My mother posed a similar question to her husband’s church. Here in Tennessee we just passed a lottery last November, and during the campaign there were “VOTE NO” signs everywhere, including the church lawn. My mother asked if she did vote yes, and won, and decided to give it all to the church, would they take it?
It made them very uneasy. And after this story, I can now understand their dilemma.
I support the SA’s decision if it upholds their beliefs, but I do ask that if churches can take it, why can’t they?
Yes, but it would depend on how well-known that family’s reputation is. Gift officers don’t have to delve into the history of a family’s wealth, but if a large donation from the Gotti family came in, they’d have to second guess it. If a gift from the estate of Jack Daniels or Phillip Morris came in, that too would probably be denied.
But if John Doe sends in $1 million, there’s very little to suggest that the money came from the selling of heroin. If that information came to the forefront, they’d give it back. Secondhand information would also probably prevent the acceptance.
This actually made me spit coffee out on my computer monitor.
One thought, though… I saw this story on the news here in the midwest the other night and they took great pains to point out that it was a particular branch of the SA in Florida and they spoke to people at the “local” SA branch here and the local people said they would have accepted the gift, so apparently it’s not a SA “top line” decision or anything, just that particular location. Ironically our local SA branch is almost exactly $100k short of their goal for the holiday season right now.
I’m not offended. But the implied subtext of Salvation Army giving (somerhing I havwe always been glad to do in the past because I understand they use the money very efficiently and well, not like some other charities) is that they really need the money. If they turn down $100,000, they don’t. I’m not MAD at them, I’ve just changed my opinion of their financial status.
I guess the problem I have with them turning this money down is not so much that they have decided to take a stand against gambling and refuse this particular check. I see a bit of hypocrisy at work. AFAIK they don’t do any kind of background check or request any information whatsoever from givers as to how the giver came upon the money, whether through gambling, inheritance, bank robbery, or whatever other means. What they are really saying isn’t “we won’t accept money from gambling,” but rather “we won’t accept money we know is from gambling.” If it’s anonymous, or if you just don’t tell them, they’re happy to go ahead and take the money, even if it is in fact gambling money. ISTM that if they are going to publicly reject money received from gambling they need to start taking steps to ensure other money is not from gambling or they aren’t really taking much of a “stand” for their principles.
But Realhoops, you don’t know if they run checks or not.
No, what they’re saying is “we don’t want to accept money from gambling, and we will refuse any money that we know is from that source.” Sure, you could run a search on every gift that comes in, but that would eat up more resources than it brings in. Any organization worth its salt keeps records of people’s personal information, such as what business they’re in, who they work for, what companies they own, etc.
Money from gambling would be nearly impossible to track, and only the big jackpots would be traceable. You can’t blame them for not doing something that is impossible.
Why are we so eager to pile on and nitpick the practices of an organization that on balance does a tremendous amount of good in the world, run and staffed by people who have dedicated themselves to a life of service? Why is that such an ego booster for some of you all?
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else in the thread, but I’m certainly not seeking an “ego booster” of any sort. The OP impliedly asked for people’s “humble opinions” about the Florida branch of the SA turning down a $100k check because the donator got the money by buying a lottery ticket. As far as I can tell, the following posts here have contained people’s opinions, not “piling on” the SA.
I stand up and applaud at the top of my lungs the tremendous good being done by the SA! The people who run and staff the SA who have dedicated themselves to a life of service should be lauded and their backs patted!
It’s just that, in my humblest of all opinions, I felt they could have done more good with this money than by turning it down because it was the product of a lottery ticket. Although you didn’t say as much, I gather your opinion differs, as do many others here.
Sorry, but $100,000 to an organization the size of the Salvation Army is not a make-it-or-break-it number. They certainly need gifts, and every little bit helps, but the fact that they turned down $100,000 does not mean that they are finacially secure.
However, as seems to be the case, if this particular branch is very adament and strict regarding their particular mission, and it’s interpretation of that mission, the acceptance of this money could possibly very detrimental - the loss of volunteers, other higher profile donors, estates, etc. The loss of those could potentially make the acceptance of $100,000 an ultimate loss, accounting-wise.
Munch, I work in the development arena, and I’m curious where you’re working on your masters and what area of development you’re think of getting into.[/hijack]
I’m at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. I’ve been doing some work with the Center on Philanthropy there, but so far, I haven’t been able to break into the field. Too busy trying to pay off loans, tuition, rent, etc.