The National Organization for Marriage is not a charity

[rm]

Chase is giving money to charity this holiday season. They have some Facebook page or other about this.

Chase has a reasonable definition of eligible charities for this project:
"Eligible charities must be 501(c)(3) organizations with an operating budget of under $10 million, and must meet the other listed requirements. A Charity that, by itself or through an affiliated entity, discriminates on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, veteran status, medical condition, citizenship, ancestry or marital status is not eligible."

Despite this, the National Organization for Marriage is on the Chase charity list. Odds are if we send Chase nice and informative letters, this will get corrected quickly and efficiently.

Details here: http://keori.livejournal.com/312571.html

Comments

[marcmagus]

Thanks for the heads up. I do quite a bit of business with Chase. I'll definitely be contacting them.

[lawsontl.livejournal.com]

I will pass the link on to my friends in the Pride group. Many of us are still in touch. However, practically all the info you need to go directly to Chase's PAC is right in the following link, other than an e-mail address. PACs are always publicly registered.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00104299

I would suggest

[newwaytowrite.livejournal.com]

that is likely that at this time in history The National Organization for Marriage has more than 10 million dollars in their purse thus disqualifying them on two counts.

[(Anonymous)]

Posting anonymously because I'm a current JPMC employee and don't like to link my job with my LJ.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/03/JPMorgan_Chase_NOM_Ineligible_for_Charity_Contest/

The head of JPMC media relations confirmed that NOM is ineligible and would not get any money even if they did garner a winning number of votes. The company uses a 3rd party vendor to provide the list of charities, so at this point no one had to make any applications to Chase to get put on that list.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Ahah! Thank you! I wonder who the third party vendor is, because they should hardly be counting NOM as a charity either -- it's a PAC. Even PACs with agendas I support shouldn't be listed as charities.

[lawsontl.livejournal.com]

I think the key here is "third party vendor." Anyone who has ever worked with a vendor knows what a mess that situation can be.

[marcmagus]

The database of groups was generated by GuideStar, a third-party firm that provides research on nonprofit groups.

GuideStar and their Contact Us

It looks like GuideStar provides a service of checking whether organizations are eligible to receive designated funds under federal non-profit guidelines. Their service may be unable to make the particular distinction Chase wants. This would be a technical limitation they should fix, so from a quick look around I suspect contacting them might be appropriate.

[marcmagus]

[Quote is from the Advocate.com link upthread]

[lawsontl.livejournal.com]

Good luck to you, anon! And thanks for the link. I knew Chase would do the right thing on this :) Despite my problems with how certain aspects of the firm were managed before I got RIFfed, their LGBT position was always a source of pride for me.

[lostin-thestars.livejournal.com]

If you would like a good charity to donate to, check out the Children's Network. We work with low income children to make sure they and their families have access to the economic and social supports they need Please vote for us!!!!


sorry to piggyback... you can delete the comment if you like.