By: Clare Hanson,
on 8/3/2015
Part I of this post addressed a familiar question: how should individuals concerned about international issues decide where to donate money? Here I turn to a second, less familiar question that follows from the first: what is entailed in being a responsible donor after the question of where to donate has been settled?
The post Being a responsible donor appeared first on OUPblog.
By: Meg Artley,
on 11/6/2013
Even in a slowly recovering economy, Americans are still givers, donating over $316 billion last year (an increase of 3.5% over the previous year), with the vast majority of that money coming not from companies or foundations, but from individual donors.
At First Book, we rely on the generosity of our donors to help put new books into the hands of kids in need. But we understand how difficult it can be to make decisions about where your money will be used most effectively.
Which is why we’re pleased to share some great news: for the third year in a row, First Book has been awarded four stars — the highest rating possible — by Charity Navigator, the leading charity evaluator in America.
Charity Navigator rates nonprofit organizations to provide donors with reliable data about the impact, efficiency and fiscal health of the organizations, and their online rankings are visited more than all other charity ratings groups combined. So we’re pleased to earn this distinction and proud that we’re using your gifts effectively to help children in need.
When you donate to First Book, 97% of your donation goes directly to putting brand-new books into the hands of educators serving kids in need — not to administrative and fundraising costs.
If you have any questions about how First Book operates, or exactly how your donations are used, we’d love to hear them! Get in touch through Facebook or Twitter, or send us an email.
Click here to see First Book’s profile on Charity Navigator.
The post Are My Charitable Dollars Going to Good Use? appeared first on First Book Blog.
By: Meg Artley,
on 11/6/2013
Even in a slowly recovering economy, Americans are still givers, donating over $316 billion last year (an increase of 3.5% over the previous year), with the vast majority of that money coming not from companies or foundations, but from individual donors.
At First Book, we rely on the generosity of our donors to help put new books into the hands of kids in need. But we understand how difficult it can be to make decisions about where your money will be used most effectively.
Which is why we’re pleased to share some great news: for the third year in a row, First Book has been awarded four stars — the highest rating possible — by Charity Navigator, the leading charity evaluator in America.
Charity Navigator rates nonprofit organizations to provide donors with reliable data about the impact, efficiency and fiscal health of the organizations, and their online rankings are visited more than all other charity ratings groups combined. So we’re pleased to earn this distinction and proud that we’re using your gifts effectively to help children in need.
When you donate to First Book, 97% of your donation goes directly to putting brand-new books into the hands of educators serving kids in need — not to administrative and fundraising costs.
If you have any questions about how First Book operates, or exactly how your donations are used, we’d love to hear them! Get in touch through Facebook or Twitter, or send us an email.
Click here to see First Book’s profile on Charity Navigator.
The post Are My Charitable Dollars Going to Good Use? appeared first on First Book Blog.
By: Lauren,
on 3/22/2011
The criminal investigation of former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards for secretly funneling money to his ex-lover Rielle Hunter is moving toward a conclusion, and there is a good chance he will be indicted if federal prosecutors can link the payments to his campaign committee or find that contributors were deceived about the purpose of the donations.
Voicemails released by North Carolina television station WTVD show Edwards’ connection to keeping his affair with Ms. Hunter secret. An NBC New report in February disclosed that federal prosecutors were planning to take the deposition of one of the sources of nearly $1 million used to keep Ms. Hunter out of sight while she was pregnant with their child.
The investigation into payments made to Ms. Hunter while Mr. Edwards was running for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President has been going on for almost two years. According to campaign records, she was purportedly paid for producing campaign videos. A former top aide to Mr. Edwards, Andrew Young, originally claimed to be the father of the child, but has now turned on his former boss and described in detail how large sums were provided to support Ms. Hunter, who is not a target of the investigation.
Sex scandals involving politicians normally just end the person’s political career, at least in this country. And paying off a secret lover to buy silence is not normally a crime, at least when the politician uses his own money. According to Mr. Young, however, the money came from wealthy donors, including $700,000 from Rachel “Bunny” Melloon, an aged wealthy patron of Mr. Edwards, who gave personal checks hidden in candy boxes.
The funds provided for Ms. Hunter pose a problem for Mr. Edwards if the money was collected for his presidential campaign committee and instead was tapped to make payments on her behalf, or even given directly to her. Politicians once viewed their campaign accounts as something akin to a personal piggy bank, and the money can still be used for a number of things that have little to do with actually running for office, like paying for an attorney to defend against an ethics investigation or even a criminal investigation.
Mr. Edwards would not be the target of a grand jury investigation were it not for a provision added to the federal campaign finance laws in 2002 as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That law, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 439a, states that a campaign contribution or donation “shall not be converted by any person to personal use.” The statute contains a list of uses that would be considered “personal,” such as buying clothes or paying for a vacation. While it does not specifically list payments to an ex-lover to keep the person quiet while running for President, that would certainly seem to come within the term “personal use.”
The issue for prosecutors is whether the money passed through Mr. Edwards’ campaign committee, or whether it was simply presented to donors as a way to “support” the candidate but never intended to be a campaign contribution. Federal law imposes strict reporting requirements on campaign contributions, and limits donations to an individual candidate to $2,500. The amount of money collected on behalf of Ms. Hunter clearly exceeded statutory limitations, which may show that the payments were never meant to be related directly to Mr. Edwards’ short-lived campaign for the presidency. Apart from the campaign finance issue is the question of whether financial support provided to Ms. Hunter was properly reported a
By: Rebecca,
on 7/10/2008
Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N.
Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America. In this article, Zelinsky argues that Senators Obama and McCain have confirmed the malfunction of campaign finance reform, that this is a healthy development for American democracy, and that the current system of campaign finance reform should be replaced by a simplified disclosure regime.
The most important event of the 2008 presidential campaign may already have occurred: The major party nominees have publicly confirmed the malfunction of campaign finance reform. Such reform has imposed increasingly complex and stringent limitations on the contributions of political donors and on the expenditures of political campaigns.
Senator Obama had been an outspoken apostle of campaign finance reform. At the outset of his presidential effort, Senator Obama had proclaimed his commitment to accept public financing and its accompanying expenditure restrictions for his general election campaign. He has now turned 180 degrees. Senator Obama will now eschew public financing and its attendant limits and will instead fund his general election effort with private donations to escape those limits.
Senator McCain’s change of heart is more complex but even more dramatic. Senator McCain was the prime Republican sponsor of the most recent tightening of federal restrictions on campaigns and donors, the eponymous McCain-Feingold Act. While he will accept public financing in the fall, Senator McCain’s supporters are actively and openly exploiting every legal loophole they can find to permit private contributors to assist his candidacy beyond the restrictions imposed by that Act. The irony is palpable. Senator McCain’s supporters are now assiduously seeking to erode the very constraints on donors and campaigns which Senator McCain had championed.
It is easy to criticize Senators Obama and McCain for their inconsistency. I suggest, however, that there is a broader significance to these events. Senators Obama and McCain have confirmed the malfunction of campaign finance reform. We should now kill this complex and unfair regulatory scheme. American democracy will be healthier without the myriad restrictions which limit Americans’ ability to contribute to the candidates of their choice.
The fundamental premises upon which campaign finance reform rests are false: Money in politics is a bad thing which can and ought to be limited legislatively. On the contrary, for many Americans, a financial contribution is today the only meaningful way, besides voting, they can assist the candidates they support. In any event, campaign contributions cannot be controlled fairly and effectively. Another form of Prohibition has failed.
Consider the simpler era in which I grew up. Working on political campaigns along with other volunteers, my friends and I would meet at local party headquarters and fan out to distribute bumper stickers and campaign buttons to our neighbors. It seems quaint because, in retrospect, it was.
Contrast this low budget, Ozzie-and-Harriet world with the consultant-driven, TV-saturated campaigns which constituted primary season 2008. In these campaigns, the citizen-volunteers have largely been subordinated to the full-time, paid, professional operatives who ran these campaigns. In this environment, a financial contribution is, besides voting, the most meaningful form of support many, probably most, Americans can make to the candidate they support.
Moreover, the attempt to limit the influence of money by law, propounded as a means of leveling the political playing field, has instead reinforced the political power of the celebrities in our celebrity-based culture. During the 2008 primary campaign, both Oprah Winfrey and Chuck Norris provided enormously valuable assistance to the Obama and Huckabee campaigns, generating publicity worth hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for the candidates they supported. None of this celebrity assistance is capped by McCain-Feingold, despite the obvious value of that assistance.
In contrast, if a non-celebrity citizen favoring a competing candidate sought to counteract celebrity-generated publicity by donating equivalent funds to purchase offsetting advertising, that citizen would have violated the law. If, for example, a supporter of Governor Romney sought to counteract Mr. Norris’s efforts via a campaign donation of $2,500 (a tiny fraction of Mr. Norris’s effective but unregulated contribution to Governor Huckabee), that Romney supporter broke the law which limited him to a $2,300 contribution. Campaign finance reform, it turns out, is just for the little people.
It is unsurprising that this system is now in disarray. The current system, with its complex contribution limits, is overly-complicated and unfair. These complex and inequitable rules should be replaced by a simplified regime which permits all campaign contributions without limit but which requires contributions to be immediately and accurately disclosed.
Whether one believes that campaign finance reform like McCain-Feingold was a noble idea which failed or was an unwise approach from the beginning, Senators Obama and McCain have confirmed the malfunction of that approach. We should now move from the currently dysfunctional system to a simplified regime which permits contributions without limit, which requires complete and accurate disclosure of those contributions, and which no longer puts our political life in the hands of Oprah and Chuck.
By: Lisa Alvarado,
on 2/27/2008
photo of raulsalinas by Bruce Dye
By: Lisa Alvarado,
on 2/21/2008
Here's some things to ponder....
Politico, Prisoner, street poet...aside from these obvious roles,
what is the lasting impact of raulsalinas?
What are both the specific and universal messages in his work?
What were his spheres of influence as a writer and poet?
How has he personally affected your writing, your ethos, your sensibilities?
How would you summarize his example as to what it means to be a man,
a Chicano (a), a creative person, a spiritual person?
Share your thoughts and your stories here with us next week....
Image that. A prestigious university can publish such nonsense. Campaign spending limits, now.