Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

[CaughtInThe]

"The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million by vowing to help patients, telling donors that their money would help pay the living expenses of women going through treatment for the disease. But a new lawsuit from the FTC and 10 states allege that the bulk of the money instead went to pay the charity's president and for-profit fundraisers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11 in federal court, alleges that the Women's Cancer Fund raised the money from 2017 to 2022 by making deceptive and misleading claims. In reality, the bulk of the donations went to the $775,139 salary of the charity's president, Gregory Anderson, and to pay for-profit fundraisers $15.55 million, as well as overhead expenses, the lawsuit alleges."

Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million, but a new lawsuit alleges the money went to pay a lavish salary to for-profit fundraisers.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[multivita-man]

Even if it's just incompetence, I hate shit like this.

This is the reason people are skeptical of charities.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have done business with non profits for many years.
It has always bothered me that they are rarely interested in ways to save money.
But they are always interested in ways to spend money.
And the larger the organization is - the more it is true.
Small, local charities are usually very thrift and careful with how much stuff cost.
Large, especially national non profits... let it rain money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Even if it's just incompetence, I hate shit like this.

This is the reason people are skeptical of charities.

It’s troubling when the CEO of a charity makes more than the POTUS.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What an absolute piece of shit, this is precisely why you cannot trust all that many of these charities. Frauds.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What an absolute piece of shit, this is precisely why you cannot trust all that many of these charities. Frauds.

The only non government organizations that spend more money than large charities is colleges.

 

[multivita-man]

It’s troubling when the CEO of a charity makes more than the POTUS.

I don't have a problem with it if there's a justification for it. Some charities have large operations, and really, the POTUS doesn't get paid that much relative to the budget he handles and the vastness of the bureaucracy he's responsible for. But it seems that he's using the funds to enrich himself.

 

[multivita-man]

I have done business with non profits for many years.
It has always bothered me that they are rarely interested in ways to save money.
But they are always interested in ways to spend money.
And the larger the organization is - the more it is true.
Small, local charities are usually very thrift and careful with how much stuff cost.
Large, especially national non profits... let it rain money.

They have to spend money. The question is whether they are spending money according to their by-laws and their stated mission. If not, that's a good way to lose tax-exempt status and owe a shit-ton of back taxes to the IRS and state tax authorities, and get hit with civil and criminal fraud or misappropriation charges.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't have a problem with it if there's a justification for it. Some charities have large operations, and really, the POTUS doesn't get paid that much relative to the budget he handles and the vastness of the bureaucracy he's responsible for. But it seems that he's using the funds to enrich himself.

Rest assured that in large organizations there is much more administrative overhead than the CEO.

 

[multivita-man]

Rest assured that in large organizations there is much more administrative overhead than the CEO.

Yeah this just seems grossly out of proportion. This almost screams for a criminal investigation.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They have to spend money. The question is whether they are spending money according to their by-laws and their stated mission. If not, that's a good way to lose tax-exempt status and owe a shit-ton of back taxes to the IRS and state tax authorities, and get hit with civil and criminal fraud or misappropriation charges.

Everyone "has to spend money".
But when you are hungry, you don't have to go to a 5 star restaurant.
Like I said, I have provided products/services to non profits for several decades. They overwhelmingly choose high end choices, and will always side on the side ov over producing then under producing.

 

[CaughtInThe]

guys. chill. it wasn't Eric.

 

[Integrityrespec]

"The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million by vowing to help patients, telling donors that their money would help pay the living expenses of women going through treatment for the disease. But a new lawsuit from the FTC and 10 states allege that the bulk of the money instead went to pay the charity's president and for-profit fundraisers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11 in federal court, alleges that the Women's Cancer Fund raised the money from 2017 to 2022 by making deceptive and misleading claims. In reality, the bulk of the donations went to the $775,139 salary of the charity's president, Gregory Anderson, and to pay for-profit fundraisers $15.55 million, as well as overhead expenses, the lawsuit alleges."

Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million, but a new lawsuit alleges the money went to pay a lavish salary to for-profit fundraisers.

finance.yahoo.com

DId the for profit fundraisers make money? IF so where is it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Wouldn't be the first time a charity spend far too much on other things and not the people the charity were intended for.

 

[Allan]

Charity Watch is a great site if you're thinking of donating. They give charities a grade based on metrics that include how much is actually spent on programs.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Donate with confidence. Get detailed information about your favorite charities. CharityWatch is America's most independent, assertive charity watchdog.

www.charitywatch.org

 

[Lisa]

"The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million by vowing to help patients, telling donors that their money would help pay the living expenses of women going through treatment for the disease. But a new lawsuit from the FTC and 10 states allege that the bulk of the money instead went to pay the charity's president and for-profit fundraisers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11 in federal court, alleges that the Women's Cancer Fund raised the money from 2017 to 2022 by making deceptive and misleading claims. In reality, the bulk of the donations went to the $775,139 salary of the charity's president, Gregory Anderson, and to pay for-profit fundraisers $15.55 million, as well as overhead expenses, the lawsuit alleges."

Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million, but a new lawsuit alleges the money went to pay a lavish salary to for-profit fundraisers.

finance.yahoo.com

Somehow I am not surprised. There are many cancer charities that are scams. Susan G. Komen is one of the worst.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The only non government organizations that spend more money than large charities is colleges.

Spending money is not near the issue as *where* they spend money. The point of the thread.

Read the story and tell us all why 1% is an acceptable level of contribution to the one and only mission the charity claims they are there for.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Spending money is not near the issue as *where* they spend money. The point of the thread.

Read the story and tell us all why 1% is an acceptable level of contribution to the one and only mission the charity claims they are there for.

I am not sure what you are reading into my posts, but it is way off the mark.
What in God's name did I say that would lead you to believe that I would think this charity is responsible?
I haven't given one red cent to any large charity in decades, and I would advise everyone not to.
Especially the largest one you can think of, which is nothing more than a collection agency that takes a significant portion of donated amounts to finance themselves. Including fantastic wages and perks.
Give locally. Give direct.
Always.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am not sure what you are reading into my posts, but it is way off the mark.
What in God's name did I say that would lead you to believe that I would think this charity is responsible?
I haven't given one red cent to any large charity in decades, and I would advise everyone not to.
Especially the largest one you can think of, which is nothing more than a collection agency that takes a significant portion of donated amounts to finance themselves. Including fantastic wages and perks.
Give locally. Give direct.
Always.

My humble apologies.

 

[holbritter]

"The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million by vowing to help patients, telling donors that their money would help pay the living expenses of women going through treatment for the disease. But a new lawsuit from the FTC and 10 states allege that the bulk of the money instead went to pay the charity's president and for-profit fundraisers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11 in federal court, alleges that the Women's Cancer Fund raised the money from 2017 to 2022 by making deceptive and misleading claims. In reality, the bulk of the donations went to the $775,139 salary of the charity's president, Gregory Anderson, and to pay for-profit fundraisers $15.55 million, as well as overhead expenses, the lawsuit alleges."

Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million, but a new lawsuit alleges the money went to pay a lavish salary to for-profit fundraisers.

finance.yahoo.com

What a POS. Despicable.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Spending money is not near the issue as *where* they spend money. The point of the thread.

Read the story and tell us all why 1% is an acceptable level of contribution to the one and only mission the charity claims they are there for.

It's not acceptable. Either they are crooks or incompetent. I understand even non profit charities need workers and although they may get some volunteers, they need staff. The staff shouldn't be getting the lions share. Fundraising events are raising funds if they spend the money and don't get a better return on the spending.

 

[JBG]

"The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million by vowing to help patients, telling donors that their money would help pay the living expenses of women going through treatment for the disease. But a new lawsuit from the FTC and 10 states allege that the bulk of the money instead went to pay the charity's president and for-profit fundraisers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 11 in federal court, alleges that the Women's Cancer Fund raised the money from 2017 to 2022 by making deceptive and misleading claims. In reality, the bulk of the donations went to the $775,139 salary of the charity's president, Gregory Anderson, and to pay for-profit fundraisers $15.55 million, as well as overhead expenses, the lawsuit alleges."

Cancer fund only sent 1 cent of every $1 to patients, lawsuit alleges

The Women's Cancer Fund raised $18.3 million, but a new lawsuit alleges the money went to pay a lavish salary to for-profit fundraisers.

finance.yahoo.com

Wow! The suit is filed by the FTC and a bunch of states. This has real credibility. These scam artists and grifters make people reluctant to donate to any charity.