It came from lottery winnings.
I guess they have the right to decide how they accept donations, but state lotteries are not the same as winning at craps in Vegas, IMHO.
In my experience in fundraising, this sort of thing happens more often than you would think. In the past year I’ve heard of at least three larger donations being either rejected or handed back to the donor, one case being from my old haunts at Oxford. (In that case, the donor gave them 100,000 pounds, or $160,000, then demanded the money back when his son wasn’t admitted.)
Usually, though, donations are handed back when the charity doesn’t want any association with the donor, if the donor has a bad reputation. In this case, couldn’t the donor just have made an anonymous gift?
To be honest, I’d call the lottery “gambling” only in the loosest sense. Is wagering a dollar against insane odds really a “gamble”? Ehh.
I’d have taken the money, myself, but then, I don’t run a charity – and charities do largely survive on their reputations. As reputations go, you can’t get much older than the SA, so maybe they did the right thing.
Then again, the arguable benefit of the lottery to the public is that much of the money is given to “good” institutions, such as schools. Isn’t this guy just further distributing the voluntary tax money that lottery players pay? Also, does the Salvation Army receive public funds?
I’ve changed my mind back. I’d take the money.
Well, the reason the Salvation Army didn’t take the money is because of the people they have to deal with who’ve had their lives ruined because of gambling.
If they’ve had to deal with a bunch of families which were in financial ruin because somebody played the lottery addictively, then they don’t care if it fits somebody’s definition of gambling or not - it was destructive behavior.
I agree with the decision.
… but couldn’t they do more good for those families who have suffered such destructive behavior than by saying “we don’t want that money”. On one level I understand what they are saying, but on the other hand I think you have to look at how much good could be done from the donation and how that money, from “gambling” perhaps, could be used to help heal some of the wounds inflicted from “gambling.” Certainly it’s their choice, but I don’t think I agree with it.
What if somebody wins $200M and offers to give it ALL to the Florida chapter of the SA… would they still say “no thanks” or does their moral objection only go so far? I wonder.
Makes me wonder how many anonymous donations were from sources they don’t approve of. I would’ve taken the money.
I applaude them for sticking to what they believe in. Principles are more imprtant than money.
StG
I agree with the SA’s decision not to take the money. Gambling is gambling; it doesn’t matter if it came from the casino or from the state lottery. It would have been hypocritical if they’d kept the money at all, even if they didn’t reveal the source of it.
It’s not uncommon for some groups to put limits or conditions on acceptable donations. Alcoholics Anonymous, for one, won’t take more than $1,000 per year from any member, and won’t take money from any outside source at all. (It’s called the Seventh Tradition. See also Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions and, I believe, Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age for more information.) These restrictions keep AA from becoming a) affiliated with any commercial enterprise, so they won’t be considered a tool of that enterprise, and b) dominated by one individual or group of individuals, and finally, c) dependent on public or private philanthropy for its survival. I’m willing to bet that the SA’s thinking is largely the same.
Robin
i think that the sa was standing for what they believe in. they did the right thing.
I would like to make the formal announcement that I have no qualms whatsoever with accepting donations from any sort of financial gain whatsoever. Please e-mail me for acceptance.
While I can see that the Salvation Army would regard accepting a donation of winnings from gambling as akin to accepting a donation from a brewery or a drug dealer, I wonder how they reconcile the fact that part of their government funding here comes from the taxes our government imposes on gambling, alcohol, and cigarettes.
According to Guys and Dolls (Reaganistic History by the movies here), the Salvation Army is really, really against gambling.
It sort of reminds me of that scene in Gone With the Wind where the hospital refuses to accept a donation from prostitute Belle Watling until kind hearted Melanie steps in.
I’m sure those families desperately in need of assistance appreciate the “ethics” of the Salvation Army. Little Jimmy may shiver because he has no coat, but at least the thought they didn’t take that “dirty” money can warm him. Good grief!
If the Salvation Army can turn down $100,000 they obviously don’t need the money. I’ll remember that next year when I see the folks ringing the bell by the pot.
I always find it kind of amusing how offended some Americans get when they hear of someone turning down :eek: a massive amount of money. How dare they?
Well, if Anheuser Busch offered a large donation to the Betty Ford Clinic, should Betty Ford turn it down?
I know, SA can accept or refuse donations as they like. But $100K is $100K. I agree with Realhoops…seems like SA could do a lot of “clean” work with this “dirty” money.
It’s not a matter of need, EC. I’m willing to bet the Salvation Army would turn down the money even if they couldn’t pay their electric bill. The only thing the SA (and any other non-profit for that matter) has is its mission. If it’s not true to its mission, then they stand to lose many other donors, as well as members and volunteers.
This example sure walks the fine line, simply because the gift is so substantial. But I’d be willing to bet that they gain many new donors and increase others’ gifts because of this action.
I don’t see the difference, really. You just don’t have to travel very far for a lottery ticket.
Sounds great the SA turned down the donation because of its source. However, it sets a principle of considering its original source, even if legal.
If they now accept donations from families or companies whose original wealth came from illegal or undesirable methods, are they approving of the prior actions?
The difference is that craps in Vegas is less of a gamble.