Non-Profits are deceiving their innocent supporters and donors.
Non-Profits’ have huge salaries, much more than the minimum wage. And they also have more daily allowance for their expenses even personal expenses.
Non-Profits are professional employees. Money is their main goal. The cause is just a means to have a lucrative employment. Often they do 1% of their advertised cause only.
Non-Profits are not volunteers.
Volunteers have to spend their own money to be volunteers. From travel expenses, meal expenses, lodging expenses, and other expenses. Volunteers do not use your donation for these expenses but their own hard earned money.
Volunteers are not salary-takers. The cause is their main goal.
So who are these Non-Profits (Liberty Tramplers) and at the same time living luxuriously on donations?
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
- Texas Humane Legislation Network
- The Human Society of the United States
Who exposed these Non-Profits (Liberty Tramplers) on their frauds and wrong doings?
- ActivistCash.com on HSUS
- Animal Rights Facts = Animal Rights Exposed
- PETA Kills Animals
Below are four 2011 articles that I found interesting and full of information to fight our oppressor on your sports of cockfighting. Not to mention animal domestication or farming. Please take time to read them. Thank you.
January 27, 2011 | http://humanewatch.org
As Chicagoans are discovering this week, Illinois politics is full of surprises. And we just got one of our own.
State Rep. Jim Sacia (R-89th) writes a weekly column for his constituents in Illinois’ northwest corner, and today’s edition is an eye-opener. Here’s a little bit ofwhat Sacia has to say about the Humane Society of the United States:
My blood boils when I see you, the consumer, bilked out of your hard earned money by appealing to your sense of compassion and kindness. No one wants to see an animal starved and we all get a good feeling sending that money to such a noble cause. What a travesty!
The good news is the IRS has been investigating HSUS for over two years. Compounding the problem of completing their investigation, the IRS has never had to deal with allegations of tax fraud by a “public charity” as large and as complex as the HSUS.
You can help. Contact the United States Treasury Inspector General at 800-366-4484 (press 5) and respectfully request that case number 55-1005-0025-C be brought to conclusion.
Click here to read the full column. And if you think HSUS’s financial malfeasance warrants government action, feel free to follow Rep. Sacia’s advice and contact the U.S. Treasury Department.
Fundraising & Money • Gov’t, Lobbying, Politics • (16) Comments
February 10, 2011 | http://humanewatch.org
One of the first things we did when HumaneWatch was launched last February was figure out what the Humane Society of the United States was doing with the nine-figure collection plate it passes every year. We were surprised to learn that according to HSUS’s publicly available tax return for 2008 (the most recent year for which data was available at the time), HSUS devoted less than one-half of one percent of its budget to directly funding hands-on pet shelters.
Now, however, HSUS’s 2009 tax return is also a matter of public record. HSUS ponied up a little bit more that year for local pet rescues and shelters, but it’s hardly worth shouting about. In all, HSUS shared less than 0.8 percent of its money with pet shelters in 2009. Some of those shelters share the “humane society” name with their richer (distant) cousin, but the vast majority of pet shelters in the United States received nothing.
We examined every outgoing grant HSUS reported making in 2009, and made a determination about whether or not the recipient was a hands-on pet shelter. Here are the numbers:
|HSUS 2009 budget:||$121,725,153|
|All HSUS outgoing grants:||6,744,923|
|HSUS grants to hands-on pet shelters:||977,296|
So only four-fifths of one percent (0.80%) of the money HSUS collected in 2009—much of it in response to TV ads that begged for money to “save” dogs and cats—actually went to the community-based organizations doing that work. (HSUS runs a handful of “animal care centers,” but no dog or cat shelters and no pet adoption programs.)
It’s also interesting to note that HSUS did give away over five percent of its budget in 2009. But less than 15 percent of what the group distributed made it to a hands-on shelter organization. Much of the rest went to subsidize the previously “insolvent” Humane Society International ($2.75 million), and to run political ballot initiative campaigns, including those in Missouri ($450,000) and Ohio ($1.5 million).
HSUS does deserve credit for a single grant of $284,625 for the construction of a new pet shelter in Louisiana’s St. Bernard Parish. But that grant accounts for 30 percent of all its shelter giving for the year, and sadly, this sort of giving is the exception, not the rule.
We’ve posted HSUS’s accounting of its 2009 outgoing grants—with the shelter grants highlighted—so everyone can see our math. Feel free to quibble in the comments section below.
One final word about our criteria: We gave HSUS credit for subsidizing a few horse and rabbit rescues in addition to the dog and cat shelters. But we left out grants to “spay/neuter” organizations and private veterinary practices that fund pet sterilizations without running their own pet shelters. (Had we included them, the proportion of HSUS’s money going where it should still wouldn’t have topped 1 percent.)
It will surprise many of you to learn that the Humane Society of the United States isn’t primarily in the business of funding humane societies. HSUS has historically considered these “societies” to be part of its “constituency,” but it’s not funding them with any sense of urgency. And in the meantime, HSUS’s $191 million endowment (part of which is invested in the stock market) continues to earn money hand over fist.
For what, you ask?
That’s an excellent question. The 6 to 8 million dogs and cats entering shelters this year (according to HSUS’s own estimate), and the people who care for them—and sometimes have to euthanize them for lack of space and funding—are entitled to an answer.
Note: The table above reflects updated numbers.
Document Analysis • Fundraising & Money • Pets • (13) Comments
March 03, 2011 | http://humanewatch.org
If you’ve seen the Humane Society of the United States’ new TV ads, you already know they’re bursting at the seams with pictures of dogs and cats. That’s the image HSUS wants to present of itself, because cute candids of Fido and Fluffy are the best way to get pet lovers to donate money.
The result, as we’ve shown time and again, is that most HSUS donors are misinformed about what the organization they support actually does. Too many Americans—donors and non-donors alike—mistakenly think HSUS is a pet-shelter umbrella group, when it’s actually an animal rights organization akin to the better-known PETA.
Here’s something else HSUS’s ads don’t tell would-be supporters: A large chunk of the $19-per-month pledge pays for lobbyists instead of pet shelters. HSUS spent, according to its own tax returns, $17.3 million lobbying governments between 2005 and 2009. Though that averages out to only around 3.5 percent of HSUS’s budget, it’s far more than the group shared with hands-on pet shelters.
It’s perfectly legal for nonprofit groups to engage in some lobbying, as long as it’s faithfully self-reported and within strictly prescribed limits. (Note: Some observers believe HSUS drastically under-reports its lobbying expenditures.)
A 501(c)(3) organization like HSUS should be in the clear if it spends an average of less than 5 percent of its budget directly lobbying lawmakers, and no more than another 15 percent on “indirect” lobbying. (The classic example of “indirect” lobbying is an ad that asks voters to call their members of Congress.)
But no lobbyists at all are mentioned in HSUS’s TV ads—and hardly a whisper of its lobbyists’ objectives is heard. In addition to its direct lobbying expenditures, HSUS spent $6 million between 2005 and 2009 on political front groups designed to attack livestock farmers at the ballot box. HSUS’s ultimate goal for animal agriculture, in one former VP’s words, is to “get rid of the industry.”
This is a far cry from saving the dogs and cats in HSUS’s ads.
While $17.3 million in lobbying expenses over five years may not sound like much for a group that raises $100 million every year, it’s instructive to put HSUS’s lobbying expenditures in the context of other charities. HSUS spent a little over three percent of its 2009 budget on lobbying. That’s significantly more than the American Red Cross (0.02 percent), the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (0.01 percent), or the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (0.14 percent) spent on the same.
And remarkably, that $17.3 million doesn’t include the additional money HSUS-affiliated groups are donating to candidates for elected office. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that since 2006 HSUS’s “Humane Society Legislative Fund” and “Humane USA” PAC have combined to put more than $2 million directly into federal election campaigns.
Politically speaking, HSUS’s network of groups is even out-spending some gigantic companies. In 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that HSUS and its affiliates “spent $3.4 million on congressional elections and ballot initiatives” that year, “more than Exxon Mobil Corp. They have contributed $150,000 to candidates for Congress, which is more than Halliburton Co. has contributed.”
Again, as far as we know, all of this is legal. But we have to wonder just how many people watching those ubiquitous TV ads realize what a political animal HSUS has become.
Fundraising & Money • Gov’t, Lobbying, Politics • (8) Comments
March 15, 2011 | http://argus-press.com
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a national, tax-exempt organization not affiliated with local animal shelters and the most powerful anti-hunting group in the nation – has drawn fire from a group of lawmakers who question its status as a qualified 501 (c)(3) organization.
HSUS supported a ballot initiative in Missouri (Proposition B) by pouring in some $1.85 million (plus another $300,000 in non-cash contributions) into its Missouri front group’s bank account.
The measure passed by a slim three-point margin and sets regulations for the state’s dog breedersm including how many dogs are allowed per facility. At the root of the issue is whether the HSUS attempted to influence legislation as a “substantial part” of its activities.
In a letter to Inspector General Eric Thorson in Washington, D.C., six members of Congress from Missouri and Alaska — Don Young (R-Alaska), Vicky Hartzer (R-Missouri), Blaine Luetkemeyer
(R-Missouri), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri), Sam Graves (R-Missouri), and Billy Long (R-Missouri) — have requested a federal investigation into the level of funding and participation of HSUS in Missouri’s affairs.
The letter follows previous letters to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner that have resulted in no remedial action.
The members of Congress state the case this way, “We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a ‘substantial part’ of its activities, and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically-sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities.”
“We certainly understand that 501 (c)(3) organizations are allowed to participate in lobbying activities. However, lobbying not only is a substantial part of HSUS’s overall activities; it often appears to be the only reason for HSUS’s existence.”
By its own admission, HSUS spends more than twice as much on “Advocacy and public policy” than any other category of expenses. The Proposition B ballot initiative was heavily financed by HSUS. Campaign disclosure forms show that HSUS donated more than $2.1 million of the $4.8 million raised by proponents of the measure.
The lawmakers also cite other efforts in numerous examples of HSUS to influence legislation by having its employees urging the public to contact members of legislative bodies for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation.
As part of the investigation, the legislators are requesting the IRS to apply what it calls the “Substantial Part Test” to determine whether an organization has run afoul of conditions of its tax-exempt status.
According to IRS.gov, the test is conducted as follows: “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitutes a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”
“No group should be allowed to maintain tax-exempt status solely due to its political leanings or power. If HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Glen Wunderlich is an outdoors writer for The Argus-Press. He can be reached by sending email to firstname.lastname@example.org.