Stardate 20011119.0546 (On Screen): With the recent scandal about
the Red Cross's "Liberty Fund" for NYC victims (where the majority of the funds actually went to other things), it now develops that the Red Cross has been doing this kind of bait-and-switch for years. A disaster will happen, and the Red Cross will hit the airwaves with ads about it and talking about how the Red Cross will help but only if people pitch in with donations. And then they'll raise a lot of money and use most of it for other things, and not for what the contributors actually thought they were giving the money for.
This is completely wrong. It doesn't matter whether the officials running the Red Cross think there are other activities which are also important; the primary factor should be donor intent. It seems that the Red Cross has been using fine print on their contribution forms to say that the money would be used for "this disaster or similar disasters". Not acceptable. That is dishonest, and even though it's motivated by the best and most charitable motives it is still dishonest. It shows utter contempt for the donors; it treats them as cattle to be milked instead of as people to be listened to. It may well be fraud. And the Red Cross isn't going to get another dime from me until they publicly change that policy. (discuss)
A lot of people don't know that the Red Cross doesn't pay for broadcast of those TV ads. The law requires TV stations to run a certain number of free public service advertisements per day; the Red Cross is a major beneficiary of that policy.
