By Howard Goldstein
State Sen. Charles Fuschillo Jr. (R-Merrick) and Assemblyman David McDonough (R-North Merrick) hosted a public hearing about the state's findings on Jan. 30 at Seaford High School.
Fuschillo is following up on complaints that over-the-phone solicitation of charitable donations is not delivering what people think.
"We must," Fuschillo said, "ensure that donors are fully informed about how much of their donation reaches the cause they are supporting and that they are aware of the ways they can learn about their charities prior to making a donation."
Expert testimony was offered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Nassau County Consumer Affairs Commissioner Roger Bogsted, Geri Barish, president of 1 in 9: the Long Island Breast Cancer Coalition, and Charles Nave, who represented the Direct Marketing Association.
In 2001, over 60 percent of all American adults raised $212 billion for charity, especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11, whose numerous causes saw donations reach a peak.
However, it was revealed later that many individuals who donated with the intent of helping Sept. 11 families were, in fact, funding unrelated projects.
In a New York State report "Pennies for Charity," which was prepared by the Attorney General's Charities Bureau, it was revealed that in 2001, 588 charities hired professionals to solicit donations. Of the $184.7 million raised, the charities received $58.9 million, or about 32 percent on average.
Statewide, Long Island ranked as the area with the lowest percentage of money raised through professionals reaching charity, with 23 percent going to the stated causes.
"It is essential that fund seekers honor the donors' intent," Spitzer said.
The attorney general called the current figures "appalling," but noted that legally, there is not much the states can legislate to change the current system.
According to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, telemarketing for charity falls under free speech, and government has no authority to set a minimum amount that telemarketers must give the charity.
Changes may be made to this ruling, as there is currently a similar case before the Supreme court.
In the meantime, Spitzer reports that non-profit organizations do not have the fiscal accountability of businesses. Charities do not always know what their cut is, and should specify threshold amounts in contracts, he said.
"Right now, the solution is information, not laws. The public needs to be aware that when they donate over the phone, most of the money may not go to the charity.
"People need to find out, and should write checks directly to charities that champion their causes, not telemarketing companies," Spitzer said.
The economic situation has increased the need for charity, and jaded donors who no longer trust fund-raisers must be avoided at all costs, according to Nassau County Consumer affairs Commission Roger Bogsted.
"It is imperative for charities to stay healthy, especially now in times of fiscal restraint across government," he said.
But professional fund-raisers, most of whom operate within the law, are not trying to scam the public, nor are the charities, said representatives from the Direct Marketing Association.
Although some charities use volunteers, many choose to use professionals.
"Professional marketers are usually better and more efficient than volunteers at raising money," said Charles Nave of the DMA.
"Charities often do not have the skill and infrastructure to effectively telemarket. Rather than invest their limited time, energy and money in raising funds, it makes sense to hire professionals.
"Costs for professionals can be high. And very often, marketers are able to advance a charity's work beyond just money. Professionals can spread the message and names of charities," he said.
Nave cited MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) as an example. In one instance, professional marketers took polls about drinking and driving, offered facts and free information -- and then asked for a donation.
"In this case, the telemarketers were performing MADD's mission statement to educate the public and obtain vital statistics for further research. They paid the telemarketers to do this. Although it looks as though donors were not giving their money to MADD, they essentially were paying the people who were doing MADD's work."
Still, both state and county officials said that, should the Supreme Court overturn or amend its former ruling, telemarketing fund-raisers would quickly find themselves bound by new laws.
"The key," said Fuschillo, "is knowledge. If people are aware of the situation, they can choose to sponsor charities directly. People should get into the habit of asking telemarketers the name and numbers of the charities they are representing, and then call the charity directly," he said.
Both Fuschillo and McDonough stressed the need to keep the public confidence in charities so that people continue to give.
McDonough said, "Residents who care enough to give their money to a charity must be provided the necessary tools to ensure that their donation is being used as it was intended to be, such as providing food to a child, funding research to cure a disease, care for the elderly or disabled or much more."
