The United Way is terrible. They also strong-arm companies into strong-arming their employees into "100% participation". No, thank you.

Wasn't there someone who did this as a psychology experiment a while back? Took out ads in the Enquirer and WWW saying "Send $1 to..." and an address. I forgot how much money the guy got, but it wasn't trivial, as I recall...

And you are absolutely correct - given that you are INFORMED as to both sides of the issue. People are easily swayed by emotional appeals presented on TV, which doesn't present the other side of the story nearly as often. People too easily forget the fiasco after 9/11, when the money given by people that was SPECIFICALLY earmarked to be used for 9/11 victims and survivors was instead used to buy a bunch of shiny new comms gear for ARC.

And that assumption would be wrong.

Until you do a little research. Look into the side of the BOD of ARC and what the executives get paid. It's all public information. I think you'll be surprised.

You obviously didn't actually READ what I posted, did you? ARE was charging enlisted men while giving officers stuff for free. Thats a DIFFERENT issue than you raise, which was American vs. Aussie troops.

A quote from the comments section on Charity Navigator:

3.9% sounds low until you figure it out in dollars.

It should be obvious to someone who posts here. Think about it.

During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized. What wasn't publicized was the fact that ARC would charge enlisted men a dime for the same thing. When my father learned of this (he was an officer), he demanded that his men be given the same deal. When ARC refused, he gave them their doughnuts and coffee back, and spread the story among the other officers.

This is unlawful conduct under Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, as well as RICO statutes.