If it's worth that much, why aren't they getting the value?
It's hard to get donors to think about other important causes. It's a shame for the people in Niger and Mali and people in everyone's hometown that are in need. ... They'll have to suffer also because of Katrina.
If they can't demonstrate they're using it for research purposes, or if they can't show that they're turning a profit and generating revenue for the charity, then it is highly questionable and doesn't look like something a charity should be doing.
When there are people suffering and people in need right now, it's a harder argument to give money to a memorial, to a capital campaign, or an endowment.
It's certainly not right to be taking credit for something that the government is already doing. It is very serious for a charity to give the impression that it is doing what the government is doing.
It is the only category of giving that has experienced a decline in each of the last three years.
We can point out problems to a charity, but we're not a service to charities.
The Red Cross is a brand name, and people automatically pick it for donations. But there are a lot of local groups who could use assistance and reimbursement, and the Red Cross isn't willing to do that.
The Red Cross has turned over a new leaf.
It's really a way to disguise your fund-raising.
