Madonna's charitable giving is a little less spectacular than we might have thought earlier... Yesterday she said she'd match every dollar donated to her Raising Malawi charity, right? Thats every dollar matched. Not doubled. Also, the disclaimer states that the total contribution by Madonna herself will not exceed $100,000. So if her fans donate $280,000,000 (The gross revenue of Madonna's latest world tour), she will only donate $100,000 herself.
'Raising Malawi' founded by Madonna and two others three years ago held fund raisers for over two years before finally getting registered as a non-profit. In other words, Madonna and the others were free to squander the lion's share of that funding any way they saw fit for those first two years. She also pleaded with her fans worldwide for donations along the way. In the meantime, she toured the world to promote her latest CD and raked in another $280,000,000 in just over 12 months. To date, the basic financial info for 'Rasing Malawi' still hasn't been posted on the website or anywhere else. The 'progress' page only tells of the collective works by over 20 seperate charities. Each of which have their own sources of funding and may have recieved some sort of promotion or support from 'Raising Malawi' in order to be considered 'partners'. But no indication is made how much of their funding came from 'Raising Malawi' or how much of their progress if any could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. The fans/donors have no clue how many millions of dollars were raised in that first two years, no clue how much Madonna herself chipped in, and no clue how the money was spent before they finally registered as a non-profit. No clue what tiny little fraction of funding or works listed on that 'progress' page could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. Nothing to go on but the vague word of Madonna.
'Rasing Malawi' still hasn't been given any kind of rating by ANY independent charity watchdog like Charitywatch.org. The vast overwhelming majority of 'celebrity' foundations never are. In general, they are inneficient and riddled with corruption. Like the promotion of CDs, world tours, commercial websites, entire lines of jewelry (not just the single piece from which proceeds are donated), and high end fashion retail flagship stores. Celebrity foundations are also notorious for squandering much of their funding on travel and super high end accomodations for their celebrity figure heads. Its legal but not noble or efficient by any stretch of the imagination. In general, 'celebrity' foundations are a twisted inefficient mutant of charity and PR crap. So if its not rated, then don't support it. Instead, support a top rated charity like those given high ratings at Charitywatch.org
Thanks to an anonymous comment on my previous post on this subject.
2 reacties:
You're welcome. Its nice to know that a few others can smell the PR crap being shoveled in their faces. I only wish that we had a chance to convince the majority to look deeper and see the incredible Earth shattering hypocrisy of these false heroes. I don't think they ever will. The future absolutely terrifies me.
Some more selling out of 'good will': From '04' to'05', Bono, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Chris Rock, other well known celebrities, and major coorporations like 'Apple' and 'The Gap' managed to raise about $18,000,000 for 'humanity' through their very well publicized 'Red Campaign'. Which basically involved the promotion and sales of various commercial products like T-shirts, computers, cell phones, and I-pods. A portion of the profits were to be shared with an effort to fight AIDS in Africa. The entire promotion was hailed in the name of 'good will'. The merchandise got sold. Every celebrity involved got their 'good will' kudos plastered all over the media worldwide. Here is the problem. THE AD CAMPAIGN ALONE COST ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. IT WAS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT A MASSIVE SALES PROMOTION DRESSED UP IN THE NAME OF 'HUMANITY'. In other words, that 'good will' would have done a lot more 'good' if they would have just donated the ad money to begin with. Then again, it was never about 'humanity', efficiency, or effect. That was just a ploy to get people to buy more over-priced CRAP. Here is another example: In the fall of '01', Jennifer Lopez was invited to take part in a music video for charity. The effort was hailed as a benefit for victims of AIDS and 9/11. Well, Jennifer Lopez doesn't do ANYTHING for free. She DEMANDED AND RECIEVED the following for her exclusive use: A 45 foot trailer with a TV, VCR, stereo, an assortment of CDs, a white dressing room with lavish all white decor, all white furniture, and an assortment of exotic fruits and desserts. All of this was necessary just to get her sorry ass in the studeo for 30 minutes. FOR CHARITY. Of course, the organizers are partly to blame for selling out to a 'diva'. In fact, I have my doubts about the entire project. Charity just isn't what it used to be. Most of it has gone commercial. SOLD OUT.
Post a Comment