Charities and Dirty Faces

Some people have charity in their hearts. Others have the spoils of charity in their secure Swiss or offshore bank accounts.

Charities are all the rage among get-rich schemers. They are very popular amongst scammers who exploit others' empathy and capitalize upon the gullibility of folks who want to express gratitude or do penance for their own good fortune, serve society and do their part to heal the world.

The masterminds of rackets that marginally act as charities to cover themselves legally and qualify for the welfare of IRS dodges are among society's coldest, most cynical and ingenious monetizers. That gives no pause to the IRS, which is a notorious softie when it comes to the liberties taken by some alleged charities.

We live in the land of liberties.

The technicalities of what makes an organization eligible for recognition as a charity make rocket science seem a cinch by comparison. Even a succinct and lucid online summary of the complexities of its definition reads like double talk comedy. 

In establishing a charity, great care is given to make its mission sound straightforward and righteous. That makes it more marketable and discourages delving into its true nature.

Often, the names of the hoaxes are deliberately made very similar to authentic charities, because our subconscious minds will have already registered and accepted it. 

But separating the grifters from the altruists is vital, though it is time-consuming, simple and doesn't require professional expertise. 

At the Watergate hearings many years ago, it was asked, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

To judge the legitimacy (in terms of function, not necessarily lawful status) of a charity, demands knowing the percentage of verified donations that was siphoned for administrative costs and how much was actually reached by the beneficiaries it promoted.

Presidents of charities should not use their proceeds to fly the fanciest private planes, live in palatial estates and party like Mick Jagger. They shouldn't be stuffed to the gills with discretionary income like the Sultan of Brunei.  

One particular not obscure charity, dedicated to assuaging the plight of sick children, set aside just three percent of its donations for that purpose.  This  unethical operating practice is not standard, but not extremely rare.

Many charities give a cut of their revenue to the advertised recipient and keep the rest. It's as though the often desperate grantees were minority silent partners in a business, or getting a payoff from a mob deal.

According to Wikipedia, "abracadabra is a magic word, historically used as an apotropaic incantation on amulets and common today in stage magic." 

That wizardry has been replaced by 501(c)(3).

That IRS code designation for public charities and private foundations, not only opens up doors, but a universe of receipts and yields. These organizations, unlike others nonprofits, receive donations that are tax-deductible to their donors.

According to SmartAsset.com, a financial technology website, a group can truthfully represent itself as a nonprofit organization, which "does not mean that they are a charity. It only means they do not seek to make a profit from their activities." Many special interest groups, trade groups and both the Democratic and Republican parties are nonprofits. 

Sounds like a seduction to mischief, or at least an open invitation.   

There are hundreds of thousands of charities, and although scams abound, so do genuine humanitarian enterprises. As is true with people, good charities sometimes fail to thrive, and bad ones sometimes have a charmed life and flourish. 

What can humanitarian people do to increase the odds of not getting rooked?

Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, and Forbes are among the organizations that claim to assess charities objectively in critical areas that reflect their merit. I am aware of no reason to doubt their impartiality or the scientific soundness of their methods, but as is so often the case elsewhere, who is evaluating the evaluators?   

It's like the song that never ends.

We are treated to unsolicited cautionary tales and admonitions about giving money to strangers, presumed to be panhandlers, addicts or mentally ill, who accost us for money in the subway or on the street. These "public service announcements" suggest such random acts of kindness are fools' errands, because the recipients of grace don't know how to handle it, and will just convert our generosity to booze and drugs.

Decent people cannot help but vicariously share the suffering of other folks who have been dealt an indecent hand in life's card game of chance. 

What are they to do when they see what appears to be the same never-ending images of photoshopped misery on their television screens?  Poverty, disease and natural disasters are always timely because they are timeless, so is it callous to be skeptical about charity appeals?

Are we leaving them to a terrible fate if we do nothing?  Would that fate be any different if we did something?  Sometimes no, (but should that stop us?).

Particularly when the misery is set overseas, there are places where even if a trillion dollars were sent, there still would never be anything to show for it, because  all the wealth is stolen and hoarded by a tiny percentage of the country, where corruption is profound, limitless, all-pervasive and has been a way of life for many generations. 

How do we answer the innocent children whose forlorn faces we see on our screens? Or do we have the audacity to look away?

We cannot imperialistically impose our will and standards on other sovereign nations.  But there should be another way to get control over humanitarian services without breaking international law! 

 "Deal" is the new shibboleth of American "exceptionalism." There's a ballroom in Washington named for it.

Can't they hammer out a "Big Beautiful Deal?"  Open borders, not for immigration, but for charity. "Charity begins at home" is not an exclusionary proverb if we magnify the family.  

But let's first get our own house of America in order. Most of us rent. Some of us own. We're all supposed to have shares.

When charitable organizations are shown to be fronts, swindles and stings, the thugs who perpetrated the flimflam should not be mollycoddled like white-collar criminals, but harshly punished without legalistic escape clauses.

One of the crookedest charities is the government itself, through their coercive fund-raising and shady apportionments. Since we the people are theoretically the body and soul of a democratic nation, how are we to correct ourselves without doing self-harm?