When is a charity not a charity? The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case where the state of Illinois is suing a telemarketer that was soliciting funds for a charity, without disclosing that it was keeping 85% of the proceeds.
Telemarketers claim that’s just free speech, so it’s protected. The state observes that argument means that fraud is protected speech, which is ludicrous.
Charities — most of which get a lot more than 15% — are still worried that donations will be hurt if telemarketers calling on their behalf have to reveal how much of a cut they’re getting.
Well, tough, says I. The truth will set you free, and all that. I prefer full disclosure. If that ends up favoring smaller, local charities who get volunteer help, I’ve got no problem with that.
I’ve been hearing radio ads for a company that will take your car and sell it, with “100% of the net proceeds” going to the charity. I wonder how many people just assume that 100% of the net is 100% of the car’s selling price.
That’s a huge market in California — when I’ve visited out there, I’ve heard and seen dozens of ads for that sort of service. A lot more than here in Colorado, it seems.
But, yeah — I assume a “handling fee” is substracted from the gross proceeds before the charity in question gets any of the dough.