Hacker News Reader

I can't believe this practice is so ubiquitous all over the world. It is such a clear cut case of conflict of interest and should be made a textbook example that ends all discussion but here we are. An organisation that apparently has no funds to do its job, spends all its funds in employing people to gather funds so that it can continue to keep paying salary to those people gathering funds.

View on HN

For other examples, look at "administrative costs" at 501(c)(3) organizations, via Charity Navigator.

501(c)(3) corporations typically do not have armed robbers walking around in public robbing anyone they please.

The comment was specifically about orgs that spend most of their money raising more money.

But it’s not a conflict of interest for a charity to do so.

That depends on what you consider a conflict of interest.

Avoiding any actual names: if Charity X advertises itself as a leading way to fight hunger / homelessness / animal abuse / poverty, but 90% of X's budget goes to raising more money, I call that "a conflict of interest." (90% is not a disqualifying amount, by the way.)

As a donor, if you think you're fighting <whatever> but what you're really doing is providing salaries for friends and family of the founders, then you're actually doing something else. What would you call it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com