Replies

While browsing, I found MADD on the list. Being curious, I checked. I have never been a supporter of MADD for instinctive reasons. Those reasons are now validated.

Motivation MADD has managed to artificially enlarge the societal problem of drunk driving, by continuously redefining the threshold for “drunk.” In late 1996 MADD’s Karolyn Nunnallee, then the organization’s president-elect, told the audience of NBC’s Today show: “While a lot of attention is paid to the serious problems of repeat offenders, we don’t want to overlook the casual drinker.” Even though the real drunk driving problem has been reduced to a relatively small group of incorrigible, “hard-core” offenders, MADD’s coffers will continue to grow as long as the problem is perceived to be worsening.
In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. In that same year, the group spent more than $2 million just on travel and conventions. Compare that to MADD’s paltry lobbying budget (a four-year total of only $636,000 from 1991 to 1994), and it’s not hard to see why the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) downgraded the group’s letter-grade ranking to a “D.” Indeed, MADD had been funneling nearly 63 cents of every dollar back to its fund-raising contractors, which is twice the rate that AIP considers acceptable.