Politics, Religion

Top Komen Fundraiser Quits

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Eve Ellis, a major fundraiser for Susan G Komen for the Cure, has raised her last dollar for the charity. Ellis calls for the resignation of CEO and founder Nancy Brinker and the nine member board to be replace. In an angry letter, Ellis condemns the decision to end funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast screening as political and misguided.

The Komen brand may have been tarnished beyond salvation. Pulling funding for breast cancer screening for the poorest, underserved women in our society has turned a once beloved brand into a reviled brand in a mere couple of days.

While donations from the Planned Parenthood haters have helped, they may not be sustainable. Corporate sponsors may be having second thoughts. In a move perhaps unrelated to the Planned Parenthood episode, Pepperidge Farm is concluding “its sponsorship of Susan G. Komen for the Cure at the end of 2011 for business reasons.” General Mills and its Yoplait brand of yogurt “will continue to partner with organizations that will have the greatest impact in that fight.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

There are five “Races” coming up in March including the big one in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure has released a statement saying they were strongly opposed to the Planned Parenthood policy. What will be the turnout? Will there be protests?

The Komen brand will be tested in the coming months. Maybe appealing to religious conservatives will turn out to be a winning strategy.

H/T: The Guardian, POLITICO, Jodi Jacobson, The Hill, US News, LA Times, Advertising Age.

54 thoughts on “Top Komen Fundraiser Quits”

  1. Dog and Raff, I think Brinker’s salary is $500,000. Got that number from Charity Navigator – a pretty reliable source. That site rates charities. Koman gets four stars. Disturbingly, many Planned Parenthood affiliates get only three.
    I don’t think Handel was fired. In this case, it really was a resignation they regretted but it is likely to afford her lots of opportunities in the political arena. She may have lost the gov. race in GA because she wasn’t “pro-life” enough. She doesn’t have that problem anymore. And Fox should love her.

  3. Pingback: Getting Up to Speed on the Evidence Linking Induced Abortion with Increased Breast Cancer Risk | People v. State

  4. Dog,
    I saw that same article about the head of the Komen organization getting paid $5 Million dollars last year. I am amazed that a so-called non profit company can still keep its tax free status with salaries like that. Despicable. Great article David.

  6. I wonder if Handle got a huge payout….That would tell me where the priorities rest…

  7. “The foundation’s statements show that it raised huge sums, but the vast majority of substantive spending (meaning not for salaries and expenses) went toward “awareness,” meaning self-promotional activities, with a pittance toward prevention.”

    shg,

    This is an excellent point. I’ve worked for three not-for-profits and also worked as a Director of Contracts and a Director of Budget for a large NYC Agency.
    In the latter capacities I reviewed hundreds of NYC contracts and proposed contracts. In many instances there was a discrepancy for the amount to be spent on publicity and the amount to be spent on actual services provided. Many were highly political entities in that there were familial or political associations to the Mayoral Administration then in power.

    Secondly, the salaries of the not-for-profit workers showed a marked discrepancy between what the upper management received and what the lie workers received. The line workers, almost all dedicated people, were paid less than market value for their services. This contrasted with the well-paid upper management.

    The most problematic to me of these Agencies were those who dispensed money to other entities that provided the actual services. These dispensers were usually high profile entities, using political connections to get City contracts for services and then “farming” the work out to other non-profits. The problem with this was that the City should have dealt directly with the actual service provider, saving money by eliminating the middleman.

    As this Komen issue has developed more and more is coming out about how much actual benefit they’ve provided to the cause other than publicizing it. Breast Cancer awareness is all well and good, but breast cancer screenings and cures are the real issue. By cutting PP’s screening services it would seem that Komen has lost the thread of what its purpose truly is. To me it haws exposed itself by this and other actions as a means to support the Brinker family and secondarily fight breast cancer.

  8. The Komen Foundation has been troubled for some time, none the least is suing other groups for using ‘cure’ and the color pink. I’ve helped raise money in the past. No more.

    I’m sickened by their politicized agenda, their apparent mis-use of funds (what % actually goes to funding cancer research or helping underserved women?).

    Tax deductibility should be removed for charities not distributing at least 90% of their funds to their stated goals (eg cancer awareness). I’m a member of a civic group where all time is DONATED and ALL FUNDS go to the purpose of the 501(3)(c). No siphoning off for anything. Period.

  9. mespo,

    You are sounding cynical….But not surprised…..Can’t have people costing you money unless they work for the government….

  10. This has been very educational. This will “cure” a lot of folks from giving money to a fundraising charity whose purpose is to channel the money to other non profits which supposedly work for a cure. Lions and tigers and bears. Before you give: ask not what the charity does for the “Cause”, ask what the charity pays its staff. Someone tell us how much the top dog got paid in salary last year. I heard five million. That cannot be true.

  11. shg, Some excellent points…

    (It would appear that the “KomenWatch” stopped back in July of 2011. I wonder why…

    http://komenwatch.org/

    KomenWatch
    Keeping our eyes and ears open…..

    Where’s the Advocacy, Komen?

    by KomenWatch on July 26, 2011)

  13. Brinker is the brand so I don’t think they will get rid of her. They fired Handel so I don’t know if they will attract conservative women. In Dallas it has always been the charity for moderate republican women that have a lot of admiration for the Bush family. I never contributed money to them. I have one pair of running shoes with some pink Komen emblem on them but that’s it.

  14. Charlie,
    I would favor deductibility for charities that meet certain requirements, such as minimal expenses for salaries, publicity, fundraising. Percentages to be determined by guidelines set by current legitimate entities.
    Also, those that discriminate in hiring staff based on violations of civil rights law would be banned regardless of efficiency, including religious outfits.

  15. A simple solution to charities that spend their donations on activities other then the stated purpose of the charitiy is: Stop allowing taxpayers from deducting contributions from their tax burdens. A. Tax dollars should go to run a lean efficient government that carries out the will of the people, and B. Eliminating taxpayer funded charities would weed out all but the most beneficial charities.

  16. Great article there Nal. Looks like in any business — including the charity business — there’s little room for ideologues who might cost you revenues.

  17. Oldest PR strategy in the book. When your brand name is swirling around in the toilet, play the victim card to the hilt.

    When I was a kid and we were misbehaving, my father would say, “I am going to turn around three times and when I do, there is not going to be anybody left in here but me.”

    That is what needs to happen in the front office and board room at Komen. Either that or just shut the place down altogether.

  19. For those who pay attention to charities, Komen has long been something of a problem aside from this latest scandal and its earlier litigation over “for the cure” problems. The foundation’s statements show that it raised huge sums, but the vast majority of substantive spending (meaning not for salaries and expenses) went toward “awareness,” meaning self-promotional activities, with a pittance toward prevention.

    For those who don’t connect the dots, this means they siphon money away from other charities that use funds for preventive causes and toward promotion, including their own self-promotion. Plenty of awareness. Very few mamograms. To the extent it impacts grossly underfunded services like Planned Parenthood, every dime matters.

    For those who never look past names and cute pink ribbons, this is all new and shocking. For those who care where the money actually goes and how it’s put to use, Komen has been a significant disappointment and problem.

  20. Excellent topic…. nal..

    It appears that the pulling out or not supporting womens rights is a touchy issue. I agree that the brand maybe tarnished…. but not unrepairable… It will take time…. I am amazed that the top fundraiser Ellis has some moral qualms…. someone that has morals puts principals first…. color me surprised….

    I think the board could go…. but I do not think that Nancy will give up control….

Comments are closed.