A Look At The Books Of Celebrity Charities: Bono, Clooney, Petra, Larry King & More

NY Post:

THEY have good looks, but they could use some serious help straightening out their books.

George Clooney, Bono, Wyclef Jean, Petra Nemcova and a half-dozen other celebs have founded charities that have some eyebrow-raising business practices, The Post uncovered in a sweeping review.

Jean's charity to help Haitians has failed to file tax returns for eight years. Bono's mega-foundation chartered a plane to Africa and bought tickets for a U2 concert.

Poker lover George Clooney took in donations from a dubious online card-games company. And Giant Super Bowl hero Osi Umenyiora has dropped the ball when it comes to even registering his charity to benefit Africa and research into Alzheimer's disease.

Read the whole story: NY Post

Comments

[harriettubman]

As poor as Haiti is, Wyclef needs to stop throwing money at that country. He needs to find a suitable educated person to run for office. Until Haiti has a stable and consistent government, donating money is only temporary.

With all these charities, that's why I'm very selective which ones I choose. Just because a celebrity runs it doesn't mean it's worth anything. Years ago, Jada & Will had one that gave baby items to low income mothers. I wrote them for a group I had and never heard back. After 9/11 and the mismanagement of the Red Cross disbursing money, I do more locally now than these big charities.

I find it ridiculous to oversee a charity then request to stay in a 5 star hotel, meals, and a salary. Give locally, at least you can find out what they do and how much money is going where.

[magneato]

I read that Sting's charities are among the worst as well.
What's the deal, celebs?

[kellygrrrl]

Petra does not look healthy. Hope she hasn't gotten herself into something dangerous. She's been through a lot.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

OK. I got scrubbed the first time... and I don't know why. Let's try this again.

TOP 8 WORST CHARITIES:

Percentage represents the money the "charity" KEEPS or gives to the people they hired to raise the funds, rather than give to the cause.

Disable Veterans Association - 96.4%
American Veterans Relief Foundation - 85.9%
Jr. Police Academy - 86%
Fire Figters Charitable Foundation - 88.2%
Foundation for Children with Cancer - 82%
National Childrens Lukemia Foundation - 79%
Wishing Well Foundation - 78%
Children Charity Fund - 78%

BEST CHARITY:

Disable American Veterans Charitable Service Trust - 96% of money goes to VETERANS

With the Holidays coming up, please keep a list near your phone or in your wallet, and don't give your money to these scammers.

[Charity]

thanks for the heads up - i was almost stung by the firefighters phony group one time. they were NOT the local firefighters in my area; i believe they were the one you mentioned. when i questioned them on the phone, they hung up on me. i promptly called our local firefighters, station number 1, to give them a piece of my mind and that was when i discovered they weren't even fundraising - for anything. the only official fundraiser they do in our city is for MDA.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

LIST OF 8 WROST CHARITIES.

The Percentage represents the amount of money raised that goes TO FUND RAISERS hired to raise the money, NOT THE CHARITY.

Disabled Veterans Association - 96.4% goes to fund raisers. Basically, a scam and SHAMEFUL.

Fire Fighters Charitable Foundation - 88.2%

Jr. Police Academy - 86%

American Veteran Relief Foundation for Children with Cancer - 82%

National Children's Lukemia Foundation - 79%

Wishing Well Foundation 78%

Childrens Charity Fund 78%

BEST CHARITY - Giving 96% of funds raised to cause:

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS CHARITABLE SERVICE TRUST, which gives 96% of it's funds to the cause of helping our VETERANS.

I'm gonna send them money this week.

With the Holidays coming up, please don't be fooled and donate to the above 8. Make a list, keep it by your phone, in your wallet and anywhere else that will remind you that these are basically scams...pulling your heartstrings for their own interests.

[dagdavid]

I am disgusted. The most egregious misuse of all monies - Bono's charity:

"The Washington, DC-based group - now known as One - took in an eye-popping $31 million in 2006 but spent just $6 million on its work. Among its outrageous expenses were a $272,700 bill to charter a plane, a $117,838 tab for "transportation and security" and $8,740 for U2 tour tickets."

I don't want to hear any crap about how hard these charities are to manage. I work very hard and make a modest living. I make a $100 donation to the one campaign and only $6.00 actually goes to the cause?! It is sickening and criminal. Bono's spokeswoman gives some lame excuse about expenditures which only makes me angrier.

If Bono and other celebs want to lend their names to a cause then THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE! Period. The first thing Bono needs to do is reimburse the charities from his own fortune for the $25 million spent on crap. The next thing he needs to do is come out publicly, denounce these reprehensible practices and the, either dismantle the charities, or completely restructure and then be held responsible for all future accounting.

I know there will be celeb obsessed posters that will defend these stars "They are just trying to do good, blah, blah, blah." When your charity raises $31 million and spends $6 you are a thief. Period.

[newdreams]

The recipients of these charities can probably tell you a much different story. There are desperate people out there in need of help. At least these celebrities are taking the time and effort to help in any way they can - and for the most part they are doing a great job. Other celebrities not included in the article but whose charities are legendary (maybe I just missed them) are Oprah, the late Paul Newman, and celebrity-of-sorts Bill Gates.

[dagdavid]

Are you kidding? What is with you celebrity obsessed people that constantly try to defend the indefensible. Millions of people around the world give of their time and money to help charities and they're not ripping off anyone. Yeah, Paul Newman's charity was and is excellent, but the article doesn't mention Paul Newman because it is an article about CHARITIES THAT HAVE RIPPED OFF DONORS!

[newdreams]

It's ok to look at the glass half full or half empty - because it's not complete either way. All I was saying is that from the standpoint of a person that would not have their life, health, education, etc. without the charities discussed here, they filled a desperate need that would not otherwise be met. These celebrities did not have to spend their time, money, or 'celebrity' to help these people, but they chose to. I mentioned Newman, Oprah, and Gates because I felt the article did not include the bigger picture of celebrity charities that actually do work well. There are some that do seem like more of a sham. But the important idea with any charity is the recipient - and that what was given to them actually gets to them. The article delivered a one-sided view that celebrity charities are shady at best. I disagreed with its premise, in that some may be murky, but some have succeeded with amazing results.

[rini]

Yeah, the charities are not all they should be, but let's be honest.
It's hard to manage these things. I think that the celebrities have good intentions, but poor or average management skills. Then there are greedy people that take advantage.

A celeb should stick to one charity and watch it like a hawk. They should only let trusted friends handle the funds.