Grifters running LGBT Nonprofits

[Lotus-eater]

Queer Works CEO charged with stealing $940,000 from city of Palm Springs, others

WWW.DESERTSUN.COM

---

A Riverside County criminal grand jury has indicted Queer Works CEO with 53 felony counts, including grand theft and money laundering.

 

 

GLAAD Paid For CEO’s Lavish Spending, Documents Reveal - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

GLAAD paid for its chief executive to fly first-class, rent a Cape Cod house and remodel her home office. It may have violated I.R.S. rules.

 

Ruby Corado pleads guilty to wire fraud in plea agreement

WWW.WASHINGTONBLADE.COM

---

Reduced charge says she stole at least $150,000 in COVID-relief funds.

 

 

[pubic_assistance]

Similar charges to the BLM founders.

Charity seems to be very profitable these days.

[mike carey]

9 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Similar charges to the BLM founders.

Charity seems to be very profitable these days.

Probably not much different to business owners and executives treating company funds as their own personal money.

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, mike carey said:

Probably not much different to business owners

Businesses sometimes have investors to answer to and IRS filing that could be audited with penalties for unjustified expenses.  i see a lot of charities thst seem to have ZERO oversight and don't appear to get caught moneylaundering until it's WAY out of control .

[NJF]

24 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Similar charges to the BLM founders.

Charity seems to be very profitable these days.

These days? Grifting is as old as whoring 😂 

[+ Pensant]

I vet any group to which I donate, a list that currently stands at 6.

Edited November 2, 2024 by Pensant

[+ FrankR]

I recently resigned from the board of a charity for much the same reason. It was clear to me that the leadership had lost the plot and a number of expenses did not appear appropriate or fruitful. I had to make a “noisy exit” to make my misgivings and resignation clear and ensure it was noted by all stakeholders and my departure cannot be in doubt. I had a word with the auditor as well since there is no audit committee. My professional qualifications could be in peril if I am associated with this type of shenanigans. I am still a little shocked by how blasé the leadership team was about my concerns. 

[+ robear]

There's no profit like non-profit.  Dubious use of funds and outright malfeasance are hardly limited to niche charities like LGBT+ or BLM, it occurs regularly on a much grander scale at more mainstream non-profits.  (And lets not even get started on "churches.")  Of the 3 instances cited by OP, 2 seem to be outright fraud, the third involving dubious expenditures at the much larger, long established GLAAD.  I always check Charity Navigator before giving, as it evaluates charities with a standardized methodology. Far from perfect, and additional research is needed, but still a good overview. CN gives GLAAD a top 4-star rating, but also links to the NYT piece, and a response from GLAAD.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, robear said:

Dubious use of funds and outright malfeasance are hardly limited to niche charities like LGBT+ or BLM, it occurs regularly on a much grander scale

Oh..absolutely.  It's actually rather difficult to find charities that one might want to support once you do a little "digging" into their finances. The majority spend huge sums on themselves (staffing, fundraising, real estate and travel)...before any of the funding actually goes to the charity.

[Ali Gator]

When I owned my small business (1987-2011), I was bombarded with 'charity donation' calls and visits throughout the year, but especially November and December. These 'callers' would prey on  small business owners, trying to pressure us into giving 'to the community' and doing it 'for the children'. The first question I would ask them upfront was:  "What percentage of my donation goes to employee salaries and office expenses ?"  It's a simple question, and if they're asking for a donation they should have the percentage available to donators. 

The callers would hang up immediately. 

The in-person visitors would dance around the question, and try to change the subject and bring up the good deeds the charity is doing 'for the children'.  I'd remind them they didn't answer my question. "How much of my donation is going to your salary and office expenses and how much is going to 'the children'?"  They would do another tap dance (that was usually accompanied by a gut-crunching hearty laugh, as though I said something quite humorous) and remind me of 'the children'.  I reminded them for the last time - if I'm giving money to you, how much is actually going to 'the children' ? I would then tell them I'd do my own on-line research on their charity, and make my decision about donating tomorrow. Thanks for giving me your pamphlet, and I'll call you tomorrow.  That would anger them, and they would turn on their heels and walk out the door.

Once they left, I'd hit my computer and look up their charity. Nearly 100% of the time, less than 5% would go to 'the children' and the rest went to staff and operating expenses (and their office was always in a luxury office building in the high-rent districts of the city). Keep in mind - leased cars, dining out at fine restaurants, etc. qualify as 'operating expenses' along with office rent, and utilities.

So remember - if you're ever asked to donate to a charity you're not familiar with, ask the simple question:  "How much of my donation will be going to salaries and operating costs and how much to the 'children' (or 'war veterans', or '9-1-1 heroes', or 'abandoned pets', etc.). By law, they have to reveal that info to you as it's public information.

And BTW, I believe it was TV program Suze Orman was on decades ago which clued me into this. IIRC the rule of thumb was 85% and more should be going to the charity - not the staff or office. 

[Lotus-eater]

15 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Businesses sometimes have investors to answer to and IRS filing that could be audited with penalties for unjustified expenses.  i see a lot of charities thst seem to have ZERO oversight and don't appear to get caught moneylaundering until it's WAY out of control .

Agreed. Nonprofits because they are nonprofits are able to escape the sort of oversight that for-profit firms typically receive from government and investors seeking to maximize returns.

4 hours ago, robear said:

There's no profit like non-profit. 

One of the largest "nonprofits" that I'm aware of is IKEA, which is owned by the Stichting INGKA Foundation.

[+ azdr0710]

[Luv2play]

I don’t know much about the US but here in Canada non profits have to have their books audited (above $500,000 in annual revenues) and file an annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency (similar to IRS). I sit on the board of several non profit charities and ensure these things are done.

[+ nycman]

11 hours ago, Luv2play said:

I don’t know much about the US but here in Canada non profits have to have their books audited (above $500,000 in annual revenues) and file an annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency (similar to IRS). I sit on the board of several non profit charities and ensure these things are done.

True, but audits don’t mean it’s not a scam. It’s not illegal for a "non-profit" to use 99% of its income to pay its top executives millions. The IRS will get income tax on the money paid to the executives. Honestly, that’s all they care about.

Having said that, it’s a delicate balance. I’ve certainly seen "non-profits" that can barely cover their own fundraising expenses, much less provide any useful services. They basically exist, just to raise money. But I’ve also seen "activists" decimate powerful and much needed fundraising activities just because the event didn’t pass their litmus test of "acceptable" overhead. All fundraising is basically begging rich people to give you money and sometimes you "do whatcha you gotta do to get that coin". 

[soloyo215]

I wish I could say that it's surprising.

The times we're living. In my town they cleaned up house a few years ago. Several non-profits that are supposed to help the community have been the center of scandals around racism, homophobia, embezzlement and sexual misconduct. Their reputation is questionable at best.

[+ sync]

A little farther up the food chain, some years ago in a discussion with a friend of mine I mentioned AARP.  She went nova with a tirade about the AARP being in bed with big pharma.

[Luv2play]

10 hours ago, nycman said:

True, but audits don’t mean it’s not a scam. It’s not illegal for a "non-profit" to use 99% of its income to pay its top executives millions. The IRS will get income tax on the money paid to the executives. Honestly, that’s all they care about.

Having said that, it’s a delicate balance. I’ve certainly seen "non-profits" that can barely cover their own fundraising expenses, much less provide any useful services. They basically exist, just to raise money. But I’ve also seen "activists" decimate powerful and much needed fundraising activities just because the event didn’t pass their litmus test of "acceptable" overhead. All fundraising is basically begging rich people to give you money and sometimes you "do whatcha you gotta do to get that coin". 

Can you name a non profit that pays its top executives 99 percent of its income? 

[+ ApexNomad]

7 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Can you name a non profit that pays its top executives 99 percent of its income? 

Non-profits can legally spend large portions of their income on salaries and administrative costs rather than direct services, though there are general expectations and standards for spending ratios. For instance, Charity Navigator recommends that most established non-profits aim to allocate at least 70% of their revenue to programs rather than overhead. However, in reality, some non-profits may have high administrative or fundraising costs—sometimes above 90%—and still operate legally. (I know.)

The IRS’s primary focus is ensuring a non-profit meets tax-exempt requirements, such as not generating excessive private benefit for individuals, rather than scrutinizing every detail of its spending ratios. While large executive salaries can raise concerns, particularly if they seem disproportionate to the organization’s impact, they are not necessarily illegal as long as the non-profit can justify them as “reasonable” within the context of its mission. Watchdogs like Charity Navigator or GuideStar flag organizations where high executive compensation impacts program spending, but a 99% allocation to executive pay, while rare, could technically be legal if deemed reasonable.

[Luv2play]

7 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

Non-profits can legally spend large portions of their income on salaries and administrative costs rather than direct services, though there are general expectations and standards for spending ratios. For instance, Charity Navigator recommends that most established non-profits aim to allocate at least 70% of their revenue to programs rather than overhead. However, in reality, some non-profits may have high administrative or fundraising costs—sometimes above 90%—and still operate legally. (I know.)

The IRS’s primary focus is ensuring a non-profit meets tax-exempt requirements, such as not generating excessive private benefit for individuals, rather than scrutinizing every detail of its spending ratios. While large executive salaries can raise concerns, particularly if they seem disproportionate to the organization’s impact, they are not necessarily illegal as long as the non-profit can justify them as “reasonable” within the context of its mission. Watchdogs like Charity Navigator or GuideStar flag organizations where high executive compensation impacts program spending, but a 99% allocation to executive pay, while rare, could technically be legal if deemed reasonable.

Again, you say you know. Can you name one? 

[+ ApexNomad]

19 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Again, you say you know. Can you name one? 

“I know” meaning “I know, it’s sucks. I agree.”  But if you want actual names, here you go - here’s five:

1. Wounded Warrior Project

2. American Veterans Coalition

3. Help Hospitalized Veterans

4. Cancer Fund of America

5. National Veterans Services Fund

[Luv2play]

48 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

“I know” meaning “I know, it’s sucks. I agree.”  But if you want actual names, here you go - here’s five:

1. Wounded Warrior Project

2. American Veterans Coalition

3. Help Hospitalized Veterans

4. Cancer Fund of America

5. National Veterans Services Fund

Just checking the first one on your list, Wounded Warrior Project, it allocate 71 percent of its revenue to programs and services for wounded veterans. That’s certainly an acceptable amount and not fitting the description of 99 percent towards executive salaries. 

[+ ApexNomad]

17 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Just checking the first one on your list, Wounded Warrior Project, it allocate 71 percent of its revenue to programs and services for wounded veterans. That’s certainly an acceptable amount and not fitting the description of 99 percent towards executive salaries. 

Now they do! Back in 2016, Wounded Warrior Project came under intense scrutiny after reports surfaced of high administrative costs and excessive spending on staff events. This prompted an internal review and a significant leadership overhaul, resulting in the organization’s commitment to improved financial practices.

[+ ApexNomad]

28 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Just checking the first one on your list, Wounded Warrior Project, it allocate 71 percent of its revenue to programs and services for wounded veterans. That’s certainly an acceptable amount and not fitting the description of 99 percent towards executive salaries. 

As for the others, 

2. Help Hospitalized Veterans: This charity has faced criticism for spending a high percentage of its donations on executive salaries and perks, while comparatively little is allocated to programs that directly benefit veterans. The organization’s spending practices led to an investigation by the California Attorney General and resulted in lawsuits due to questionable financial practices and excessive administrative costs.

3. American Veterans Coalition: This charity reportedly spends only a small percentage of its revenue on actual programs for veterans, with the majority of donations directed toward salaries, administrative costs, and fundraising. Watchdogs have flagged organizations like this for having low program-spending ratios, warning donors to exercise caution.

4. Cancer Fund of America and Related Charities: CFA, along with several affiliated charities, became notorious for spending the majority of their donations on salaries, fundraising, and administrative costs, leaving very little for cancer patients. This organization and its affiliates were eventually SHUT DOWN following a FTC investigation that exposed their financial practices.

5. National Veterans Services Fund: This organization has been flagged repeatedly for high administrative and fundraising costs, with only a small portion of its revenue reaching veterans’ programs. Like other charities with low program spending, it has attracted negative attention from watchdogs and received low ratings from organizations like Charity Navigator.

Bottom line: It’s not uncommon for charities to allocate a significant portion of donations to administrative costs rather than direct services. These examples highlight the need for transparency and accountability. By scrutinizing where our contributions go, we can support organizations that truly prioritize their mission and ensure our donations make a meaningful impact.

[Ali Gator]

Next time you get a phone call or a knock on the door asking for a charitable donation, ask the caller / knocker if they are a volunteer or employee of the charity. 99% of the time they will proudly respond, "Why, I'm a volunteer".   

Your next question should be, "Are you a paid volunteer or a non-paid volunteer ?"  You will get about ten seconds of dead air, and then the stutter: "Uh, ummm, uh, well, ummm...."  89% of the time they will answer "Paid volunteer" which means (more or less) they are getting paid by the charity via donations, but the charity does not have the person on their 'payroll' (so no taxes are taken out or other required deductions - the 'paid volunteer' has to do all that on their taxes).  At that point, hang up the phone or close the door. 

[Ali Gator]

One more thing about donations / charities...

DON'T EVER contribute to a charity when money is being collected by a big corporation.  When you're in the drive-thru at Dunkin' or McDonald's, or making a purchase at Whole Foods or CVS,  and they ask 'Do you want to round up your change and donate to XXXX ?'  The answer is NO - let them make their own donation with their own money (not YOURS) to collect their tax breaks on April 15.  The money you would be donating to the charity you bring home and set aside - and at the end of the year you make your own big donation and claim your own tax deduction for 'charity'.