Bono and the One organisation

[David Johnson]

On a separate thread, Bono and his One organisation which campaigns on poverty issues, got a right slagging off.

E.g. from Jim Slip
"Anyway, when everyone has dusted off their knees from kneeling in homage to the greatness and goodness of Bono, perhaps they would care to peruse this article"

And Max Tranmere, referring to the link provided by Slip
"Just click on the link that Jimslip attached, three posts above your comment. It claims only ONE PERCENT of the money given to a charity Bono is involved in went to the cause itself. I am not suggesting Bono is out to rip anyone off, I am sure he is in it for very noble reasons, he might be just a bit naive to think most of it ends up where the givers think it does."

Slip's article provided a link to a summarised Daily Mail report stating only 1% of the organisation's money is spent on the poor.

This article is completely misleading. The One organisation has stated
"'We don't provide programmes on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organisation.' and that it took no money from the public and that most of its funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."

If anyone is interested in the truth rather than reading a Daily Mail hatchet job, they may like to have a gander here.

http://www.one.org/c/international/about/3833/

The FAQ section has a relevant point to this discussion where it suggests anyone wishing to make a donation to fight poverty, would be directed to charities providing aid on the ground.
http://www.one.org/c/international/faq/1614/

This isn't to say that some charity organisations might take too much for admin when they are asking for donations for aid on the ground, but this is not one of those organisations. It's aims are campaigning, not handing out rice.

[David Johnson]

http://www.one.org/c/international/pressrelease/3523/

I would draw people's attention to the following paragraph in the above

"ONE does not fundraise from the general public, and we do not receive any government funding. We are funded almost entirely by a handful of philanthropists on our board of directors to raise awareness and pressure political leaders to fight extreme poverty through smart and effective policies and programs".

[Alex L]

...surely the links you provide in answer to Jim's and others comments regarding "The Shaded One" Bono are a bit like me giving you this one to answer questions of child abuse by Catholic priests:

[David Johnson]

Alex,
Err, now let's look at this.

The press release also includes a statement from the Gates Foundation that are the main benefactors to the One Organisations.

So what is your argument?

1. Bill Gates who has given many many millions of pounds away to support treatment for infectious diseases in Africa and is apparently telling lies, presumably because he wants to screw more money out of the unsuspecting public?

2. Read the Daily Mail article which forms the basis of the story that Jim linked to. If you ignore Jim's "ooh you would never guess what I have just read about Bono, Mrs Jones in that lovely Daily Mail - milk, two sugars, please" attitude, you will find that the Mail itself admits that it isnt the groups aim to raise money for famine relief and that it is a campaigning group.

Its a smear story for the gullible.

[Alex L]

Not convinced just yet. You say "Daily Mail hatchet job" in fact it was an article from the New York post, which appears to have been syndicated.

The crucial bit seems to be at the end:



"ONE gives only a pittance in direct charitable support to its causes -- something Borochoff said the average donor might not realize.

The Bono nonprofit took in $14,993,873 in public donations in 2008, the latest year for which tax records are available.

Of that, $184,732 was distributed to three charities, according to the IRS filing.

Meanwhile, more than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries."



I don't think that the New York post are going to lie about the IRS figures as they must be public.

The One organisation appear to be saying that the above amount came from the Bill Gates Foundation rather than public donations (although it could be said that it is indeed the public who have paid into the Microsoft coffers) but regardless of where the money came from, the figures do not look good to say the very least.

Also the fact that there was a distribution to three charities, appears to contradict what the One spokesperson has said elsewhere!

[Alex L]

Sorry, I have just posted in reply to your OP when it should have been here!

[David Johnson]

Good, interesting post. Alas, like you, I am not convinced.

First,

"You say "Daily Mail hatchet job" in fact it was an article from the New York post, which appears to have been syndicated"

No it wasn't.

I assume this is the New York Post story you refer to
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/p ... bqyXgp6YoO

Now look at the evil plutocrat link provided by Slip. It references "Daily Mail reporter" at the top of the text and further on down if you click on "ful Daily Mail article.

You get this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rity.html#

Same subject, but different text.

Second let's look at the journalistic credibility of the New York Post. Owned by the Murdoch press, here is a fairly typical example

"On February 18, 2009, the Post ran a cartoon by Sean Delonas that depicted a white police officer saying to another white police officer who has just shot a chimpanzee on the street: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The cartoon referred the recent rampage of Travis, a former chimpanzee actor, and was criticized as being in bad taste,[41] primarily by making a reference to the racist stereotype of African-Americans being portrayed as apes. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton called the cartoon "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."[ The Post has defended itself by stating that the cartoon was deliberately misinterpreted by its critics

Great paper eh, Alex?

Now lets have a look at the text which you seem to think is the crux.

""ONE gives only a pittance in direct charitable support to its causes -- something Borochoff said the average donor might not realize. The Bono nonprofit took in $14,993,873 in public donations in 2008, the latest year for which tax records are available. Of that, $184,732 was distributed to three charities, according to the IRS filing. Meanwhile, more than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries."

Re "direct charitable support" if you look at my posts on the two threads and the link to the One organisation site at the beginning of this thread, I dont see how anybody could possibly think that any donation was going to feed people in famine conditions. It is obviously a campaigning and advocacy group, isnt it?

Re. "public" neither of us have actually seen the IRS accounts nor does the NY Post offer any detail. However, you may be aware the term "public" is widely used for "supporting charities" in the US e.g.

"A supporting organization, in the United States, is a public charity created by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code in 26 USCA 509(a)(3). A supporting organization either makes grants to, or performs the operations of, a public charity similar to a private foundation. However, unlike donations to a private foundation, donations to a supporting organization garner the same deduction higher donation rate as deductions to public charities. However, supporting organizations allow less control over the organization to the founders than private foundations."

Finally, if you read the full statement made by One, it includes
"ONE does not fundraise from the general public, and we do not receive any government funding. We are funded almost entirely by a handful of philanthropists on our board of directors to raise awareness and pressure political leaders to fight extreme poverty through smart and effective policies and programs.

Now if this is not the case, it would destroy the credibility of both the ONE organisation and the Bill Gates organisation. I cannot believe that they would both risk it with such an untrue statement. Unlike the NYP and Mail that is full of insinuations and are basically fucking rags.

Now if this is completely untrue I would expect the NYP and the Mail to have inundated us with stories such as "I gave ?10K to Bono's organisation and I thought it was going to starving children, the bastard" etc etc etc. Wouldnt you?

Cheers
D