'mon back to earth.

Celebs, even for good causes, "usually don't come for free,'' says Alford vice president Greg Simoncini.

Indeed they don't.

[jonalvy44]

Cosby was in line to get a $75,000 fee

Ray Charles getting $75,000

actress Camryn Manheim got a $24,000 Harley motorcycle to emcee an event

Dang, I'd emcee the event for a moped, LOL. Hollywood greed seems to know no bounds...I will watch my charitable giving more closely. Usually the Red Cross gets most of mine, anyway. Not the United Way, that's for sure.

[jonalvy44]

Hollyweird greed ping

[excalibur1701]

Wasn't the United Way the organization that withdrew funds for the Boyscouts? Someone refresh my memory. For some reason, that rings a bell.

[ClearCase_guy]

"I do lots of charity work! See this $24,000 motorcycle? Do you think I'm some kind of greedy, spoiled consumer, buying toys for myself?? No Sir!! I got that from Charity work, dammit! See that Olympic size swimming pool in my living room? You think I decided to make some blockbuster movie just so I had cash for swimming pool?? I'm not like that! My career decisions are NOT driven by money! I paid for that pool with money I earned from Charity work! Charity work is what I live for! I'm BETTER than you are!"

[GladesGuru]

You give money to the Red Cross??????

Those greedy, usless bachelor's children came to South Florida after Hurricane Andrew and were selling donuts to the survivors.

After that, there fund raising efforts in South Florida were a reflection of the deep love and respect of the citizens for all that ther Red Cross had done for them in the hour of their greatest need.

OK, I'll get off the soap box now.

But I won't give 'em a penny now or ever after their South Florida performance. Why? Here's an example. Within minutes of hearing about the storm (we're talking middle of the night) a Tampa area business owner called his drivers out of a sound sleep and had semi-trucks loaded with supplies and on their way before dawn. All at his own expense, too.

Still like the bureaucrats at the Red Cross? Large charities are like large government; fat, wasteful, unresponsive.

[international american]

Cosby needed that 75,000 to pay for the property taxes on one of his 4 homes:)

[N. Theknow]

Ray Charles getting $75,000

Probably put it into a blind trust.

[jonalvy44]

boooo....Should've seen that one coming, LOL

[HairOfTheDog]

I hate to build a reputation for defending celebrities.... but popular people charge fees to speak... Included in the article are former polititians and all kinds of professional speakers who make a living that way... Celebrities get invited to speak at lots of events.... they can choose to waive the fee for causes that are close to their heart, but other than that.... it is a business for hire. The charities are seeking out a big face and a name for their event, and if it pays, they pay it.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Yes. It was the UW that did that.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

If you want on/off this ping list, please FReepmail me.

It's so nice to know that some of your hard- earned money that you wanted to go to help the less fortunate is going to Hollywood idiots instead.

[jonalvy44]

Here in upstate NY they do a lot of good, helping flood victims, etc. They are the first responders...They don't seem to have the high overhead that United Way does.

[HairOfTheDog]

You know.... it is a common misconception of people who have never worked in charity organizations, but it takes money to make money.

When you go to a charity event, the meals, the speakers, the balloons, the hall, were all paid for. Hotels, caterers, and other suppliers of services are in the business to make money, and they are INUNDATED with requests to provide stuff for free, for school kids this week, for people with Cancer next week. They can't do it and stay in business, and we shouldn't expect them to.

Think about it. Popular faces like Cosby and even George Bush would have every charity on earth pounding at their door for every minute of their time if they didn't charge fees for their name. They may adopt many of these causes, but many they don't. They are a service for hire. As for their rates... that is what the market will bear. For an article to have a phrase in it like "line their pockets" with charity money smacks of Socialism. Who are we to limit what someone is 'worth' making? One example there was Gerald Ford.... he was paid $200,000 for an event that was 15% of the take at the event. Well worth the price to that organization.

People holding fundraising events decide how much they can spend and still hope to make a healthy profit for their work. There is a cost to fundraising.... and not many get by expecting everyone to donate their services so they can make money. There are too many 'causes' out there.

[Corin Stormhands]

You give money to the Red Cross??????

I spent some time working for the Salvation Army when I was in college (I still support them). I can't tell you how many WWII vets I had come up to me and thank me, then curse the Red Cross.

One guy told me he was in a military hospital, somewhere in Europe. Red Cross made him pay for the paper and envelope to write home.

I don't think they're all evil. And they do some good stuff. But, like any large bureaucracy, there's a lot of waste there.

[Corin Stormhands]

People holding fundraising events decide how much they can spend and still hope to make a healthy profit for their work.

Exactly, in the late 80s, I was the Board chair for an after school tutoring program in inner-city DC. We held a fund raising auction one year and raised about $1,000 which was a good event. The next year, people couldn't believe we spent $1,400 to rent a nicer location. But we made $10,000.

Some 15 years later, the event brings in about $60K annually. But they have to spend money to pay for the event.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I'm sorry. I reject the notion that they should be paid. It is patently dishonest and blatantly unfair to those who give their time and their money, expecting nothing in return when some of their money goes to celebrities who make millions more a year. Frankly, if I give money, I want it to go to a single mom who can't feed her children through the end of the week, rather than supporting some leftist idiot who does nothing but criticize Bush.

[ladyinred]

I alway remember my Dad a WW2 vet telling us that after his ship was sank by the Japanese, he and the other survivors who were rescued out of the sea where charged for a cup of coffee at from the Red Cross. I will never give them one dime.

[ladyinred]

Oops, always! Not alway, like a poet!

[ecurbh]

Frankly, if I give money, I want it to go to a single mom who can't feed her children through the end of the week,

Go ahead and give it to her, then!

[HairOfTheDog]

I want it to go to a single mom who can't feed her children through the end of the week, rather than supporting some leftist idiot who does nothing but criticize Bush.

Chances are, you aren't on the donor invite lists for events that hire leftist idiots to criticise Bush. But if you want to make a donation today to someone who needs it, then look up an organization and give to them.... When they have to come looking for you, it costs money.

You can reject the notion that charities should pay for speakers, and you can reject the notion that celebrities should collect money. But charities can't exist unless they invest in fundraising. That is the fact ~THEY~ have to live with. It is all relative. Hold an event where you expect to net $5,000 and you can have a pretty small affair with no-name speakers. But hold an event where you expect to net a million or more, you better have a name that will attract that kind of money.

And you can decide that a celebrity makes too much money and should do stuff for free, even for organizations they have never heard of before who write to them asking them to speak... but that would make you a socialist.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Ahh... Now we know exactly why you're taking that position. You're in Washington. All I've got to say is thank God I was born and raised in flyover country, where people care more about their fellow man than money. Really, that saltwater is affecting you.

[HairOfTheDog]

No.... I just know what I am talking about.

Have you ever spent a minute fundraising for a charity?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Have you spent a minute caring for someone besides yourself? It's not socialism. Screwing the little man who donates out of the caring of his own heart just to line the pockets of Hollywood hypocrites is.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Why can't they donate their time? They don't have to accept every little charity that comes along. Why do they have to take money from these events? There is no reason they have to accept that money. If everyone adopted your ideas, there'd be no such thing aqs a charity, just a way to make an extra buck. Or is a Hollywood idiot's time worth motre than mine?

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh good grief. Yes.... I have done charity work for the last several years. When you have worked in one and successfully raised funds without spending a cent doing it, then I hope you will let all these other charities know how to learn from you.

Likewise, when you are famous enough to be getting mail from everyone under the sun asking for you to travel and speak, tell me about it.

You are looking at this all bass-ackwards. You are acting like they are seeking out charities to sucker money out of. A celebrity like an actor or a politician who is in demand sets a fee to speak and a schedule of availability.... if you are a corporation or a college or a charity event, you contract with the speaker for a time and amount. It is a business deal for the speaker, for a group that hopefully they can speak well to, but they didn't choose the cause as much as the cause chose them.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

ALBATROSS; BOOTEDOVEREDGE; BOYCOTTEVERYTHING; CHARITY; FIREFUTONTORPEDO; GREED; HOLLYWWOD; IMATROLL; THISISSPAM; TROLLBAIT; UNSTABLEREALITY; VANITYTHYNAMEISJON; Click to Add Keyword
For all of you losers who added these stupid ass keywords, go screw yourselves. You're obviously incapable of thinking of anyone but yourselves. You aren't what conservatism is about. Thank you, Jon, for keeping us informed on the actions of the Hollywood elitists.

[HairOfTheDog]

Why do they have to take money from these events? There is no reason they have to accept that money.

They can, and I am sure some do, adopt some causes they are especially drawn to without money.... but that is their choice. The cost for the other people who want them to speak is known up front... it isn't like they just sucker-punch them with a bill later.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

What I'm objecting to is the idea that these people should get any money for charity work. I'm not saying that no money should be spent on charity. As for the mail part, I'm sure celebrities have trash cans.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Red Cross didn't see a dime of our money but my wife and I spent the weeks after 9-11 volunteering at the Harry Hines facility in Dallas. All the phone calls from relatives trying to find missing friends and relatives were routed to there.

It was time worth doing and also very sad.

One call was a guy trying to find his girlfriend. She was described with her workstation on one of the upper floors. He said we could identify her by a crucifix she wore.

[HairOfTheDog]

Again, you have it bass-ackwards. It isn't about whether they have trash cans.

If celebrities only made themselves available to the few 'causes' that were close to their hearts enough to work for for free, those other charities that might hire them would not get the value of their name or the money brought in by bringing that name to their event.

The charities benefit from being able to buy those speakers. Speakers that drew in the big crowd of big donors that only a big name will draw. It is a win-win.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The charities are just as guilty as the actors. What part of helping others don't you understand? If I went to Habitat for Humanity and said that I'd do work for them, but I'd have to charge, I'd be laughed away from the place, would I not?

[GOPJ]

Do they do it for free for Democrats? Or is it in exchange for power?

Everyone has to pay them. But we're supposed to give up SUV's for their many air conditioned mansions.

Cosby needed that 75,000 to pay for the property taxes on one of his 4 homes:)

[WinOne4TheGipper]

WHAT PART OF THEY COULD SIMPLY TURN THEM DOWN DON'T YOU GET? It's win-win for everyone except people that DONATE their time and money.
charity-n- a voluntary giving of money or other help to those in need.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yes, you would be laughed at. You aren't 'somebody'.

And if you were holding a fundraiser hoping to raise several million dollars, you aren't going to get anyone to come to it with big checkbooks with you as the Keynote Speaker either.

People go to see "Bill Cosby" do a talk that also raises money for something, or "Norman Schwarzkopf" do a talk that raises money for something. They won't go to a 'fundraiser with will1776 speaking'.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

You know what? No matter how much you sugarcoat it, defend it, or anything else, your argument is still sh*t and I am not biting.

[GOPJ]

Someone needs to take a good hard look at these charities.

Most of them run a borderline scam on the people who support them.

Here's how it works: One charity serves 200 clients, they then refer those 200 to another charity and so on. By the time your done, United Way is saying 30,000 people have been "served", but if you take out the duplicates, it's the same 650 going from place to place.

Nonprofits are a liberal full employment act. Just keep passing those "clients" around.Few get real help and all the social worker types have jobs...

And as far as all the tax write offs these liberal organizations use to help liberal businesses that need speakers -- then again, that's another story.

[discostu]

They're called appearance fees, anybody that's tried to put on a sci-fi convention is quite familiar with them.

[HairOfTheDog]

Nonprofits are a liberal full employment act. Just keep passing those "clients" around.Few get real help and all the social worker types have jobs...

You bet some of them are!

'Charity' and 'non-profit' are broad brushes.... from liberal to conservative causes.... and I am sure, the full range of efficiency and service.

This isn't so much about where any particular charity is good, but whether it is ethical for them to hire a $75,000 speaker to keynote a function where they can raise a couple million in operating funds. The return in that case seems pretty good.... they could spend more on stamps and mailers asking for donations and actuall 'net' less.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

And it would be perfectly fine if they would donate their time like everyone else. See my last post.

[Fintan]

...actress Camryn Manheim got a $24,000 Harley motorcycle to emcee an event.

 

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "hog"...

[discostu]

Then only give money to places that have never used a celebrity spokeman or given some "award" to a celebrity, or at least look in their books to see if it was paid for. Bill Cosby didn't advertise for Jello for free why should he advertise for anything else for free? That's what those events are you know, advertisements; they're a way to get the charities name out in the public and get money in.

[HairOfTheDog]

Charities would not exist if we expected all their work to be done by volunteers. There are a few volunteers around charities, but not always volunteers that can do the job that needs done.

And public speakers are a business, not a charity.

Those two concepts aren't that hard to understand.

[discostu]

What you're not understanding is that it isn't "charity work", it's a job. They're just like anybody else that has a JOB at the charity: they expect to get paid for their labor. If they want to do it as actual charity work then they use they're set appearance fee to calculate their in kind donation for their taxes. But not all work done for charities is charity work, quite a substantial amount of it is done as paying jobs for people with it as part of their career.

[discostu]

It depends on what kind of work you wanted to do for them
http://www.habitat.org/hr/

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Charities would not exist if everyone demanded to be paid for services renderred. Your idea of charity goes against the very meaning. Is it really too hard for you to understand that? Get it through your head. If they can't do it for free (again, that is the very definition of charity), then they are despicable human beings and they do not deserve my money, given to their sponsors or through "charities" themselves.

[HairOfTheDog]

But not all work done for charities is charity work

Right. I think it is a surprise to him, but hardly any work at charitable organizations is unsalaried. The work of charitable organizations is hired, just like any other job. It has to be like that if the job is to be held to any standard.... volunteers don't have to show up on time, have skills, or commit to coming back tomorrow.

[HairOfTheDog]

You have never stepped in the door of a charity have you?

[discostu]

I've got a friend that's a bookkeeper and has done most of his career for charities/ non-profits, plus I worked on accounting software for NPOs for a few years (which involved a fair amount of shmoozing and going to some events, plus digging into the books to make realistic test cases). Charities don't work at all like most people think they do, especially not the good ones. To run a charity well you need people that behave professionally, to get people to behave professionally you need people that are professionals, to get pros you generally need to pay them. Not just celebrities to host fundraisers but accountants, IT guys, janitors, receptionists and sometimes even doctors. If you need somebody to be a 40 hour a week guy with a schedule and deadlines and stuff you better be prepared to call that somebody an employee.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. It's you people that are dragging the country down. You are a sickening individual. How the hell can you stand for this? People donate to a charity to help the less fortunate, not to give Camryn Mannheim her own Harley! If you support that, I have no idea what's wrong with you.

[HairOfTheDog]

I am dragging the country down? - I don't think so darlin'....

I am too charming and optimistic.