05-07-2014, 02:08 PM
For me, it's about the cause.
If I believe in the cause and I'm supporting the organization's mission, I'm gonna accept monetary donations from all donors, unless its known to be illegally-obtained. I've participated in a few fundraisers and we never screened the donors' characters or personal lives.
But, hailing someone as deserving the lifetime achievement award for writing checks -- especially when that person is known or suspected to contradict the organization's philosophy when outside of the spotlight -- in order to keep his/her donations rolling in is something that puts the organization's integrity in question, to me.
Of course, it's possible that the NAACP had a non-financial motive for publicly honoring Sterling. If so, beats me what it was and the NAACP isn't sharing that motive.
If I believe in the cause and I'm supporting the organization's mission, I'm gonna accept monetary donations from all donors, unless its known to be illegally-obtained. I've participated in a few fundraisers and we never screened the donors' characters or personal lives.
But, hailing someone as deserving the lifetime achievement award for writing checks -- especially when that person is known or suspected to contradict the organization's philosophy when outside of the spotlight -- in order to keep his/her donations rolling in is something that puts the organization's integrity in question, to me.
Of course, it's possible that the NAACP had a non-financial motive for publicly honoring Sterling. If so, beats me what it was and the NAACP isn't sharing that motive.