Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal
Image via Wikipedia
When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up.
Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following. While I have always found her to be over the top – particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric – she certainly has the respect of the conservative community. So when she broke a story a few days ago accusing Sean Hannity’s charity of being a ‘scam’, this naturally got my attention.
Schlussel claims that the Freedom Concerts conducted by Hannity and the Freedom Alliance (whose chairman is Oliver North) have been an unconscionable con. The concerts are supposed to be raising money to pay college tuition for the children of soldiers who have died in our foreign wars and to provide needed funds to help out soldiers severely injured in battle. Clearly, a noble goal and a charity well worth helping out.
Or is it?
Check out what Schlussel has discovered in researching the organization for the past year-
But it’s all a huge scam.
In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.
Note that Schlussel does not accuse Hannity or the charity of doing anything illegal. Rather she accuses the popular radio and television talker of wasting an inordinate amount of the funds to feather his reputation as a great friend of our troops while burning up money on private planes and expensive hotel rooms. This is money that those who donated to the charity believe is going to meet the objectives of the charity.
More importantly, it’s money that our badly injured veterans and the kids of those who gave their lives could most certainly use.
Ironically, just last night, Hannity was honored with an award for “Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host” at Talkers Magazine’s convention.
Given the serious nature of Schlussel’s accusations, I went to the source for all information on charities – the tax returns. I began with the organization’s 2008 tax filings which were filed in November of 2009.
It’s not a pretty picture. While I encourage you to go through the return on your own, here’s the bottom line –
In 2008, the charity raised $8,781,431 in revenue and gave out just $1,060,275.57–or 12%–to seriously wounded soldiers and for scholarships to kids of soldiers who have died. About 80% was spent on expenses, including $1,055,791 on postage, $925,392 on printing and $157,041 on travel.
Folks, when a charity’s expenditure on stamps equals the amount they spent fulfilling the actual mission of the charity, something is seriously wrong.
It is a well established rule of thumb that a legitimate charity is expected to spend 75% of its revenues on the mission of the charity. In 2008, Freedom Alliance spent 12%
And that was a good year!
The charity’s 2007 tax return reveals only 7% was spent on scholarships and payments to veterans. The 2006 returns reveal a truly appalling situation – while the organization took in almost $11 million, they spent only $400,000 on scholarships and grants to injured soldiers.
Yesterday, Freedom Alliance issued a response to Schlussel’s allegations.
To say that it was far from satisfying would be an understatement. No matter how they try to explain away the numbers, there is no escaping the bottom line – people have contributed huge sums of money to help the troops and their families, and only a tiny fraction of that money has been spent as it was supposed to be spent.
It is no secret that I do not hold Sean Hannity in very high regard. He is a man who stares into a camera and speaks into a microphone and lies. He does this for the sole purpose of increasing his ratings and income while scaring the hell out of his believing audience as he purposely misleads them. Indeed, so believing is his audience, I would bet the farm that they will give Hannity a pass on this entire scandal.
But unless Hannity can adequately disprove the allegations by providing detailed information on how the charity has spent its money or show how the numbers in the tax returns are somehow misleading, there will be a special place in Hell created for this man.
Living it up on the backs of our fallen soldiers is about as bad as it gets.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Ollie North involved in a charity????? I wouldn’t waste a slug on anything he was selling.
This is just another example, along with your recent post about Glenn Beck’s holiness, of the hypocrisy of these people. Most, if not all, of these Conservative Squawkers preach their highly moral Christian Conservative Values. But when comes to the spewing of their hate filled intentional misinformation, and in this case their actions, they show that they are neither conservative or Christ-like.
But as with many who use religious values as a front; their flock will blindly follow and hang on their every word.
I would want to bring to your attention, that it was a conservative commentator who started this story, right? The thing is, if they see foul play, they call it.
People with other political alignments call it “eating their own”, evidently, they themselves are used to covering any sihs of their own, so they are just unable to grasp the idea of telling the truth, policy notwithstanding.
In response to another comment. See in context »Since the first paragraph of the piece makes it clear that it was a conservative commentator who brought this to our attention, I don’t think I need it brought to my attention.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your implication that all conservative commentators would call out their own is silly. I haven’t seen Fox News covering this story. Just as it would be silly to say that all liberal commentators would or would not bust their own.
The article isn’t a political statement – it is a story. Not everything in the world has to be biased or on one side or the other.
I would like to bring it to your _personal_ attention now, that the previous reply was intended for honorable “mikec”, who did need it brought to his attention.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, NO, I did not need it brought to my attention. And I see no relevance to your point of one hate spewing conservative calling out another hate spewing conservative.
In response to another comment. See in context »As Rick Ungar pointed out about his article, MY comment is also not a political statement.
My problem is not with any political party; my problem is with those in the forefront of the media hiding behind their high moral religious values, and then not practicing what they preach.
Let me get this straight, you put the lime in the coco.., no, you believe they call it when they see it? Other that Rick’s post when was the last time they called it? A break in the ranks is a rare sight similar to the guys in Rounders, they themselves like to say piranhas don’t eat other piranhas. These guys whole existence revolves round selling the proverbial 5-dollar-foot longs.to saps so they live high on the hog and their spawn and friends fly not first class but private and never have to worry about bills. They don’t call it. It’s a private club, all are welcome, plenty of money to go around. Why would they possibly call it? They probably chuckle, in private of course, about the scam they all got going.But to go so far as to clip a few million out of a sacred cause is over the line. It’s greed, plain and simple. I can see Oliver doing it, his dental bills alone must be in the millions, but Hannity?
In response to another comment. See in context »It is the way of charity here nowadays, check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/arts/music/18benefit.html
In response to another comment. See in context »of the $200.000 charity concert box office only $8.000 goes actually to the charity.
I’d like to point out two things here, one being you just said
“… THE HYPOCRISY OF THESE PEOPLE”
and then slamming the entire political party, including the dude who brought this to our attention, for being two faced, no doubt originally being drawn to this article in the first place because it tickles your left wing “bipartisan, acceptance” agenda’s fancy and you sir, are therefore a worthless person and I shall disregard what I just read, having made very clear that I look upon it with utter disdain.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’d like to point out something here as well:
I said NOTHING about any ‘political party’; unless you consider the likes of Beck, Hannity, and other “Conservative Squawkers that preach their highly moral Christian Conservative Values” a political party.
My point is that if they are going to hold themselves to these high standards, then they need to stop with the fear-mongering, hate filled, holier than thou attitude that doesn’t agree with what they claim to be.
Secondly;
It is amazing how you can in ‘no doubt’ understand what drew me to this article. To call me ‘left wing’ fits with my belief of what many far right conservatives think; that anyone left of them is far left.
Finally;
In response to another comment. See in context »If my honest opinion on these types of hypocrites causes you look upon me with disdain and a need to call me worthless; then all I can respond here with is a resounding THANK YOU!
It would be helpful if you make note of whose comment you are responding to as it doesn’t always fall into the chain in a way that makes it clear. Are you responding to Mikec’s comment or the article itself?
In response to another comment. See in context »oh my bad, all directed at Mikec
In response to another comment. See in context »edug,
In response to another comment. See in context »Then by all means, Thank You again.
This is what I call a scandal alright, you would think a guy that making a good living drilling on others would know better. All that talking about values, huh, looks like the dough is the over-riding value as in $$$. Reading the piece, thought to myself all the money in the world is not worth that judgment day verdict, and you know, did it really make a difference, I mean what now he could buy the better tire or something? I mean this guy has some money, and this goes to what we spoke of yesterday- which was that a failed character can bring down a system, but it can and will bring down anyone who looses their character. I think at one time this man did have (or proclaimed) values that helped him succeed, but he thought he could get away with it and he is going to be toast, in more than one way if you know what I mean!
This is really bad, shame on him, and I never liked Ollie, he lives by a law of his own imagination.
I have to tell a story, it all ties together I think. Andre “Lightning” Thorton of the 70’s Cleveland Indidans was a speaker at a seminar I attended last week, and to keep it simple he is a successful business man now. He constantly drove on the value thing (most business men and woman do). He said don’t worry about your reputation, that’s what people think of you, worry about your values, that’s who you are. I took that to mean he had to overcome the stereotype of being “just an athlete” going into business, but I see the man’s message is good for everyone.
Their response would be much better if instead of having a line item for “Program activities” it had a line item for “scholarships.” Claiming to spend 80% of your money on an amorphous concept doesnt really help to tell me where the money goes.
correct. But the program activities they are claiming doesn’t add up to the amount they put on their tax return as payments for scholarships which you can see on the return. As you note, it is impossible to know what ‘program activities’ means.
In response to another comment. See in context »Has this issue been covered on Fox News?
I don’t know. I know that Hannity spoke about it on his radio program denying everything.
In response to another comment. See in context »What’s there to deny? Figures don’t lie and lies don’t figure. I’d like to hear his response. Any way to get that?
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, didn’t see the response up there. After reading it, I am back at square one. The first thing I noticed is the Trust Fund. If money is deferred for future distribution, how is that reconciled as a percentage of expense? Could the writer have left this out completely? The denial is well written and I am hesitant to take a position without further review of which March Madness currently prohibits. Rick, is there something there or not? Right now, I’m confused which is what a liar would want me to be. I think Debbie should go further. If her original article was as thorough researched as she says she should be able to see where their logic is bereft. Or you, maybe? I know you have better things to do, but could you go over their response and see if it has merits??
In response to another comment. See in context »Distribution of funds to the trust fund is not one of the expenses I’ve taken into consideration. I would consider these distributions a positive distribution for the benefit of the the charitable purposes…ie, a ‘good’ cost. So, subtract these amounts and then look at the actual, annual overhead expenses and it remains crazy. You can see this really clearly if you review the tax filing. That’s the problem with the response….it simply doesn’t speak to the real numbers in the tax return and they need to do that.
In response to another comment. See in context »=== popurls.com === popular today…
yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
[...] liefdadigheidsgeld voor leuke dingen20-03-2010 om 21:46 door SteephRelletje in de VS: Sean Hannity, commentator bij Foxnews, heeft een liefdadigheidsinstelling opgezet, maar het grootste deel van het …FoxNews, Liefdadigheid, Sean Hannity, Waan v/d Dag Terug naar het blog 0 Reacties Naar [...]
[...] Debbie Schlussel busts Hannity’s charity scam By Hanlon, on March 20th, 2010 at 06:18 PM Oh this’ll get interesting. [...]
[...] post: Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar … Post a [...]
[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandaltrueslant.com [...]
the word atrocious comes to mind–but you were right to preempt your judgement by noting his actual ‘value-added’ niche in society, or lack thereof. He is at the end of the day a mass information manipulator. While the actions of unconscionable people will never cease to amaze me, this is slightly surprising given the public platform he occupies and the unarguable disparity in funds accepted vs. funds provided…allegedly.
If ANYONE thinks Hannratty gives a SINGLE CRAP about anyone but Hannratty they are BADLY mistaken…
He is the simplest form of con man.. straight forward, upfront, lies in your face and smiling all the way to the bank on the backs of every single person that believes his B/S…
One of the top 5 single worst cons in the hate business…
When you elevate an individual to the level of highly exalted priest in a political movement, you’re going to see some malfeasance. It takes an incredible level of integrity and morality, whether conservative or liberal, to resist abusing the public’s trust.
And thus, you have Al Gore, and Sean Hannity. Both of them are in a show business advocating their beliefs. Gore advocates carbon credits while flying trans-Atlantic in his private jet and living in a mansion that dwarfs the typical household’s carbon footprint. Hannity advocates conservative causes while ripping off his charity for soldiers.
Neither of these men are advocating unworthy causes. Yet, when so many accolades come pouring in, they can’t help themselves. Fame is an addiction. Reality is a downer.
There, but for the grace of God (and my anonymity), go I.
I’ll save that for the wine-oh talking to himself, this is not like that.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – …. Share and [...]
What you have to understand is that he will get away with this. Bipartisanship is now so polarized that the two parties agree on nothing. One party could say “hey, clubbing baby seals with hammers is bad!” the other side would say…”you will raise unemployment by 3% if you stop it; hammers are the cheapest method!” The ridiculous part is yet to come. It will be spun to protect party lines.
Hannity is popular. He will be protected. Doesnt mean he isnt a dirtbag. But who didnt know that already?
Ollie doesn’t have the power to sell drugs with the CIA anymore. The guy got to make a buck somehow.
[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant SEAN HANNITY'S FREEDOM CONCERTS: NOW A CONSERVATIVE HAS QUESTIONS [...]
I’m in the military and this really pissed me off. I think Sean is a hacky douche. The guideline for giving to the Combined Federal Campaign is even more stringent: it’s recommended not to donate to any charity with more than 20% overhead. Overhead percentages are listed by each charity.
Sooo… I decided to spend 10 minutes on Google and guess what I found?
The Combined Federal Campaign is managed under — and included charities must follow fairly strict public disclosure requirements from — Title 5 USC 950: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title05/5cfr950_main_02.tpl
This means CFC charities are at least “screened”. And a section of Part 950 requires that charities included in CFC have their overhead calculated using the IRS tax form you linked to.
The Freedom Alliance is included in the Combined Federal Campaign, with an *officially calculated* overhead rate of (drum roll)… 11 PERCENT: https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=freedom+alliance&s=LNI&o=0,110
We can quibble over this, and I’m not calling Sean a saint by any stretch, but be fair now. I’d also like to know where the accusation came from that the Freedom Alliance spends money to “ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style” and I’d like to see the proof in the numbers. Both he and the Freedom Alliance deny this charge vehemently.
Like I said, he’s no saint — in fact he always seemed slimy as hell to me. But to make a claim (about spending money flying him and his family) without backing it up is ludicrous.
sgtrock- I’m trying to follow what you’re saying. Help me understand how they get to an 11% overhead rate when the tax returns so clearly reveal that such a small amount of money was paid out to the supposed beneficiaries. I do want to be fair. Is the overhead calculation for CFC somehow leaving out expense items? I’m wondering if you took a look at the tax returns – you can do that by clicking on where I highlighted them. take a look when you get a moment and see if there is something you are seeing that I am missing.
In response to another comment. See in context »The allegations regarding Hannity flying around n G5s are explained in detail on Schussel’s post. I have also highlighted that. Certainly, she could have gotten bad information on this – and I reported that the charity issued a denial. However, when you read the denial (also highlighted) they never speak to the actual chargers. While they could quibble over what Hannity personally spent and what he did not, I don’t see how you can quibble with the tax returns. Are you seeing something I’m not?
I will take a look the links you provided.
I looked up the site you included and I see where they list the overhead at 11%. I’d love to know if the reporting is audited because this figure is wholly and completely at odds with the tax returns. How is this to be explained?
In response to another comment. See in context »sgtrock-
You’ve got me really interested in this! You may have found much more to this story.
I tracked the charities that are qualified by the CFC and, as you note, Freedom Alliance is, indeed, registered. And, as you say, they are listed on the CFC records as having an overhead of 11%.
Now, take a look at tax returns. The organization’s employee salaries and benefits alone (not considering any other cost) equals 15% of their gross! The stamp budget for 2008 exceeds 11% of the gross! How is it possible, if they are reporting honestly, how can there be any rational basis for reporting an 115 overhead when, under any possible accounting definition, this is simply not the case.
Does this not lead you to wonder if the reporting is dishonest.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’d really like it if you would take a look at the tax return for 2008 and let me know your conclusions. If you have any trouble accessing it, let me know and I’ll get it to you.
According to the comments now on their denial, they sent 1149 care packages to troops, which could certaintly account for some, but not all, of the postage budget. Some of the comments also claim that a large portion of the money was put into a fund to hold it until the children came of age. If true, that could make some of the numbers a little less insane, but still probably not right.
The 2007 tax return gets fun around page 59, where they amend their AOI. The organization will expend funds to further family values and advance principles of free enterprise. Sounds a lot more like a right wing political group than a charity for soldiers families. This is followed on page 65 with a Treasury department letter basically telling them to stay out of political activity.
While the comments to the response seem to indicate that the numbers might be a little better than they appear at first blush, the articles of incorporation pretty clearly establish this as a group with a political goal, not merely a method of providing aid to soldiers families.
In response to another comment. See in context »Right. It also indicates that they are soliciting donations by false pretense . I would be inclined to make a donation to a charity that provides the benefits Freedom Alliance says they are about. I would not donate to a charity furthering family values and advancing principles of free enterprise.
In response to another comment. See in context »The very fact that they sent out all these care packages – if they did-is also not what donors were let to believe was the purpose of the organization.
Just to be clear it wasn’t my intent to beat you over the head so I hope it didn’t come across that way.
I think this is one of the most thoughtful and balanced discussion forums around. It just started sounding (not necessarily you, but through the comment threads) like “I think Sean’s a right-wing partisan douche, therefore anything he touches is suspect, therefore I’ll dismiss the (poorly worded) denial out-of-hand as a complete lie because what do you expect from a right-wing partisan douche?” Sort of a logical circle-jerk that doesn’t really look into the issue…
On the overhead I’ll have to defer to the CFC making the calculation properly, since I don’t know what their overhead rules are and whether or not they are out of line with “the standard” calculations. I didn’t see any formula in the law I cited. But I certainly won’t rule out fraud on their (FA) part. Especially given what craig noted below about them changing the Articles of Incorporation to become in essence a political movement. That *really* ticks me off. And I also agree that sending out care packages may not be in line with their stated mission, or at least that’s not the way they tout it on the radio. And it certainly isn’t an effective use of funds. That’s a million dollars that could have bought some Fisher Houses…
From my understanding the CFC doesn’t guarantee that a charity actually does anything worthwhile, just that it follows some basic guidelines and isn’t a total scam. There are probably plenty of organizations in the CFC that are shady, and that’s why we’ve been told to pay attention to the 20% overhead rule of thumb — because of exactly these kinds of concerns.
At the same time I will note that in their denial they do state they are holding money in a fund for 20 years to ensure the kids get their college money, so they can’t pay out the full $8 million in the same year. I expect that many of the kids are young, and their costs will balloon in 10 years like a massive ARM loan, so holding the money in reserve is the responsible thing to do.
Just trying to see this from both sides. I’d rather give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they can be proven to have actually done something wrong (rather than appearing to, which while possibly damaging from a PR perspective may not be illegal or unethical in any way and could be a misunderstanding) then they should be crucified and spit on by the soldiers. Now that would be some karmic justice. But only “IF”…
In response to another comment. See in context »Not at all! Not only did I not feel like you were beating me over the head, your comments got me into a whole new trail on this thing. You were right about how the CFC was listing Freedom Alliance. And no matter how much slack I try to cut the charity on their tax returns there is just no way I can get to 11.1% overhead. Because of this, I’ve been trying to contact the director of the CFC for an explanation – no response so far!
Not only were your comments exceedingly helpful (see my latest post yesterday because you’re the commenter I’m referring to!), I can tell you that your comment has now been used as an example by the publishers of True/Slant to show its investors how this is supposed to work. I wrote a piece- you added to the information knowledge of the piece.
I wish this would happen more often so…you have my sincere thanks!
If you get a chance to read the most recent piece, I do try to take a measured point of view. I can see nothing that is illegal – although I have to say if the charity has dishonestly reported to the CFC, that might change. We also don’t yet know if Hannity is guilty of wasting the money as alleged. What we do know, I think, is that he’s had ample opportunity to examine what kind of a charity he is endorsing and asking his followers to contribute to. On this, I have to say I find that he comes up on the short side of the stick.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Go America! http://tinyurl.com/yf44se9 Yeah, Sean Hannity! http://tinyurl.com/y94z5w6 This is just like the Bible preached! And shit! Like – [...]
[...] 3: Here’s a good summary of the whole thing. Please Share / Save If you liked this, you might also like these related posts:Jon Stewart [...]
[...] organization that is suppose to help Vets. Maybe it is just a disease of greed with nonprofits? Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant Here is the article; Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal Image via Wikipedia When [...]
Here’s a tangential point related to administrative costs of charitable orgs: This is IN NO WAY a pass for Hannity or anyone else running a suspect or opaque charity. IT IS a point about 1) effective giving and 2) transparency.
The most effective way to give is your time and effort to a local cause you care about – Picking up a hammer or cutting a check specifically to a local group doing something you feel is of worth is the surest way you have to know the largest part of your donation is going to where you want it.
A simple example is Girl Scout cookies. Briefly, of the $3.50 each spent on a box of cookies, about $.60 goes to the troop and community. If you wanted to specifically help your local troop, they’d make out better by you giving them a buck or two outright. (tangent to tangent: that’s also fewer calories) – http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/02/06/girl-scout-cookies-by-the-numbers-just-where-do-all-those-dolla/
Sgt. Rock references the 20% rule-of-thumb and gives one way to dig in this specific case (and Rick rightly brings up disparities and auditing) – http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/20/sean-hannity-in-serious-military-charity-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-5110
Watchdogs like http://www.charitynavigator.org/ work to add transparency to the (not-all-that-byzantine) process and detail horror stories and wins.
If you’d like to assist a fallen soldier’s family, finding the most direct path – unfortunately, it won’t be that difficult as opportunities abound – is likely the best path.
Good advice.
In response to another comment. See in context »@Steve McNally:
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s rather difficult to award scholarships on the basis of volunteer work.
What kills me about all of these “celebrities” is that they feel they must travel via chartered planes. Why not take commercial flights, fly first class, and rub elbows with the commoners? It just might glean more contributions for your “charity,” and it would go a long way in reaching out to the liberals and progressives. Oh wait, Hannity doesn’t want to reac out though, my bad.
[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – … [...]
[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal [...]
[...] In the end, there might be some efficiency and justice in the market for charitable donations; the market for Sean Hannity could correct itself in more ways than one. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The tragedy of the Rev. [...]
Here is the most coherent defense I’ve seen of the Freedom Alliance since I read about this story in Rick’s column and tried to find out more:
http://www.frumforum.com/hannitized-is-sanitized
Their refutation in a nutshell:
1) $60,000 for aviation probably doesn’t include many charter flights at $8,000 an hour.
2) The highest paid employee was $152,000, the next $83,000. $1 in $7 went to salary.
3) Giving more than $1000 is inefficient due to DoD rules. Smaller awards like $200 might be for a specific request on behalf of a soldier, such as a bus ticket.
4) Scholarships pay annually, so a kid that gets $4,000 in any given tax year could get that 3 more times for a total of $16,000.
5) $775,599 in postage includes expensive care packages sent around the world.
I’m anxious to see where this goes. Hopefully a good deal more facts await us this newsweek.
I too read this. Some of it makes sense – but much does not answer many of the questions. Take a look at my post of yesterday which addresses some of this.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do agree that a $60,000 travel budget unlikely includes much in the way of private jet travel. However, there is a large sum of expenses in the ticket prices for the concerts that remains unexplained and could certainly be where these trips could be buried. Please note that I’m not accusing – I am questioning.
[...] Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal By RICK UNGAR When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up. Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant [...]
screw all you sean hannity haters you pieces of shit
thanks so much for your intelligent comment. you’ve done much to further your point of view with your high level of dialogue. If you feel the need to comment here in the future – lose the obscenity, try to generate some brain cells to contribute something of value or prepare to see your comment cut.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for raising the level of the dialogue.Now, please go somewhere else.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] RICK UNGAR When conservative commentators begin eating their own, you know that something is up. Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant Sean Hannity wasted his time soliciting 7 dollars here 2 dollars there or $11 over there. All he [...]
I think Bill O’Reilly should dedicate his show to investigating this scandal for the next month or two. As I recall, Bill O’Reilly tore into the Red Cross (and other charities’) expenses associated with funds raised after 9/11. Seems only fair and balanced for Bill to go to work on Sean and his selfserving expenses at the expense of the children of fallen soldiers
[...] Quand les commentateurs conservateurs commencent à manger leur propre, vous savez que quelque chose est en hausse. Debbie Schlussel est raisonnablement bien connue commentateur conservateur d'une radio et à la suite de grandes ligne. Alors que j'ai toujours trouvé qu'elle soit sur le dessus – en particulier avec sa rhétorique anti-musulmane – elle a sûrement le respect de la communauté conservatrice. [. . . ] URL article original: http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/20/sean-hannity-in-serious-military-charity-scandal/ [...]
I can’t take the time to go over everything in your post, but I would like to address your take on the 2008 tax report:
“Folks, when a charity’s expenditure on stamps equals the amount they spent fulfilling the actual mission of the charity, something is seriously wrong.”
“It is a well established rule of thumb that a legitimate charity is expected to spend 75% of its revenues on the mission of the charity. In 2008, Freedom Alliance spent 12%”
IMO, Rick, Ms. Schlussel selectively reported numbers designed to make Freedom Alliance look bad, and ignored a great portion of what they do.
First of all, Freedom Alliance doesn’t just provide scholarships to children of those killed in the service of the country and grants to injured service members. They also hold “appreciation dinners” and other events for troops and their families, as well as send thousands of gift packages to troops overseas.
The Appreciation dinners involve taking as many as 140 troops and their families to a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, while an appreciation event might be a golf tournament for 100 soldiers.
They say on their website that they recently shipped over 1000 “Gift from Home” packages to soldiers overseas. Via the USPS for $12.50, I recently shipped a “large flat-rate APO box” of treats to an airman in Afghanistan, so $10K – $12K for that 1000-box shipment wouldn’t be out of line. Add in a few more of those per year, plus mailings of the three-times-a-year newsletters, and you can see that the postal costs add up.
Look at their website for more info and examples:
http://www.freedomalliance.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2321&Itemid=61
In the 2008 tax filing, they state that they spent $1,277,346 (including $553,610 in grants) on sixty-nine troop appreciation events. Schlussel never mentions this.
They also spent $2,324,440 on public policy and education (see page 2 of the 2008 return).
Once you add these into the mix, you begin to approach a much larger program expense number that allows Charity Navigator to give them such a high rating.
Regarding the small amounts sent to the wounded soldiers, if you read some of the newsletters FA has posted on their site, you’ll see that those small grants are for things like a plane ticket to fly a wife to visit her husband in the hospital, to buy groceries for the family, etc. They are not meant to pay a soldier for his or her injuries.
Schlussel also attacks them for giving out scholarships of $802,250 in 2008, while expensing over $400,000. She argues that taking these expenses violates the pledge that all money directed to the scholarship fund will be given out in scholarships. Yet she doesn’t report that on page 2 of the filing, where the $802,250 is listed and described, the description states (and yes, I know money is fungible):
“Expenses associated with administering the scholarship fund are paid from unrestricted donations.”
IOW, the scholarships come from the restricted funds in the trust account, while the expenses come out of the general budget.
In conclusion, Schlussel could just be sloppy, but IMO, she has a problem with Hannity (she often refers to him as “Vanity”) and is selectively pulling info from the tax returns in order to try to “take him down”.
I look forward to your reply
I didn’t rely on Ms. Schlussel for my numbers. It also is not a matter of where they spent their money for donations. It is simply a matter of their spending on expenses being way out of line with what is acceptable for a credible charity. I have reviewed the tax returns from 2006, 2007, 2008. The amount of money wasted in expenses is seriously high when compared to what was given to beneficiaries. This is why an action was filed today with the FTC and the IRS.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Any resemblance to the Hannity soldiers’ charity scam (not interesting to the media) scandal m… [...]
[...] FINALLY just burn this guy and his I'm-better-than-you'll-ever-be grin at the stake? The link: Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal When conservative commentators begin eating [...]
As a legal question, Mr. Hannity has stated on several occasions “all of the money raised” would go to the military families/survivors and that he has not received “a single dime”. If people made their donations based upon those and similar misleading statements, then why not seriously consider Fraud and/or Conspiracy to commit Fraud? Given the vast amount of money raised, and the fact that the misleading statements were disseminated across state lines, aren’t there grounds for a federal criminal investigation at the very least? Other charities have to face similar scrutiny, why not this one?
I’m not sure that, legally, there is an obligation that would rise to fraud- particularly since Hannity is not an officer of the charity. However, from a moral point of view, I think it is something entirely different.
In response to another comment. See in context »Further, there needs to be an official accounting of what is really going on here, not a “he said, she said” list of accusations and claims. We need verification. For example, it has been suggested in other articles that Mr. Hannity is paid apx. $200,000 per appearance, but I have found no way to verify if this is an accurate statement. If true, it would lend greater emphasis on my suggestion that there needs to be a criminal probe given his prior verifiable statements that he has never received a dime. But again, who is verifying all of these claims?
the only way you can get such an accounting is if Freedom Alliance comes forward. I’m pretty certain that Hannity was not paid money directly from the charity as, if he was, they lied on their tax return – which I very much doubt they did. However, the Freedom Concerts were staged by a separate, profit making company (see my piece on this) and it would be possible for Hannity to have been paid from that company. Of course, as this is a private company, it would have no obligation to come forward with the details of its business.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for pursuing this story. I understand your points regarding the legal vs. ethical/moral distinctions you’ve made and after further reading from this and other sources I am sadly inclined to agree. I am, however, still somewhat surprised that there are so few legal remedies available if, in fact, the asserted claims are found to be true. I’ll continue to follow this story in the hopes that morality will win in the end.
In response to another comment. See in context »I also thank you for covering this story. There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies in the numbers. I am looking forward to any new information into this charity “scandal”. I am also eager to hear what Hannity has to say in response.
I’m glad that it is a conservative source (Schlussel) that outed Hannity and his spending though. If it was a liberal organization breaking this story to us, conservatives would likely disregard it as nonsense … that is until the proof came out.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] True Slant dot com; Since first posting my initial story on this breaking scandal two days ago, more information has come to light on the subject while much [...]
[...] story criticizing the charity but not alleging any illegality, a Daily Kos story from 2007, a user post in True Slant from last week reporting on and evaluating Schlussel’s claims, and a Huffington Post news story documenting [...]
According that what I reviewed in the tax documents, Sched A, part III, line 3a, Freedom Alliance actually spent $6,084,474 as opposed to your stated $1,060,275.57. BIG difference.
You’re going to have to be more specific . If you are referencing the 2008 return, Sched A , part III, found on page 14, has no 3(a) and the section also references income – not funds spent. Further there are no entries on that page. Could you be more specific in what you are referencing so I can respond?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] about charity money that's supposed to go to fallen military soldiers' children for college. Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant And now this: Daily Kos: State of the Nation I actually used to watch his show on Fox regularly. [...]
Good piece that of course only scratches the surface. I am a veteran and I can tell you that like many others, my blood boils when this dirtbag “thanks” american service personnel for their “service”. It’s funny how scum like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et.al. have a penchant for talking about subjects of which they no nothing. While it is accepted knowledge that these ratings harlots are a danger to the country, they manage to wreak the havoc as instructed. Hannity has children, yet incites the redneck morons that listen to his diatribe to refute the necessity of caring for the ecology. Even worse than defecating on the military of his country, Hannity is willing to convince his ignorant minions that the status quo is “a o.k.” If you really believed in a higher power Hannity, you would see the water rising around your children’s feet and start repenting. Do you remember that margarine commercial that said “don’t fool with mother nature”. Take heed big business shills, beacuse when the proverbial bullets start flying the traitors will get fragged. HOO-RAH HANNITY
The fact is, sir, that YOU are the one slanting on this issue. Hannity makes it 100% clear that he brings his whole family around the country with him as well as friends to the Freedom Concerts, so you can drop that argument. Second of all, he makes it abunduntly clear that the PROFIT goes to charity. Have u ever run a business? What do you think a normal PROFIT MARGIN is? The FACT is that 12% is a great profit margin and the FACT is that sometimes businesses only run profits of 4 to 7%. You also are slanting when you say people’s “donations” to this charity. Don’t you realize that these “donations” are concert tickets? These people are paying for a concert and when all expenses are covered, the PROFIT goes to the charity. I mean, I know you realize this, but you’d like to do some “slanting” yourself it appears.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen someone be quite so indignant and quite so wrong all at the same time!
Let me answer your questions.
1. “Hannity makes it 100% clear that he brings his whole family around the country with him as well as friends to the Freedom Concerts, so you can drop that argument.”
What he doesn’t make clear is that he is doing so at the cost to the charity of expensive hotel suites, a fleet of cars, etc. If Hannity wants to bring his family, that’s very nice. But when he does so at the expense of the non-profit – and the soldiers who are suppose to be getting the help from that non-profit- not so nice. If I give money to a charity, I want it to go to the intended beneficiaries, not some wealthy promoter’s family. You?
2. “Have u ever run a business?”
I guess if running a very successful NYSE business- which recently sold for $5 billion counts as running a business, yeah…I’ve run a business.
3. “The FACT is that 12% is a great profit margin and the FACT is that sometimes businesses only run profits of 4 to 7%.”
The FACT is you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about – so much so, that you are embarrasing even your co-Hannity fans.
This is NOT a business operating for profit. This is a non-profit charitable venture.
The rule of thumb for non-profits (and, yeah, sorry but I know a little something about this), is that if they are not delivering 75% of their income to the stated beneficiaries of the charity, they are a dismal failure. to be fair, there are variations on that – and some years are better than others – but, in nobody’s definition of a reasonably acceptable 501(c)(3) company is 12% in the same universe as acceptable.
“Don’t you realize that these “donations” are concert tickets? These people are paying for a concert and when all expenses are covered, the PROFIT goes to the charity.”
Tell you what. Don’t take my word for it. READ WHAT IS PRINTED ON THE TICKETS. Read where the concert promoters say the money is going and how much of it is going there. If it works for you, give them all the money you like. As for those actually want to support our troops – and not Sean Hannity’s scam – I think they’ve pretty much figured out the real deal here.
You know, I really don’t care how Hannity spends his time and efforts. What I do care about is anyone who pretends to be helping our troops instead of actually helping our troops. If supporting Sean Hannity – or anyone else- is more important to you than seeing money go to real charities who are really doing serious work for our injured troops and their families, then knock yourself out. But don’t pretend you give a crap about the troops when you are unwilling to know the facts and understand what you’re talking about.
In response to another comment. See in context »Look, you are clearly missing the fact that this is not set up as a traditional charity. You are portraying it as a traditional charity and although the tax designation may be a 501c3, it is not meant to be a charity simply taking donations and passing them on. They put on concerts, they don’t put people on the phone calling around for donations. Clearly there is a difference which you are choosing to ignore here. You are obviously biased in this regard and it just annoyed me that you are writing this article on a website claiming to distinguish between truth/slant.
In response to another comment. See in context »So the single best charity that Sean Hannity and Oliver North can find to support the troops is a business that donates a tiny fraction of its funding to its stated charitable purpose and gives far more to its sponsors, all while hiding behind the veneer of legitimacy of being a 501c3 “charity”? Whenever you donate to a charity you believe the money is going to the cause, not to line the pockets of wealthy sponsors who train their followers to ludicrously defend their lack of action by saying they aren’t a real charity that “simply takes donations and passes them on”. I guess it is far more important to hold self-aggrandizing ego-fests disguised as concerts to entertain the masses while picking their pockets.
I’ve re-written this three times to tone it down, but I keep coming to the same conclusions. Any time someone panders to your ego (i.e. letting you lie to yourself that you are spending money on the troops when you are really going for your own entertainment) you should beware. That more people don’t know this is a sad testament to our culture. That people who claim to care are exploiting this is a sad testament to human nature itself.
In response to another comment. See in context »…
@BulletMagnetEd…
Its my firm belief that no matter what the charity a person needs to check on where the money is going, and make sure at least 90% is going to the actual people in need.
Religious folks on TV are horrid when it comes to not spending the money people pledge to a cause. Heck even groups that say they help police or fire fighters are often shams in my view.
But to not spend 90% of the money to actually help the wounded vets or their families/children should be a crime!!!
[...] for permits yada yada…. but all the profits went to SWOF. Lets hope he didnt pull a hannity.. Sean Hannity in serious military charity scandal – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant What hannity did was just horrible, but not surprising. __________________ "YOU are an [...]