On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max

As mentioned, it is a local thing. The local board controls the UW
administrative budget, campaign expenditures, compensation levels,
etc.

I haven't been on the board for several years (locally, two terms of
three years then off for at least one term), but when I was on the
administrative budget was about 10%. For that you get a very well run
campaign, with mostly volunteers as campaign coordinators and brutal
scrutiny of charities that have made application to recieve funds,
along with ongoing oversight.

Additionally, an endowed fund has been established so that at some
time in the future, the administrative expenses can come from income
from the endowed fund and 100% of the campaign can pass through. Not
there yet.

The board is all volunteer. The local UW had three full time
employee's when I was on the board, may have four now. The last
campaign was 2.2 million dollars..

But it is local. The efficiency depends on board members willing to
volunteer and provide the proper oversite. It took quite a bit of
time.

Frank