Many people were a bit surprised when the Candie’s Foundation, a nonprofit group, selected Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol, 20, to be their national advocate against teen pregnancy. Now, the judgment of Candie’s Foundation officials has been put into even greater question with the disclosure that the nonprofit paid Palin $260,500 for this role.
Bristol’s only stand-out credential for the position appears to be that she was a pregnant teen. While the nation is full of former teen mothers who went on to great accomplishments from college to starting their own businesses, Bristol’s claim to fame was that her mother was famous (or infamous, according to one’s view).
Notably, that famous connection led to her selection as a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars” and “the lecture circuit.” What exactly does Bristol Palin lecture on and how long would it take to run out of material on the subject.
I had assumed that this role was voluntary and, while I did not view her as particularly inspirational, accepted it as a positive move for Bristol. Now I stand corrected.
My question is how donors feel about giving money to the Foundation when it forks over a quarter of a million dollars to Bristol Palin as their spokesperson. It tuns out that Candie’s Foundation officials sent only $35,000 to teen pregnancy clinics and another $165,000 on advertising during the same period. So, they spent over eight times more on Bristol Palin speaking about her teen pregnancy than they did on actual teen pregnancy clinics.
Bristol is quoted on the website as saying “”I never thought I’d be a statistic.” I am not sure what that means, but she can now add “I never thought I’d be paid over a quarter of a million dollars by a nonprofit foundation.”
Source: Yahoo
“AY and Mike,
So right about the Red Cross”
Blouise,
I loathe that phony organization. Most especially how they use tragedies like Haiti and now Japan as fundraising opportunities without disclosing that the funds raised for these disaster go into their general coffers and only a fraction of it goes for where those donating intended.
Secondly, many of their “relief” missions are government subsidized, so they spend even less than they should based on their fundraising. In NYC, to cite one instance where I have direct knowledge the City paid the Red Cross $200,000 a year to have emergency cots and blankets available if needed. If they were needed then the RC would get a generous stipend for setting them up. As a Director of Contracts I tried to have that contract killed, but the RC was too strong politically and the Mayor’s Office ordered it.
AY and Mike,
So right about the Red Cross.
Tootie sez:
“People should be able to “buy” what they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. If people are dumb enough to pay her for yapping about teen pregnancy, what does is it matter to me?”
It does kind of matter, though: this is a NON-PROFIT organizations; donations are tax-deductible, so it means you and I and all of us who ARE paying taxes are, in a very real sense, enabling the outfit to pay Bristol.
Tootie’s analogy (giving money to a pan-handler) isn’t a very good one — for one thing you cannot deduct the money you give to the panhsndler from your taxes, you can deduct a donation to Candies.
The very least that we need to make sure of is that info on how the non-profit is spending the money is readily available and widely publicized so that people who do donste money can determine whether it’s being wisely spent.
Really, it has nothing to do with the politics of it. It works both ways, left or right. I’d say the same thing if, for instance, I found out thst Sean Penn’s charity in Haiti was spending a lot more on paying Sean Penn than on housing and clinics.
eniobob,
“Snooki of ‘Jersey Shore’ gets $2K more than author Toni Morrison to appear at Rutgers”
The student council chose this trailer park trash to speak at Rutgers … makes me very scared that these kids will one day run the country …
I am sorry but many non-profit organizations do absolutely nothing. Rich people donate large amounts- to avoid taxes- and to create jobs for their children/spouses.
It seems like this group spends more money trying to raise money than actually helping anyone. There must be some level of professionalism before these groups get special tax treatment.
Mike,
When I quit giving to the American Red Cross was when Elisabeth Dole and I thought Bob was a decent enough person….was employed as the Head of the Org and was paid 1 million a year…..
Not as much but another wtf moment here in Jersey:
Snooki of ‘Jersey Shore’ gets $2K more than author Toni Morrison to appear at Rutgers
Published: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 9:20 PM Updated: Friday, April 01, 2011, 5:29 AM
By Star-Ledger Staff:
PISCATAWAY — What’s worth more? A commencement speech by a Nobel-winning novelist? Or a pair of Q&A sessions with one of reality television’s biggest stars?
At Rutgers University, Snooki edges out Toni Morrison by a couple thousand dollars.
Last month, Rutgers officials said they had booked Morrison — author of “Beloved,” “Song of Solomon” and other novels — to speak in a 52,000-seat football stadium at commencement in May. She will be paid $30,000, marking the first time Rutgers has written a check for a graduation speaker.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snooki_of_jersey_shore_gets_2k.html
Many “Non-Profits,” including some famous ones like the Red Cross and the United Way are really money grubbing organizations that do far less than they purport to do. The tipoff is comparing the generous pay of the top officials, to the penurious pay of their workers. I strongly believe in giving to worthy charities, but one must investigate to find one that truly is worthy. In this instance I would wonder who the major backers of this charity might be and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s religious fundamentalists.
I wonder if dangling another person who became pregnant, and therefore gets lots of money and publicity for being a “celebrity” has any deterrent effect at all. Seems like a combination of people who can talk about strategies for avoiding teen pregnancy, and mothers and their children who can bring the realities of teen parenthood alive, would be more likely to bring the desired message home.
Media whores don’t fall far from the tree, raff.
It’s the only thing they have in common with apples.
Is this a violation of their 501c3 status? The IRS should review this foundation because it is obvious it is designed to make money for the poor, downtrodden Bristol Pain in the butt. When the foundation spends 4 times the money it donates in advertising, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. She is as dirty as her mother.
“Bristol is quoted on the website as saying “”I never thought I’d be a statistic.””
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Hillbilly, Jr. means that she’s now part of the percentage of teen mothers. It is highly unlikely that she would consider herself another statistic in terms of the failure of abstinence-only education, just that she got pregnant.
What I find pretty damned funny – and hypocritical (apparently it runs in the family) – is that she takes her circus show on the road to discuss abstinence-only … I would think that since she failed in that respect, she would be honest with her audience (and herself) that abstinence-only education does … not … work. I figured, incorrectly, that she would be bright enough to understand that for hormonal teens to prevent ending up like her (pregnant, not a pseudo-celebrity), she would discuss practicing safe sex and the use of birth control.
At any rate, if Candies sees fit to piss money away on a hypocrite, I say go for it – considering some of their past celebrity spokeswomen, I’d never donate to them anyway.
I agree with Tootie that people can donate to whatever they like. However, this story irks me in several ways.
First, IMHO programs should use as role models people who have not succumbed to the very behavior they are trying to prevent. Someone who resisted drug taking could explain how they were able to stay away from the whole scene. Talks by former drug users may be inspiring to current drug users but may not be helpful for those who haven’t tried drugs yet. In fact, they may believe that they can always quit, just like the speaker.
Second, one of my major pet peeves is tax deductions for “charitable” giving. I have a very modest income and do not itemize, so I get no tax benefit from my donations. Nor do I want the government to subsidize my charities. Sure, I may occasionally give more to get the t-shirt/book/coffee mug but I give because I want to. And I don’t want the government to subsidize groups with whom I disagree (televangelists and religion in general come to mind.)
Finally, the Palins, the First Family of opportunistic, money-grubbing, media-created celebrity whores. Enough said about that.
Frank said it best: That has to make you question the motivation and intent of the Candie’s foundation.
Another commenter here is clearly a troll on a mission.
Finally a somebody in the GOP speaking personally about something that they know…what a relief….
“cruel when men do it.”
Amazing:
“Bristol’s only stand-out credential for the position appears to be that she was a pregnant teen.”
And maybe by having a mother named Sarah didn’t seem to hurt either.
And out of the mouths of babes:
“”I never thought I’d be a statistic.” I am not sure what that means, but she can now add “I never thought I’d be paid over a quarter of a million dollars by a nonprofit foundation.”
People should be able to “buy” what they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. If people are dumb enough to pay her for yapping about teen pregnancy, what does is it matter to me?
I sometimes get criticized for giving money to pan-handlers. But I don’t give it out to them all. I give it out to the ones who best “sell” their case to me. The most creative sign. The best shtick. The most obvious or sincere need.
If the person really is a fraud, why cannot I not pay for the theater act he or she presents if it catches my eye in some way? Who are my critics to say I should not? Would my critics stand around in bad weather and uncomfortable situations for hours on end trying to persuade someone to give them money? Isn’t standing around doing that a very large effort? At work I’m sitting in a comfortable chair, in temperature controlled rooms, and safe buildings. Not so with the street-people. They endure conditions I wouldn’t like to endure. Okay, I provide a “service”. I give them something. But I’m doing it money just like everyone else. I let the pan-handlers give me something, even if it is just good street theater.
If people like Bristol’s shtick, her life, her whatever, so what? And she is still young. She is raising her baby and doing odd jobs convenient to that. Who are we to say she will not make something of herself in the future? Who are we to say she isn’t already something?
Arrogant?
Surely, she doesn’t have to go to college or forge a major career just to please us and demonstrate to us our own view of worthiness, does she? Who are we to judge her not worthy of any good thing that may come her way? Are we just jealous people who consider ourselves superior to her?
Isn’t just living an simple or honest life enough for people these days? Do we all have to have “credentials”? Who is running the world? Is it not the “credentialed” folks? And is not the world now stark raving mad because of them?
One result of the “wimmens lib” movement is that a women is looked down upon as not doing anything in life or failing to accomplish anything because one is “only” a mother or a housewife. Most of the greatest of Americans came from women who were “only” a mother and housewife. This is not of the highest achievement on the part of a woman?
To believe otherwise is a shameful attitude. It is stupid when women promote it and cruel when men do.
You skipped the second half of the story – Candie’s spent a grand total of $35,000 on teen pregnancy prevention during that same period. That has to make you question the motivation and intent of the Candie’s foundation
Were I a donor, I’d be asking for a refund and/or the replacement of the administration responsible for approving such an outrageous payment.