People need to stop implying that had PP accepted Tucker's donation these Texas clinics would have been able to remain open. This is such an idiotic - if not outright dishonest - statement. I've not been able to find information specific to these Texas PP closings but based on common sense and reasons for other PP closings around the country I can guarantee you that they're closing because they don't have a feasible financial model. 500k isn't going to keep a clinic open if the clinic doesn't have a workable financial plan. The most Tucker could've done was donate directly to these stuggling Texas PPs - which he didn't offer - but even then it wouldn't have kept them open in the long run if they didn't have a sustainable financial model. If you don't know anything about non-profit healthcare funding then shut the fuck up because you're just making yourselves look stupid. As to whether or not PP did due diligence about accepting Tucker's contribution it's all speculation. My speculation is that from what I can tell they've had an upswing in donations lately and Tucker's 500k was a small enough drop in the bucket that PP didn't feel they needed to pursue his offer any further than they did. If he's really serious about making the donation he might have better success if he makes the offer in a leaner year. In any event I doubt PP is managed by the complete incompetents you're all making them out to be otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
You can find even more Internet articles on an author like "Tim Ferris", who is also not particularly famous to the average person. Your post was mostly reasonable, but I have to object to this line. You would be amazed at how many businesses are run by incompetents, especially those that don't even try to earn a profit, but rely on government and private aid.
Did you really just say this? You can't possibly be this stupid. Orginizations that provide charitable services turn down donations all the time, and can have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Especially organizations like PP that have a controversial mission, because people will attempt to make bad-faith donations in order to fuck with them or discredit them. (Not implying that's what Tucker was trying to do, just that it happens.)
I think you are forgetting the power of the internet and it's ability to blow up in the exact situation PP might have feared. Not that the situations are close to being similar in content but a weirdo Christian Fundamentalist with Final Cut Pro blew up the internet in a day and was written off even faster the same week (see Kony 2012). Just through the power of the internet and I am willing to bet more people new about Tucker in the US than Kony before hand. The insane scrutiny this organization has to deal with already coupled with the fact that everyone in the public eye has to deal with the insane microscope the internet and media can put you under in the blink of an eye (see George Zimmerman's recent thrust into the public eye). You really think they'd take a chance after reading even poorly edited and cherry picked quotes from a D list celebrity KNOWN for publicity stunts? Didn't he publicly tell Chicago metro to suck his dick when they stopped running his movie adds on their busses? What are we arguing about again? Oh right, it's KIMaster.
What he said. I've had a lot of dealings with the "Directors" and "CEO's" of NFP organisations, on the whole they've left me uninspired from a business point of view. They are predominantly old lefties who've never worked in private enterprise, teachers, nurses, social workers etc. Just the sort of person who would make this sort of decision based on “feel good” rather than “do good”. They get paid the same regardless and they save themselves the hassle of dealing with the media.
Just a couple thoughts. This was way back in August of last year and a message board that spun off from his main site and would be theoretically one of the first to hear about it, doesn't post anything about the story until now? That goes to show just how much of a non story this would have been at the time and how much of a non story it is now. PP is best known, not what they actually do but known, as the organization that promotes sexual deviance and kills babies. People's perception of you can't get much worse than that. There isn't a compelling reason to not take legally acquired money from a donor regardless if you think their motivation isn't completely selfless. Michael Vick was charged and convicted of killing animals and part of his deal to get back into the NFL was to donate time and money to the Humane Society. Is the Humane Society still in operation today? Was his motivation for donation totally selfless? Was it mutually beneficial? Did the future donations to the Humane Society suffer? In reference to the viral nature of the internet, something like this might have blown up for a few days, but in the long run it would have been forgotten. Just like Kony 2012 is hardly mentioned just a month after being the top news story in every media outlet. Just like Joe Paterno and Penn State aren't talked about anymore. Just like Occupy Wallstreet is now a cute little story in history. Just like every overblown piece of news is mostly brushed aside within a very short window of time. The whole idea of charity is to help people. If you believe in a cause and want to donate your time or money, you should be able to do so. The whole idea that charities need a "brand" and they have to do publicity stunts to raise money. and putting a persons possible donation through a cost analysis to determine whether the bad press of a name might affect future donations is extremely revealing as to the nature of people living today. It's beyond depressing that as humans we see this sort of behavior as normal.
I have a question about this. Why did this just start becoming a story now? Tucker/Ryan were the ones to publicize it, right? Why did they choose to wait six months, or however long it has been? I don't know the answer to this, and haven't really looked for one if there is one to be found, but my assumptions are part of the reason why I dislike Tucker's motives NOT because he did it for a publicity stunt, but because it seems to me like his intent was to make Planned Parenthood look back either way. Or, maybe originally he did have some genuine interest in a charitable donation, even with the addition of publicity, but when they turned them down he decided to retaliate in a childish way because his ego was bruised. Once they were the center of the news again, he decided to actually make a huge thing over it. If this all happened last Fall, it might've slipped through the cracks. I don't think it's scandalous enough on its own to create a media firestorm. But this year, after Komen and with all the reproductive health legislation happening and all that, there has been a lot of focus on Planned Parenthood and a rallying cry to insist that the organization is necessary and good. Every little thing that has to do with the organization is made news now, so this would be much better timing to get some coverage. But, then again, that could just be a reason for them to announce it now solely for publicity sake. It just seems that with the timing, he's using a chance for publicity to add damage to an organization he supposedly cared enough about to donate $500k to. That's mostly what I disagree with on his part. Also, has anyone seen an official statement from Planned Parenthood about this? I've half-heartedly looked for one, but maybe someone else has stumbled across it. I'm curious about what they'd say. And again, I think that this: had a lot more to do with Texas clinics closing than a refusal of $500k. And I still think that they were aware this was happening, and knew the money wouldn't do shit.
The problem is that none of us really have enough information to truly judge this decision. It doesn't stretch the bounds of reality to think that PP felt that they'd lose more than $500k in future donations if they accepted the money. A couple of insider big donors might have straight up told them so for all we know. We're just not possessed of the information. A similar principle applies, for example, when you're hiring and firing or otherwise putting a team together for something. If an average worker does 2 units of work per day and you bring in an amazing star who does 5 units per day, why would you ever fire him or not hire him? Well, if they make three fewer average people refuse to work for you then it's a net loss. Everyone reading this knew that already, which is why I'm so perplexed as to the degree of vitriol directed at PP by people here. I can understand not agreeing or not being happy with how it all went down, but there's some pretty intense and overblown statements being made that seem to go way beyond what is reasonable given the lack of inside information. Anyway, I think one of the questions still outstanding here is whether $500k would have kept one of the closed clinics open for any reasonable period of time. Does anyone actually, without wild outsider speculation, know the answer to this? Audrey, is this something you'd have insight into or could find out? I'm not sure, by the way, whether the answer to this changes anything, but I'm curious. Edit: Naturally this got mostly answered as I was writing it.
Irregardless, 500k is 500k. The money could have been used somewhere. Even if a clinic was closed, the money could have been spent to bolster up one that didn't. I don't know why either. It's quite possible that while doing research to write a story about PP having to close places in Texas, someone stumbled onto this story and decided to run with it and if Tucker was contacted about it to give quotes, being him, I'm sure he told a good story that would make for a nice headline piece of news. If I were him, and someone decided I wasn't "good" enough to donate my money to their organization, I'd be a little jaded and bitter towards them as well. I can't really fault the guy for taking a swipe at them if that's the case.
ok I realize a lot of the initial intentions and details are up for debate, but how could the timing be anything but publicity for the book? It's not like someone went to him, his pr guy is the one that wrote the article.
The timing seems to convenient for that Holiday kid's book. Anyone planning on buying it? I tell myself he's in his 40's so that I don't develop a complex over how much younger and smarter he is than me. Prick.
a) who cares? b) what Scootah said c) what Trakiel said d) hard to have an informed opinion on this when it's just based on material fed from TM, plus, see a) e) PP was damned if they do, damned if they don't...TM was either going to get to crow about not having his donation accepted, or high five about having a clinic named after him. $.5M is a drop in the bucket in the whole scheme, and obviously not enough to be worth having any further discussions about the stipulations attached to the proposed donation. e) I don't know my psychology, but from my armchair and my gut...there's something underlying here around a "charity" accepting or not accepting TM's money, and their position to be able to do so...something around power/control issues...just like a dude going into a strip club and taking satisfaction over the fact that he can get the stripper to do humiliating things when he pays her to do so, and getting pissed if she doesn't. f) but again, see a) g) also, TM's apparent understanding of the world is kinda funny...he's like Kramer in Kramerica (complete with the intern!), or when Kramer goes to work at a corporation ("It's almost as if you have no business training at all").
All signs point to no: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/149473236/texas-feds-face-off-over-planned-parenthood http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/u...treat-as-finances-are-cut.html?pagewanted=all http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/03/as_the_womens_health_program_w.php
Could it, though? If someone donates money to a specific clinic, and it closes or is about to close, could they legally just switch it over to a different clinic? I know that when someone donates, they either have to or have the option to specify exactly what they want their donations to go towards. (Like Komen's money couldn't be used for abortions or vasectomies.) And that gets monitored really carefully because it would be a shit show if there was either a mistake or blatant disregard for the donor's wishes. Would one center just be able to give all of its donations and funds over to another one? I don't know anything about that. I'm pretty far removed from the financial end.
It's pretty much as you said. You can donate money with no stipulations on how the money is to be used or you can donate money with guidelines around how, when, and what it's spent on. For example, our clinic received a cash donation with the specific stipulation that the money was to be spent for the purchase of an x-ray machine and that the money had to be spent within two years. Furthermore, in certain situations the donor may have legal recourse if the money is not spent in the manner the donor has directed, although that's far more common with grant funding (where it's the norm) and institutional donations. In any case, if a donor's wishes aren't adhered to it reflects very badly upon the recipient who not only just lost a donor but also almost certainly alienates its other donors as well. It's never a good idea to pull a bait-and-switch with your donors.
Looks like PETA is trying to catch Tucker on the rebound: <a class="postlink" href="http://tuckermax.me/peta-wants-me-to-fix-some-bitches-and-i-think-thats-a-great-idea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tuckermax.me/peta-wants-me-to-fi ... great-idea</a> As much as PETA sucks, that truck is damned funny.
Yes, think what you will about them, but Peta's def hipper than some of the old guard nonprofits in their field. Interesting. I wonder if PETA will "bite" on the matching donation idea. There's some sort of rift in the animal savings communities b/n Peta and other organizations...lots of accusations around Peta's kill shelters...Austin Pets Alive may have their own issues with partnering with Peta. Also, there may be more due diligence to be done on APA's model for this shelter...sometimes "no kill" shelters are essentially cherry picking certain breeds in the area and leaving the muni shelters to do the killing (from my experience, of Pit and Pit mix doggies and ugly grey cats)...or they're able to maintain "no kill" by simply not taking in above a certain amount of animals, again leaving the local muni shelters to do the killing. Also, it would be interesting to stipulate the donation be used towards operational expenses...in my limited small nonprofit experience, they tended not to plan well, or get funded well, for operating expenses, so they'd raise the donations for the capital investment w/o being able to run it, esp in the mid to long term.