I don’t agree with this premise. Most charities operate with 85-90% overheads and donating to the Bush-Clinton Relief fund is like donating to the Billary-Chelsea welfare scheme. That is what professional charity organizations are about.
Source?
I had tried to think positive on this subject, hoping against hope that at least 50% went to the actual cause itself. I know that there are certain stand out charities who are known for their careful and reasonable dispersal of monies.
We learn in Canada and I dare say the same is for America that eventually about 15% gets to the actual reason for the appeal. I was horrified and I hope against hope my figures are skewed when there was an expose on the most respected charity. I will not even put the name.
I read 34 million dollars advertising (ok, go ahead fine and advertise). I read of a huge salary base for employees. I read and I do have this correct. Half of one percent for the actual animal shelters, the wonderful people who are hands on. I read 450 thousand dollars.
There needs to be, not government regulation, because it is usually worse. What there should be is more knowledge and a compulsory statement of records. No need to post individual salaries, but the scale of these bloated salaries- if they exist.
I still can hardly believe what I read and it was on FR, I believe.