Susan G. Komen, Planned Parenthood, and now GUNS!

[rwg3]

First let me say that my opinion on abortion is mine, and much like my EDC not anyone else's business. That being said, SGK has stepped into a big messy pile of stink that will follow them for quite a while. The simple sequence of events that have been made public leading to this mess shows an organization that is either clueless about operating in todays environment or one that is duplicitous regarding it's changing grant making environment. On one hand they would have you believe that they innocently were just trying to protect the integrity of the organization and didnt realize the tactic they took, and the only announced result of it, would cause any concern. Or on the other hand you have a multi million dollar corporation run by a group of smart operators (including gubenatorial candidates) who have created a brand image that is the envy of most other companies, who carefully plan all their of corporate communications and decisions based on their assessment of how it affect their image and fundraising. You can decide for yourself whether they were stupid or deceptive.
I agree with the earlier post that they have the right to change the focus of their organization, re-define their mission to reflect the same, and then go raise funds under that new banner letting the chips fall where they may. I dont believe it to be ethical to change after the money has been raised without giving those who donated the oppertunity to decide if they want to financially support the new direction and even offering to return those donations to those who may not wish their funds to go towards that new direction.

[The Annoyed Man]

The reason SGK "stepped in a big pile of stink" is that there exists a LARGE donor base with a LARGE history of donating to charitable causes but that would not donate to SGK because they did not want their donation money to be used to fund abortions. That some of their money given to PP did fund abortions is incontrovertible. That there are a lot of people like me—who do support charities, but do not want to donate to SGK because we don't want to fund PP—is equally incontrovertible.

PP is under investigation because they have shoddy accounting practices—which is deliberate, because it makes it nearly impossible for them to be held accountable for the use of their funds.......funds which are either donated or taxpayer provided. The taxpayers have an absolute RIGHT to know how their monies are being used. PP is no different from any other recipient of public funds in that regard. For that matter, so do their direct donors have a right to know. Other non-profits are held to some pretty strict standards in order to maintain their non-profit legal status. What exactly is it about PP that their non-profit status should not be held to the exact same standards? If the money given them by SGK had been sequestered strictly for the use of breast exams and related lab tests, that would be fine, and people like me would be less likely to withhold charitable donations to them. SGK is in the pickle they're in because PP is run like a mafia family, and their accounting is just as cloudy and impenetrable as any mafia don's. SGK tried to extricate themselves from the mess, but the mafia doesn't let go so easily. And so SGK caved to the pressures exerted by a corrupt organization. That's too bad, because I won't support them now. Neither will millions of other Americans.

[rwg3]

So it is PP's fault that SGK scewed up? If I can seperate the hyperbole from the arguement, SGK has supported for years an organization that according to some have questionable accounting practices, which has snared them into an inextricable corporate relationship. Even if I were to accept your assertions at face value I fail to see how SGK didnt act stupidly in their attempt to end the relationship. When you make your living asking people for money, it is hard to have things both ways. You can support PP and claim that as one of your social good deeds in your fundraising sales pitches or you can publically break with them and use that in your fundraising, but trying to back door the exit and blaming it on variables beyond your control is bad business.

[The Annoyed Man]

You know, I actually do fault SGK for having knowingly donated to PP for all these years. I am also willing to accept their attempt at redemption if they changed their ways. Since they've elected to not redeem themselves, I and many others like me will elect not to support them.

PP richly deserves the investigation. They are as corrupt as the day is long. They accept public funds which are not to be used for abortions, but they do it anyway. That is a violation of the terms under which they accept the funds. Then they try to hide the fact. Somebody really should go to prison for it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If I can seperate the hyperbole from the arguement, . . .

Stop.

Chas.

[Heartland Patriot]

You know, I actually do fault SGK for having knowingly donated to PP for all these years. I am also willing to accept their attempt at redemption if they changed their ways. Since they've elected to not redeem themselves, I and many others like me will elect not to support them.

PP richly deserves the investigation. They are as corrupt as the day is long. They accept public funds which are not to be used for abortions, but they do it anyway. That is a violation of the terms under which they accept the funds. Then they try to hide the fact. Somebody really should go to prison for it.

TAM, I was taught a concept a while ago that I had never understood before it was explained to me...YOU obviously already understand it but it was told to me as this: Funds are Fungible. One dollar from one source frees up another dollar from another source to be used elsewhere. SO, even if the money in question was donated to buy light-bulbs for a hallway, those donated dollars freed up OTHER dollars from another source that could then be used for something else...and then, if you couple that with artistic bookkeeping...a lot of folks never understand that stuff. They think the money is in two pots and each goes to different things...PP isn't the only organization that does this stuff...but they ARE one of the most controversial, shall we say.

[Oldgringo]

If I can seperate the hyperbole from the arguement, . . .

Stop.

Chas.

Good job! This thread went exactly where you earlier said that you didn't want it to go.

[philip964]

Levi jeans decided in 1992 to stop supporting the Boy Scouts. Their headquarters are in San Fransisco and they decided to stop supporting the Boy Scouts due to their policy of not accepting openly gay leaders and scouts. Previously Levi's gave the Boy Scouts $80,000 a year.

Prior to 1992, I wore only Levi jeans. Since then I have only wore Ralph Lauren. I have no idea whether Ralph Lauren supports the Boy Scouts.

Levi's fortunes have not done well since then. In 2007 their sales were almost 50% less than in the '90's. I like to think it is due to my personal boycott, but it is probably also a lot of other factors.

What kind of jeans you buy is one thing, breast cancer is a big difference. I hope the Susan G. Komen folks have not just shot themselves in the foot.

Most people probably did not know that PP gets $700,000 a year from SGK to teach self breast exam and to encourage women to get mamograms. Now they do.
(one would think if you were a non profit women's health organization, you would not need to be paid to do the above, but what do I know). My facebook page lit up with praise when SGK made the first announcement. But there was little response to the second.

I suspect many people who have supported SGK in the past may not now.

[The Annoyed Man]

Levi jeans decided in 1992 to stop supporting the Boy Scouts. Their headquarters are in San Fransisco and they decided to stop supporting the Boy Scouts due to their policy of not accepting openly gay leaders and scouts. Previously Levi's gave the Boy Scouts $80,000 a year.

Prior to 1992, I wore only Levi jeans. Since then I have only wore Ralph Lauren. I have no idea whether Ralph Lauren supports the Boy Scouts.

Levi's fortunes have not done well since then. In 2007 their sales were almost 50% less than in the '90's. I like to think it is due to my personal boycott, but it is probably also a lot of other factors.

What kind of jeans you buy is one thing, breast cancer is a big difference. I hope the Susan G. Komen folks have not just shot themselves in the foot.

Most people probably did not know that PP gets $700,000 a year from SGK to teach self breast exam and to encourage women to get mamograms. Now they do.
(one would think if you were a non profit women's health organization, you would not need to be paid to do the above, but what do I know). My facebook page lit up with praise when SGK made the first announcement. But there was little response to the second.

I suspect many people who have supported SGK in the past may not now.

I stopped supporting SGK when I first became aware of the SGK/PP relationship. Let me start by saying that I am (obviously) a pro-life absolutist. Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I also expect that, for people on the other side of the argument, there is nothing I can say which will change their minds. But I feel that I must make this statement about myself so that there is clarity about what I say.

Like I said, I used to support SGK, until I learned about their donations to PP. My support consisted primarily of agreeing to sponsor friends and acquaintances in "Run for the Cure" events. Ever since that discovery, about 2 years ago, I have refused to have anything to do with supporting SGK. So that is where I am coming from.

However, this thread prompted me to go look and see what other charities I could contribute to which support breast cancer research, on the theory that there has to one that I can give to that would not violate my conscience through their actiivities. So I did some unsophisticated google-fu to see what I could find out. Guess what? SGK pretty much has a lock on it. Not only that, THEY SUE people who compete with them for fundraising. Check this one out: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=4509. SGK sues people for using the color "pink" and word "Cure" in their event names or fundraising efforts. Guess who pays for this litigation? That's right, the people who donate their money to SGK, hoping to put in a dent in breast cancer.Some of their donations to cure cancer are being used to pay for suing other cancer charities. Instead of spending that money on the scourge of breast cancer, they're spending it on protecting their brand, and protecting their near-monopoly on cancer fundraising.

How crapulent is that? Shame on them. Somewhere along the line, they obviously lost sight of the mission. So even if I were pro-abortion, SGK seems a poor investment of my charity dollar. I wonder if Susan G. Komen, who lost her life to breast cancer, would approve of their methods today.

And by the way, here is the percentage of their revenues that actually goes to cancer research, taken from the link I provided above:

In 2007, Komen spent 23.5% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".
In 2008, Komen spent 26.7% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".
In 2009, Komen spend 20.2% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".

What do they do with the other 75%-80%? Answer: huge salaries, and lawyers to protect their rice-bowl.

[Heartland Patriot]

Levi jeans decided in 1992 to stop supporting the Boy Scouts. Their headquarters are in San Fransisco and they decided to stop supporting the Boy Scouts due to their policy of not accepting openly gay leaders and scouts. Previously Levi's gave the Boy Scouts $80,000 a year.

Prior to 1992, I wore only Levi jeans. Since then I have only wore Ralph Lauren. I have no idea whether Ralph Lauren supports the Boy Scouts.

Levi's fortunes have not done well since then. In 2007 their sales were almost 50% less than in the '90's. I like to think it is due to my personal boycott, but it is probably also a lot of other factors.

What kind of jeans you buy is one thing, breast cancer is a big difference. I hope the Susan G. Komen folks have not just shot themselves in the foot.

Most people probably did not know that PP gets $700,000 a year from SGK to teach self breast exam and to encourage women to get mamograms. Now they do.
(one would think if you were a non profit women's health organization, you would not need to be paid to do the above, but what do I know). My facebook page lit up with praise when SGK made the first announcement. But there was little response to the second.

I suspect many people who have supported SGK in the past may not now.

I stopped supporting SGK when I first became aware of the SGK/PP relationship. Let me start by saying that I am (obviously) a pro-life absolutist. Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I also expect that, for people on the other side of the argument, there is nothing I can say which will change their minds. But I feel that I must make this statement about myself so that there is clarity about what I say.

Like I said, I used to support SGK, until I learned about their donations to PP. My support consisted primarily of agreeing to sponsor friends and acquaintances in "Run for the Cure" events. Ever since that discovery, about 2 years ago, I have refused to have anything to do with supporting SGK. So that is where I am coming from.

However, this thread prompted me to go look and see what other charities I could contribute to which support breast cancer research, on the theory that there has to one that I can give to that would not violate my conscience through their actiivities. So I did some unsophisticated google-fu to see what I could find out. Guess what? SGK pretty much has a lock on it. Not only that, THEY SUE people who compete with them for fundraising. Check this one out: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=4509. SGK sues people for using the color "pink" and word "Cure" in their event names or fundraising efforts. Guess who pays for this litigation? That's right, the people who donate their money to SGK, hoping to put in a dent in breast cancer.Some of their donations to cure cancer are being used to pay for suing other cancer charities. Instead of spending that money on the scourge of breast cancer, they're spending it on protecting their brand, and protecting their near-monopoly on cancer fundraising.

How crapulent is that? Shame on them. Somewhere along the line, they obviously lost sight of the mission. So even if I were pro-abortion, SGK seems a poor investment of my charity dollar. I wonder if Susan G. Komen, who lost her life to breast cancer, would approve of their methods today.

And by the way, here is the percentage of their revenues that actually goes to cancer research, taken from the link I provided above:

In 2007, Komen spent 23.5% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".
In 2008, Komen spent 26.7% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".
In 2009, Komen spend 20.2% of total revenue on "Research for the cure".

What do they do with the other 75%-80%? Answer: huge salaries, and lawyers to protect their rice-bowl.

So, its really all about (or mostly about) lining pockets? I guess they spend just enough on the core items to keep from getting called a scam...still seems pretty "scammy" to me.

[Oldgringo]

So, your mind is pretty much made up on the SGK thing, eh TAM?

[tbrown]

Does SGK do in house research or do they fund others' cancer research? If it's the second, then donations would be put to better use by donating directly and cutting out the middle man.

[rwg3]

As far as charities go SGK is actually a pretty reasonably run one, financially speaking, without regard to it's mission and politics. They are among the top tier when looking at their overhead and expense ratios. In 2010 over 80% of their budget of over $311mm went to programs which is, in the broad context of fundraising organizations, admirable. They are however a litlle lawyered up and heavy handed in staking their claim on anything that sounds like "cure" or is pink. I wouldn't be surprised that somewhere, sometime, they have even had internal discussions on whether or not pink handguns are an infringement on their marketing turf.

[Dragonfighter]

I didn't mean this to get into a debate on abortion. I suspect everyone can guess my opinion on the subject, but the motive behind my post was Komen caving to political pressure. They would not changed their position if the organization under investigation was anything other than Planned Parenthood. The irony is that donations to Susan G. Komen will likely plummet since most people, including me, were not aware they supported Planned Parenthood prior to this making the news.

Let's not turn this into a debate on abortion or the thread will have to be locked.

Chas.

First I heard of this Eugenics founded outfit being supported by Komen was when the story broke. Nothing from me or mine, EVER!

[Jumping Frog]

I've known about the SGK and PP issue for years. Susan Komen herself was on the Planned Parenthood Board of Directors way back in the day.

The ironic thing is the evidence that abortions substantially increase the risk of breast cancer.