503-673-3853

Have you ever had a funder pull out of a sponsorship or grantmaking deal because of your association with a revolutionary movement or because of something a person at your nonprofit said about them?

Do YOU find it horrifying that an AmeriCorps VISTA might make $16,000 per year, or just minimum wage, while the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes $16,000 per HOUR?

Did you hear Goldman pulled out of a fundraiser after learning it honored Occupy Wall Street?

Apparently, the revolution will NOT be funded.

If you read Phil Cubeta’s short posts over the last week or so, you’ll see that he is picking the scab on the thing fundraisers don’t like to talk about, namely, you have to keep your head down and not seem TOO revolutionary, or you won’t get funded.

According to Phil, if you look too closely at the cause of income inequality, you find the very people who are funding you to study it. And they don’t want to hear that.

Here’s some good news. Occupy Wall Street now has almost half a million dollars in donations. They are putting it in a credit union. The credit union decided to throw a fundraising dinner, and Goldman Sachs withdrew their $5,000 sponsorship. Capital One, however, is still in. Wonder why?

Maybe Goldman Sachs thinks that Occupy Wall Street can actually WIN.

If you even mildly criticize your funders, you get denuded of funding as well, as Pamela Grow reported on the Reel Girls/Comcast debacle. She called it, “The Story of a Small Nonprofit and the Power of Social Media.” Then Reel Girls decided to show what Comcast was doing, and make up the comcast grant (which was only about $15,000) and ask their supporters to side with them. And they did, overwhelmingly. Because Reel Girls are about free speech, and they think that Comcast should recognize it. Comcast later said okay, you can have the money (probably because it turned into such a PR headache for them) but Reel Girls said no, thanks, we’re good. and this is why your gift policy and grant agreements should clearly state that funding will not stop just because your nonprofit exercises free speech.

What do you think?

How do YOU feel about having to rub shoulders with people high up in finance and industry, in the name of your cause, all the while knowing that the people you’re talking with make more in a few months than anyone at your nonprofit makes in a year?

Have you ever had an issue with wanting to criticize a funder, but being afraid to lose your funding?