***
SNIPPETS FROM AMERICAN PROSPECT ARTICLENow The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s newly released annual list of the nation’s top-grossing charities threatens to give the sector yet another black eye. Released on October 27, the report does contain some feel-good news about American generosity—overall giving is up by 7 percent, for example. But the ranking contains a startling revelation that could intensify scrutiny of the sector: The growth in what some have dubbed a “Wall Street takeover” of charity.

The report is sure to add plenty of fuel to an already heated debate about so-called donor-advised funds, a philanthropic vehicle that has been popularized by the financial industry. Known as DAFs, the funds function like charitable checking accounts, permitting donors to put money aside for philanthropic purposes, take an immediate tax break, and then “advise” the sponsoring institution on which charitable causes they want to support with that cash. Their exploding financial-sector use means that the nation’s most popular charity in terms of donated dollars is no longer a group like the Red Cross or the Boys & Girls Club of America, but rather Fidelity Charitable, a DAF sponsor created in 1991 by the Boston-based financial firm.

*

DAFs were first developed by community foundations in the 1930s and are designed to allow donors to designate money for charity without having to quickly decide which worthy institutions to support. They are sometimes compared to private foundations, which have also faced scrutiny for slowing the flow of charitable donations. But unlike foundations, DAFs aren’t legally obligated to distribute even a portion of their dollars by a particular deadline.

The financial institutions, meanwhile, earn fees for managing the funds and thus have a disincentive to get the dollars out the door. “This is the most pernicious aspect of the commercial gift funds,” says Cantor.

*

Jarrett Lucas, executive director of the Stonewall Community Foundation, which operates DAFs that support LGBT causes, says he is not necessarily opposed to a payout rule, so long as it is carefully considered and wouldn’t interfere with the needs of new donors who require time to assess the effectiveness of charities and determine which groups fit their philanthropic goals. Stonewall gives out 88 percent of contributions in the same year they’re received, so it’s unlikely that imposed deadlines would significantly alter the giving habits of that fund’s donors.

http://prospect.org/article/wall-street-taking-over-charity

END OF SNIPPET FROM AMERICAN PROSPECT ARTICLE

***
ME HERE

My first thought as I started reading this article is that everything, every single thing, in regard to the American economic system has become a Wall Street racket. Well, not only herE, everywhere their corruption touches worldwide. Like Greece for example. But I digress...

First I have to say IMO this is no different, and no less shameful, than what the Big Name foundations do. They are set up by rich guys with names like Gates and Buffett and Clinton and they put family members in charge and then they donate **stocks** for which they can take a tax deduction until Hell freezes over and the charity pays no taxes when they're sold, no matter how far in the future that is. And the 'foundation' controls the stocks, That is a Hell of a racket there folks. Or in the case of the Clinton's foundation, they shake down foreign donors and hangers on and those that need a favor, then decide who gets aid and when they'll get it. Often the actual 'aid' comes from somewhere else, the CFCS (Clinton Family Crime Syndicate) just decides who the lucky recipient is to be and facilitates is 'dispersal'.

But these guy, Wall Street crooks and liars, should not be in the business of 'charity management'. The one thing that you CAN count on in this lifetime is that where there's money to be made and where Wall Street is involved, laws, rules of ethical behavior, and regulations will soon be thrown out the window and replaced with a 'Wolf of Wall Street' mentality. Of course they will sit on this money. In their minds the only real use for that money is to make them money. This money will come in damn handy if they need to start finagling to plug holes caused by other little financial schemes they're running past the donors, like inflated and insane salaries to it's CEO and other honchos, bonuses, expense accounts and perks like insurance - something the people who this money is intended for don't have. Oh yes, and advertising. Like the article mentions, they will have the bucks to put out the 'propaganda' do draw in the donors. And the donor's will never really know the truth.

Right now where I live Goodwill Industries is in hot water because it was discovered they were paying its CEO around a million dollars a year. That's the Omaha Director, not a national official. And I remember when United Way got busted for not spending its donations on helping clients but on salaries and 'administration'. So did the American Red Cross.

***
SNIPPET FROM OMAHA WORLD HERALD ARTICLE:
The paper also found that despite Goodwill’s slogan that shopping at and donating to its thrift stores help the charity assist the disabled and other needy job-seekers, just a fraction of its store profits fund such job training programs. Instead, those dollars are being largely consumed by its administrative overhead, including much of the pay for the charity’s leaders.

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/susie-buffett-now-ex-donor-calls-goodwil...

END OF OMAHA WORLD HERALD ARTICLE
***
MY OPINION

Charity organizations need to be constantly monitored. All of them. But even more important is the need to watch these 'foundations' (and what have you) that 'work for charities'. I always wonder why people give to those collective hucksters like United Way when you can give directly to almost any charity to which you wish to donate. These 'foundations' create good paying jobs for its officers and often family members, and that takes from money that would have been put to better use by direct donations.

I bet Wall Street is giddy as a teenage girl picking out her first prom dress. Soon the woman they've been backing for years will step into the White House and she can have a private conversation with them about how she intends to further aid in tightening their stranglehold on the nation's economy and a different conversation with us...wait! Whut? Oh yeah, she won't even fucking bother with us. Just like Obama and his like it or lump it Wall Street antics. Only she's gonna be like Obama on meth when it comes to Wall Street, trade deals, and war.