ASSESSING VETERANS’ CHARITIES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

DECEMBER 13, 2007 AND JANUARY 17, 2008

Serial No. 110–68

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

ASSESSING VETERANS’ CHARITIES

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–005 PDF 2008

ASSESSING VETERANS’ CHARITIES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

DECEMBER 13, 2007 AND JANUARY 17, 2008

Serial No. 110–68

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on:

December 13, 2007 ................................................................................................... 1

January 17, 2008 ..................................................................................................... 127

Statement of:

Carroll, Bonnie, executive director, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; Pamela L. Seman, executive director, Disabled Veterans Associations; Robert Friend, president, American Veterans Coalition; Daniel

Borochoff, president, American Institute of Philanthropy; and Bennett

Weiner, chief operating officer, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance .................................................................................................... 67

Borochoff, Daniel ....................................................................................... 94

Carroll, Bonnie .......................................................................................... 67

Friend, Robert ............................................................................................ 92

Seman, Pamela L. ..................................................................................... 88

Weiner, Bennett ........................................................................................ 105

Chapin, Roger, president, Help Hospitalized Veterans, Inc. and Coalition

to Salute America’s Heroes Foundation; Richard A. Viguerie, chairman,

American Target Advertising, Inc.; Geoffrey W. Peters, chairman, Creative Direct Response; and Belinda J. Johns, senior assistant attorney

general, Charitable Trusts Section, California Attorney General’s Office .................................................................................................................. 155

Chapin, Roger ............................................................................................ 155

Johns, Belinda J. ....................................................................................... 202

Peters, Geoffrey W. ................................................................................... 189

Viguerie, Richard A. .................................................................................. 172

Edmundson, Edgar, father of Sergeant Eric Edmundson, a wounded veteran; and Tracy L. McCurdy, director, Bureau of Charitable Organizations for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............................................ 33

Edmundson, Edgar .................................................................................... 33

McCurdy, Tracy L. .................................................................................... 40

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Borochoff, Daniel, president, American Institute of Philanthropy, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 97

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, information concering Cal. Corp. Code Sec. 5236 ............................ 228

Carroll, Bonnie, executive director, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82

Prepared statement of Daniel R. Sudnick, chief financial officer,

Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors ......................................... 68

Chapin, Roger, president, Help Hospitalized Veterans, Inc. and Coalition

to Salute America’s Heroes Foundation ...................................................... 157

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statements of..................................................................... 17, 146

Edmundson, Edgar, father of Sergeant Eric Edmundson, a wounded veteran, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 36

Johns, Belinda J., senior assistant attorney general, Charitable Trusts

Section, California Attorney General’s Office, prepared statement of ..... 204

McCurdy, Tracy L., director, Bureau of Charitable Organizations for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................... 43

Peters, Geoffrey W., chairman, Creative Direct Response, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 191

Seman, Pamela L., executive director, Disabled Veterans Associations,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 90

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut:

Letter dated January 17, 2008 ................................................................. 270

Letter dated May 2, 2006 ......................................................................... 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Viguerie, Richard A., chairman, American Target Advertising, Inc., prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 175

Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California:

Letter dated December 13, 2007 .............................................................. 4

Memo dated January 17, 2008 ................................................................. 129

Prepared statements of ........................................................................... 10, 139

Weiner, Bennett, chief operating officer, the Better Business Bureau’s

Wise Giving Alliance, prepared statement of ............................................. 107

(1)

ASSESSING VETERANS’ CHARITIES

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich,

Tierney, Watson, Higgins, Yarmuth, Braley, Norton, Van Hollen,

Hodes, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia, Burton, Shays, Platts,

Cannon, Turner, Issa, Foxx, and Sali.

Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett, staff director and general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior policy advisor; David Rapallo, chief investigative

counsel; John Williams, deputy chief investigative counsel; Suzanne Renaud and Susanne Sachsman, counsels; Daniel Davis, professional staff member; Earley Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal,

deputy clerk; Ella Hoffman, press assistant; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; David Marin, minority staff director; Larry

Halloran, minority deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, minority

general counsel; Grace Washbourne, minority senior professional

staff member; Todd Greenwood, minority legislative assistant; Nick

Palarino, minority senior investigator and policy advisor; Patrick

Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator;

Brian McNicoll, minority communications director; Ali Ahmad, minority deputy press secretary; and John Ohly, minority staff assistant.

Chairman WAXMAN. The committee will please come to order.

This morning’s hearing is about deceit and a sickening betrayal

of our most fundamental values, and I hope it is the first step in

fixing an intolerable fraud.

I think many Americans are beginning to understand the incredible sacrifice our troops are making in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over

4,000 American soldiers have been killed. Thousands more are

coming home with terrible physical and psychological injuries.

But few of us understand that these deaths and injuries often

leave families with crippling financial burdens. We assume that

Government will provide the services, the benefits and support that

our soldiers earn through their selfless sacrifice. Too often, that is

an illusion, not a reality.

Many charities are trying to provide the missing support, and

this is the time of year when families receive all kinds of charitable

solicitations in the mail, over the phone and from people knocking

2

on our doors, and nothing is more compelling than a charity dedicated to helping our troops and our veterans.

Many of these groups do heroic work. We are fortunate that one

of these groups, TAPS, is with us today, and I want to encourage

the American people to be generous in supporting these charities.

But our committee has learned that a disturbing number of

groups are raising millions of dollars in the name of helping veterans but keeping most of the donations for themselves. Instead of

using the money to provide financial assistance or help veterans

obtain care, these groups and the professional fundraisers they employ blatantly line their own pockets. They betray their donors and

the troops who desperately need help.

In some cases, these organizations spend as much as 90 percent

of the donations they receive on fundraising activities rather than

helping veterans. In some cases, the executives pay themselves

over half a million, $500,000, a year.

In some cases, they jump from State to State, trying to stay one

step ahead of State regulators. If Pennsylvania catches them using

deceptive fundraising tactics, they close up shop and start again in

Iowa, and all the while they are deceiving well intentioned donors

and denying veterans the help they need.

We are honored that Ed Edmundson, whose son, Eric, was severely injured in Iraq in 2005, is here to give us a firsthand account of the challenges that families face, and thank you for being

here. To deal with Eric’s injuries, Mr. Edmundson quit his job and

is devoting himself full time to his son’s care.

I also welcome our other witnesses. Your testimony will provide

the committee with a wide range of perspectives. I know some of

you did not want to be here today, but you recognized your obligation to respond to our questions.

I want to say a few words about a witness who is not here today.

Roger Chapin has a long history of establishing veterans’ charities

dating back to the Vietnam War. Currently, he is operating a number of charities focused on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There have been serious allegations against Mr. Chapin, including allegations that he is paying exorbitant salaries to himself and

his wife, using donations to pay for questionable expenses such as

new condos, shifting funds among his various groups to skew reporting numbers and concealing millions of dollars in payments to

for-profit fundraising corporations.

Mr. Chapin not only refused to testify voluntarily today, but he

refused to allow his attorney to receive the subpoena our committee

issued to him. For the last week, Mr. Chapin has gone into hiding

and evaded the best efforts of the U.S. Marshals trying to serve

him.

Mr. Chapin’s charities have raised over $98 million last year, yet

he refused to appear to answer questions about how this money

was spent. I suppose he figured if he could hide from the Marshal

for a few days, he could avoid this hearing.

Mr. Chapin will not be here today, but he will be at a second

hearing that we are going to call on January 17, 2008. The committee is issuing a new subpoena for Mr. Chapin, and we are sending

it directly to the U.S. Marshals to serve Mr. Chapin.

3

I ask unanimous consent that the committee’s letter to him be

made part of the record and, without objection, that will be the

order.

[The information referred to follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

Chairman WAXMAN. I want to thank Mr. Davis and his staff for

their cooperation in this investigation. This is a genuine bipartisan

investigation. They have been champions of the interests of veterans, and this committee is grateful for their efforts.

I think all Members today share my outrage as how our veterans

have been treated and how those who have donated money to help

them have been betrayed.

I want to recognize Mr. Davis for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing today as we continue to focus on issues affecting the

brave men and women who serve our country.

We are joined in this mission by the American people. Public

support for our troops is overwhelming, and our fellow citizens generously give their money, time and prayers to those who defend our

freedom.

Much of that support is channeled through private charities.

Today, we take the time to evaluate some of these organizations

and ask some appropriately tough questions.

We all want to believe that money donated to a charity is used

wisely. We put our faith in what we assume to be the good faith

of others, but charities do not always perform as we hope. With

some heartlessly capitalizing on broad public support for veterans

to engage in wasteful or even fraudulent fundraising and management practices.

Today, we will hear testimony to help guide us in evaluating the

efficiency, accountability and governance of charitable organizations. We will hear from various watchdog groups whose role is to

oversee the charitable community and provide donors with the objective facts they need to make informed decisions about where to

best direct their contributions.

Now, Congress has visited this issue before. In 2004, a panel on

the non-profit sector, convened at the impetus of the Senate Finance Committee, brought together a broad cross-section of those

involved in charities and foundations for a thorough examination

of non-profit governance, transparency and ethical standards.

The panel’s conclusions emphasized that a vibrant charitable sector must remain independent to be effective, recognizing that the

first amendment demands charities be given wide latitude in the

exercise of fundamental associated freedoms, but the panel also

found Government oversight and regulation necessary to deter

abuse, misrepresentation and fraud.

We build on those important findings today because a new generation of veterans and their families, suffering the acute and latent traumas of modern warfare, are looking to charities for help

and they are looking to us to help them know which organizations

are really trying to help veterans and which organizations are just

helping themselves.

There is no easy test, no magic ratio of program expenditures to

fundraising costs that automatically distinguishes good charities

from bad ones. Some startups for marginalized or unpopular causes

may have to spend 50, 60 or 70 percent of their revenue on outreach, education and fundraising for a while.

But charities that consistently spend up to 90 percent gross donation revenue on overhead, with only a trickle of the remainder

going for token program grants, just don’t pass the smell test.

Those charities are soaking up funds meant to help veterans, and

badly managed or abusive operations merit close scrutiny by local

and State regulators, State and Federal tax authorities and Congress.

Particularly during this holiday season with holiday joy and

sharing, Americans are unmatched in their generosity and willingness to help those in need. We owe it to those generous donors and

16

the veterans they want to thank to make sure charities operate as

faithful and efficient stewards of the money that they collect. Testimony by today’s witnesses will help us do that important job.

Again, Mr. Chairman, than you for convening this hearing and

your leadership on this issue.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

17

18

19

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

I know many Members have been active on this issue, and I

want to recognize any Member who wishes to make an opening

statement.

Let me see if anybody does. Mr. Tierney, no.

Ms. Watson, do you wish to make an opening statement.

Ms. WATSON. No, I will concede my time to you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK, thanks.

Mr. Shays, I know that you do.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am eager to make a

statement, and I thank you for this hearing, a very important hearing.

In 1625, sir, Francis Bacon proclaimed, ‘‘In charity, there is no

excess.’’ The American people certainly agree as U.S. charitable

giving in the United States reached a record of almost $300 billion

in 2006.

Unfortunately, at today’s hearing, we will learn there can be

egregious excess of a different kind. Many self-proclaimed charities

are collecting funds on behalf of our Nation’s valiant veterans only

to devote a small amount to actual services for veterans and their

families. While this is not a crime, it is an outrage we must correct.

As in past wars, the global war on terror has inspired the American people to open their giving hearts to support returning soldiers. Since 2001, contributions to military and veterans’ charities

have increased by almost half a billion dollars, totaling $2.48 billion in 2007. Implicit in these generous donations is the assumption that most, if not all, of the funds are going toward actually

helping veterans.

Recent reports from five private sector charity watchdogs have

exposed many charities devote less 35 percent of the money they

raise to actual veterans’ services. In one particular case, the American Veterans Relief Foundation of Santa Ana, CA, raised $3.6 million of which only $21,000 was ever directed to veterans’ grants

and assistance. That is less than 1 percent of the donations.

And, as we will find out today, behind some of these charities are

telemarketing and mass mailing businesses whose contracts with

charities allow them to keep up to 90 percent of what is raised.

While these practices may be technically legal, they are clearly immoral.

I am looking forward to hearing more about the state of the veterans’ charities from two of our country’s top charity oversight

groups, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and the

American Institute for Philanthropy.

I recognize through continuous rulings, the Supreme Court has

limited executive and legislative power to regulate charitable giving and that much of the existing oversight power lies at the State

level. I look forward to hearing from the Bureau of Charitable Organizations’ representative from the State of Pennsylvania as

Pennsylvania has done some of the most aggressive charity oversight in the Nation. We need to encourage more States to do what

Pennsylvania is doing.

20

At the Federal level, we should examine whether the Internal

Revenue Service [IRS], or the Federal Trade Commission [FTC],

should do more and what laws can be changed to stop this outrage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.

Does any other Member wish to make an opening statement?

Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.

I appreciate the fact that you are holding this very bipartisan

committee hearing at this time of year. As many of us are contemplating a donation to charitable organizations, it is important

to ensure we can give with confidence and that our contributions

will help someone in need.

In preparation for today’s hearing, I, perhaps like other Members, had to scrutinize the list of charities that will be discussed

today against those I had given. Even though we do endeavor to

look and to get to the bottom of what the ratio of contributions to

overhead to recipients receiving are, it is certainly possible for any

of us to find ourselves giving to a charity that is less than reputable.

Although I hope that we will not look into legitimate costs of

fundraising because often a direct mail campaign, which can be

quite expensive, does two things: it raises money for a cause and

it also educates.

It is clear that today the examples that we will see do not fall

into that category. They fall into the category of what I would call

profiteering, profiteering by those who use the name of a soldier or

a cause in order to justify fundraising that ultimately leads to profits for individuals who may or may not be veterans, may or may

not have any need, may simply be good at fundraising.

I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, saying that

although we have limited jurisdiction, it is clear that on half a billion dollars of tax-deductible donations, we certainly give a great

deal of what one might call matching funds. I have no objections

to that tax deductibility, but it is very clear that if we can help

educate the consumer to give more wisely, then the dollars of tax

deductibility that the Federal Government effectively matches with

the donor will be better spent.

Therefore, I appreciate your holding this hearing and hope that

we all view that it is not only the individual’s money that is being

squandered but the matching tax-deductible portion, thus Federal

taxpayers’ dollars that are going into the hands, at times, of profiteers.

With that, I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

Any other Member wish to make an opening statement?

Yes, the gentlelady from D.C.

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate this hearing, particularly the timing of

this hearing, Mr. Chairman, because it is the end of the year when

even people of modest income, like Members of Congress, give end

of the year contributions.

I would wager that as the American people sit down and see our

frustration in trying to bring the troops home, one of the things

that might trump all the charitable giving might be anything that

looks like it would help or give to the military or, for that matter,

Mr. Chairman, to their families.

I think we have to understand who the military is. The military

is under the exclusive direction of the U.S. Government, but they

31

can become a market, and we have an obligation to see that they

are not simply a market.

Even for Federal employees, the Combined Federal Campaign

provides you with a book. You go through that book, and frankly

I take the time to go through the book because there is an enormous difference in the amount spent that goes directly to the charity. So, if you quickly go through it, you can eliminate many charities simply by saying, do I really want to give that much to their

overhead or to wherever they put it.

I think we owe our military at least that much, set some standards and the way to find out what kind of standards to set is to

have precisely the kind of hearing that you are having, Mr. Chairman, this morning, and I thank you for it.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Any other Member wish to make an opening statement?

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to put on the record you caught my attention when

you mentioned Phil Chapin [sic] from Darien. That is the very center of my district and where I grew up. I just called up my staff

because I want to make sure this man has not contributed to my

campaign and want to put on the record he hasn’t, but there is also

another individual connected, Phil Kraft, as well, though who has

not contributed to my campaign.

I also would like to put on the record a letter we wrote on May

2, 2006. Mayor Koch had alerted me to the fact that there was a

quote that they had used of mine in 1988 that they were using, and

we wrote them in 2006 and said, don’t use that quote. They were

using a quote of Mayor Koch’s, and they were also using a quote

from the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Dick

Blumenthal. So I would like to put that on the record if I might.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, we will receive that for

the record and to protect Mr. Phil Chapin, I want to indicate it is

Roger Chapin.

Mr. SHAYS. It is Roger Chapin and Phil Kraft, yes. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. Good.

[The information referred to follows:]

32

33

Mr. WAXMAN. Any other statements?

If not, we will proceed to the witnesses.

I want to welcome today Mr. Ed Edmundson, who is the father

of the wounded veteran that I mentioned earlier, and Ms. Tracy L.

McCurdy, director of the Bureau of Charitable Organizations for

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Senator Chuck Grassley will

join us when he is able to complete the vote on the Senate floor,

but he is anxious to participate and give us the benefit of his work

on this area.

Mr. Edmundson, why don’t we start with you? Thank you again

for being here.

Oh, let me indicate the rules of the committee do require all witnesses to testify under oath. So if both of you would please stand

and raise your right hands, I would appreciate it.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me indicate for the record that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Your prepared statement will be in the record in its entirety.

We would like to ask you, if you could, to keep as close as you

can to the 5-minutes. We will have a clock that will be running.

It will be green. It will turn yellow when there is 1 minute left. It

will turn red when the 5-minutes is up. If you still need a little bit

more time, just go ahead, don’t worry about it, but we would like

to try to keep it in the 5-minute period.

Mr. Edmundson, there is a button on the base of the mic. Be

sure it is pressed in and pull it close enough to you that we can

hear.

STATEMENTS OF EDGAR EDMUNDSON, FATHER OF SERGEANT

ERIC EDMUNDSON, A WOUNDED VETERAN; AND TRACY L.

MCCURDY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATEMENT OF EDGAR EDMUNDSON

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Mr. Chairman, committee members, a heartfelt

thank you for allowing me to appear before you and participate in

this discussion.

My name is Edgar Edmundson. I am here today, speaking for all

of Eric’s family in regards to our experiences with our soldier, Sergeant Eric Edmundson, U.S. Army retired after 7 years of service.

Today, I will be telling you about my son and his injuries along

with the many issues and obstacles that he and the family have

confronted and overcome. I will also share with you the utilization

of non-profit organizations and their role in my son’s rehabilitative

outcome.

My son, Sergeant Eric Edmundson, was a Cavalry Scout with the

4th Squadron, 14th Cavalry based out of Fort Wainwright Air

Base, Ak. He was assigned to be the company commander’s driver.

This is a position that he took very seriously and pushed forward

to excel in. He took pride with having the finest running, best driven vehicle in the company.

On October 2, 2005, near the Syrian border along the Tigris

River in northern Iraq, my son was driving the command vehicle,

a Stryker. While advancing through a dry river bed to support anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
34

other disabled vehicle, an insurgent detonated an improvised explosive device [IED], which detonated directly behind my son’s seat.

At that instant, my son’s life and the lives of his family changed

forever.

Eric, having suffered severe blast and shrapnel injuries as well

as a moderate traumatic brain injury [TBI], was airlifted to Baghdad where he underwent a number of surgeries. He was then

moved to Ballad to await exit to Germany. While there, the doctors

were performing a surgical procedure, and my son suffered a cardiac arrest.

We were told it took a great deal of time to bring him back, and

now he suffers from an anoxic brain injury or ABI. This condition

is from a lack of oxygen to the brain. After 2 days in Germany, Eric

was transferred to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC.

We knew that Eric would be facing challenges that we would

never have dreamt possible. We knew our son. We knew he needed

us.

Because of his anoxic brain injury, he was left with cognitive and

memory issues, suffers from muscle contractions and toning that

plague him. A Baclofen pump was placed in his abdomen in January 2007, to aid him in controlling the contractures.

It became apparent early in Eric’s recovery that he would need

a caregiver-advocate to watch out for his well being. At that time,

my wife and I made the decision to resign my position at work in

order to be with Eric.

Non-profit organizations became an answer to our prayers. As I

stated earlier, I resigned my position to be available for Eric and

his needs. That resignation came at the cost of my income, retirement, insurance and our previous way of life. It was a decision that

we made as a family, and we do not regret it.

Non-profit organizations helped fill the gap in what we lost financially. They also relieved extreme stressors. We needed to devote so much of our time to Eric’s needs, dealing with how to get

our financial obligations met was difficult and an additional stress.

We feel very strongly that Eric’s recovery and rehabilitative outcomes would have been different had it not been for the support

we received from non-profit organizations. Eric needed his family

close by. He needed the reassurance of someone was going to be

there for him and aid him in going through this journey of recovery.

Per our conversations with non-profit organizations, they recognized the need. They see themselves as being able to meet needs.

Most have some connection with the military and understand

how slow the Government takes to address issues, but in the meantime real life continues to tick along. It is our experience that they

connect quickly and efficiently.

It may not seem like much, but even simple little things like

meals, lodging for extended family, laptop computers to cell phones

are critical when dealing with the recovery of a wounded soldier.

These little incidentals are so imperative to a soldier and his family’s recovery because they allow them to stay connected to the

world.

I have listed only a few ways in which non-profits have come to

our aid. I am certain there are many more.

35

Salute, Inc. out of Chicago, IL; Wounded Warrior Project out of

Florida; Hope for the Warriors out of Jacksonville, NC; and the

Semper Fi Fund are just a few examples of fine organizations that

have kept true to their mission.

What is important at this time is that non-profits be utilized to

their full potential.

I would hate to think what Eric and his family would have experienced throughout these last 2 years without the non-profits by

our side. We made the commitment to be there for our son, and

that commitment would have been met no matter what. With the

help of non-profits, we have been able to be there for Eric.

Eric was a good soldier. He honored himself, his family, his community and his country. We owe it to him and the thousands of

other soldiers that honor themselves and us all to provide the best

available care to enable them to return to the life they fought so

hard to defend.

I am concerned, the negative effect that the few self-serving nonprofits will have on the ability of the legitimate non-profits to obtain funding from the general public. It would be an unfortunate

turn of events if the service they provide is not available. As I have

shared, the service they provide is immediate and personalized to

the needs of the soldiers and their families. I believe that measures

need to be implemented to ensure the availability of non-profits

and their services.

It is my sincere hope that by sharing our story, you will have a

glimpse into why we need to continue to support the non-profit

agencies and the service they provide.

Thank you for allowing me to share our story with you today. I

am open for any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edmundson follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Edmundson, for

being here and for that presentation to our committee in helping

us understand more about the issue that we are dealing with

today.

I am going to have some questions, others will as well. But we

want to hear from Ms. McCurdy, and then we will ask both of you,

questions.

Ms. McCurdy.

STATEMENT OF TRACY L. MCCURDY

Ms. MCCURDY. Thank you. I must first just say thank you to Mr.

Edmundson and also what a moving story.

Good morning, Chairman Waxman and distinguished members of

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On behalf of

the Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell and Secretary of

the Commonwealth, Pedro A. Cortes, I thank you for the opportunity to be present before you today and for your leadership on

this important issue.

My name is Tracy McCurdy, and I am the director for the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Bureau of Charitable Organizations.

In Pennsylvania, the charitable solicitation law requires charities, professional solicitors and professional fundraising counsels

that are soliciting charitable contributions in Pennsylvania to be

registered with the Department unless otherwise excluded or exempt. By way of an example, an exempt organization would be one

that raises less than $25,000 in gross annual contributions. Unless

they pay someone to solicit, then they would have to be registered.

The Department currently maintains registration and financial

information for more than 10,000 charities and 400 professional solicitors and fundraising counsel soliciting charitable contributions

in Pennsylvania. Included among those registered organizations

are veterans groups.

The Secretary of the Commonwealth annually prepares a report

on the number of registered charities, the number of charities ordered to cease and desist solicitation, the number of charities contracting with professional solicitors and the compensation of professional solicitors for each solicitation campaign in relation to the

funds raised and administrative costs. A copy of the report is available on our Web site, and I do believe I made one available for you

today.

Relevant to the committee’s discussion is the portion of this

year’s annual report that highlights the average amounts paid by

charitable organizations to professional solicitors. Although there is

no legal standard defining the permissible amount of fundraising

costs, it is generally acknowledged that, on average, charitable organizations should spend no more than 33 a third percent of its

contributions on the costs to raise those contributions.

Based upon campaign financial reports submitted by professional

solicitors in Pennsylvania, the annual report details that 88 percent of the charities, on whose behalf campaign financial reports

were submitted, paid higher than the standard, with 54 percent of

them actually paying more than double the standard. Given this

data, the Pennsylvania Department of State is keenly aware of the

41

issue of high fundraising costs being paid by charitable organizations that use the services of professional solicitors.

I heard some discussion earlier from the opening statements that

there is concern when it is 90 percent or more. We have found

some of the contracts actually allow for more than 100 percent of

the money to go to the professional solicitors. So that is, of course,

a big concern.

In addition to registration and annual reporting duties, the act

gives the Department the power to investigate allegations of

wrongdoing by organizations soliciting contributions in Pennsylvania.

Generally, as a question rises involving fundraising issues, the

Department, through its Bureau’s investigation and audit divisions,

assiduously investigates the following matters: unregistered activity by both professionals and charities, failing to file contracts, failing to file campaign financial reports, failing to provide required

disclosures, making false and/or misleading statements in solicitation, making false or misleading statements in reports filed with

the Bureau and fraudulent transactions involving charitable donations for personal use.

Please note, however, that based upon current Supreme Court

case law, high fundraising costs alone do not establish fraud. As a

result, the Department cannot pursue an investigation solely on

the basis of high fundraising costs.

What the Department can and does do is engage in public awareness efforts to promote informed charitable giving. The Department

uses a variety of outreach tools to educate consumers about making

smart donation decisions. Available on our Web site is a wealth of

consumer information, including tips for charitable giving as well

as information about dealing with professional solicitors.

In addition, Department staff routinely participates in senior

expos, consumer fairs and other educational forums. Consumers

are encouraged to call the Department’s Bureau to learn more information or to file a complaint about a charity, a professional solicitor or a fundraising counsel.

The most important tip that the Department routinely conveys

to consumers is to ask questions. I tell them, question everything.

If consumers are not happy with the answer, they should not give

to that group. There are many other worthy organizations in need

of charitable contributions.

The question, I believe, that is really before us today is how can

we help to ensure that Americans’ contributions to veterans’ causes

are being responsibly used. In response to that question, we offer

three recommendations: Increase efforts in public outreach and

education. Consumers, again, need to be educated to ask questions,

to ask for information about the charity. Specifically, how does it

spend its money and, most importantly, how does it spend its

money on its charitable purpose and programs versus fundraising

and administrative costs?

Second, require increased oral and written disclosures at the

point of solicitation. Professional fundraisers should be required to

tell potential donors that a portion of the contributions will be used

to pay for the cost to raise the money. The disclosure should also

include the minimum amount of contributions guaranteed to be reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
42

tained by the charity as it was provided in the contract submitted

to the State in which the solicitation is occurring.

Disclosure of charitable finances, fundraising expenses, administrative costs, efficiencies and successful mission outcomes to the

public will provide the kind of accountability and transparency of

charities that increases knowledgeable giving.

Finally, increase Federal oversight. I throw out Federal Trade

Commission, but whatever organization or Federal agency would be

deemed to be appropriate would be helpful.

Professional fundraisers should be required to submit, just as

charities do, an annual report disclosing their activities. They

should detail the charities for whom campaigns were conducted,

the amount of contributions received in each campaign, the actual

expenses of each campaign and the amount of contributions actually received by the charity.

Sort of related to all of these issues is the issue of the Internet.

There has been an explosion of the Internet. Of course, as we all

know, solicitations are occurring and very difficult to regulate at

the State level unless we can demonstrate that our State residents

are being targeted. If there could be some sort of more Federal

oversight or required more disclosures on the Internet, that, we believe, would be helpful.

In conclusion, the majority of charities are honest and provide

valuable services for many of the most needy and vulnerable in our

society, including our veterans. The Department encourages the

public to provide donations to charitable causes.

The key message that consumers should remember from this testimony is that whenever they wish to donate to a charitable organization, they should become informed about the charity’s operations

by doing some homework. More specifically, they should research

the charity to determine if the majority of the money raised is

going to its charitable purposes.

Once again, Governor Rendell and Secretary of State Cortes

thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you

today. I welcome any questions that you have at this time. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCurdy follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. McCurdy.

Mr. Edmundson, I was very moved by your situation, what you

said about your son and what you have gone through, but I also

was angry about it for two reasons.

One, we sent him to Iraq, and I think most Americans would

think that the Federal Government is going to take care of all his

medical needs and all the services he may need as a result of the

injuries he suffered in fighting that war on behalf of the American

people.

Second, since that is not happening, I am angry at the idea that

some of these groups are not providing the care that they promised

that they were going to provide to the veterans and what they

promised they were going to provide to the veterans. So it is hard

not to be with mixed emotions in hearing what you had to say.

Did you think when Eric went off to war that if something happened to him, the U.S. Government, the military was going to take

care of him?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Mr. Chairman, when Eric went to war, we had

no idea, as parents, when Eric was injured so severely and when

he came home that we would have to go through as a family what

we did in order for Eric to receive the care that he received.

I said many times before, I spoke with my son just before, a couple days before he was injured, and we could tell by his demeanor

that he was proceeding to do something dangerous and mentioned

to him to just stay safe, keep your head down. He mentioned to me

and his mother to just relax, that if something happened, that the

Army would take care of him.

Chairman WAXMAN. Instead, he was hurt, and then you found

out that there is a maze that he had to go through and there was

no one to guide him. You even quit your job just to be his care coordinator. You made a tremendous sacrifice for your son, and I am

sure, in fact I know, it has had a very positive impact on his case.

But a lot of injured veterans don’t have personal advocates like

you or their family members can’t quit their jobs and move across

the country to battle the Government bureaucracy.

What would you say are our greatest unfilled needs for veterans

who are returning home with severe injuries?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. We feel that one of the most important things

that we have had to deal with is Eric and many families of severely

injured soldiers, they are in desperate need of options, options for

the medical rehabilitative care of their soldier, options to stay home

and take care of their soldier, such as myself. I had to give up my

livelihood in order to stay home and take care of my soldier.

We feel that it should be an option for a parent, a support group,

a spouse or whatever, if they so choose, to stay home and take care

of their soldier because they know what is best. They can take care.

They know their soldier best, but they need to have the option for

caregiver support and maybe insurance to stay home, so they don’t

have to totally give up everything.

Myself, I have been uninsured for 2 years. We, as a family, don’t

complain because we feel very fortunate our soldier is home. There

are 4,000 families that don’t have their soldiers home.

Chairman WAXMAN. There are charitable groups. There are nonprofit groups that raise money to help veterans. You have said to

50

us very clearly that many of them have done terrific work for Eric

and have been very helpful to you and your family.

Based on your experience, what was the most valuable type of

help you received from these veterans’ groups?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. The most valuable help that we received is

they have enabled through financial contributions to us. They have

enabled me to stay home and be Eric’s 24–7 caregiver.

They have enabled me to stay for 7 months in Chicago with Eric

while he was going through rehabilitation at the Rehabilitation Institute in Chicago. It was very expensive to stay there. I was under

orders with Eric, but I had to, such as when I first arrived in Chicago, it cost me roughly $1,900 for my apartment in Chicago.

I had to pay that $1,900 up front and then wait to be reimbursed

from the DOD for that. It, initially, was a tremendous outlay for

us and created a burden.

But non-profits enabled us to stay communicated and connected

with the family. They enabled the family with air tickets to come

up and give Eric and I support, and enabled me too. It was a morale support for me to be able to stay there and deal with the

issues that Eric was having to go through.

Eric’s outcome, my son’s outcome would be drastically different

if it were not for non-profit organizations.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

You are emphasizing how important it is to help these non-profits. Of course, we are also looking the kind of chicanery that some

of these non-profits are using by not providing the benefits and not

actually using the funds they raise for veterans.

If Members will permit, I just want to read an e-mail that I received from Senator Bob Dole, a great American who served our

country, suffered injuries in World War II, and headed a panel

looking at veterans’ health care.

He said to me, ‘‘Thank you for holding hearings and considering

veterans’ charities. The timing is excellent since some of the groups

unfairly and perhaps unlawfully raise a great deal of money during

the holiday season. We cannot do enough for America’s deserving

veterans and, while many of the groups do a good job, a great

many are parasites who take the money and keep all or most of

it. I cannot imagine anyone or any group stooping so low to enrich

themselves by exploiting veterans’ misery. The committee hearing

will serve many useful purposes by exposing the downright fraud

used by some and the good other groups do. The winner will be deserving veterans and their families.’’

I thank former Senator and former Majority Leader Bob Dole for

that message that is an important one for all of us.

Mr. Davis, I want to recognize you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, thank you very much.

Let me thank the panelists for being with us today and sharing

your story.

Mr. Edmundson, in your written statement, you related that nonprofit organizations became an answer to your prayer. What specific need did the charities meet that the Department of Defense

and the Department of Veterans Affairs couldn’t do?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. I am sorry, sir.

51

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What did the charities step forward and

do that the Defense Department and the Veterans Affairs Department didn’t do?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Non-profit organizations have the ability to, as

I mentioned in my statement, they have the ability to meet immediate needs of the families.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. It is not bureaucratic?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Yes, sir.

Eric was injured 2 years ago back when before the Walter Reed

incident broke, and we were having to deal with a huge amount of

bureaucracy, and one of the issues was that you couldn’t get a direct answer from a person. It was like the left side didn’t know

what the right side was doing, that kind of thing, and we were having to wait and deal with bureaucracy. We were having to deal

with hundreds of e-mails, phone calls, advocating to get Eric what

he needed.

In the interim time, non-profit organizations were able to come

through and aid us in getting support to Eric.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. They got back quicker and more personal, those kinds of things?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. McCurdy, what standards does

Pennsylvania use when deciding to allow a charity to register in

Pennsylvania?

Ms. MCCURDY. I am sorry.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What are the standards that Pennsylvania uses when you allow a charity to register in Pennsylvania?

Ms. MCCURDY. Well, the actual process of registration is more of

an administerial function, if the forms are filled out completely

and, as best as we can tell at that, function correctly.

It is more if we have reason to believe that there is something

going on that is improper by that charity. If they are not reporting

everything accurately, we have an investigative and audit division

that will then take over and look at the matter.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. They file annual reports basically.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. They are supposed to, if you look at

these reports, talk about how much is used for fundraising and how

much overhead and how much goes to the actual recipients.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes. In Pennsylvania, we have a registration

statement which asks about 25 different questions just more about

what their general activities were.

One of our filing requirements is the IRS Form 990. If you are

familiar with that form, it is the reporting form by charitable organizations that gets to all of those things that you mentioned. Then

depending upon their threshold amounts in contributions, we also

require financial statements which may need to be audited.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You probably have something that would

trigger an audit if the numbers don’t reach a certain level, or look

a little funny?

Ms. MCCURDY. Not necessarily if they don’t reach a certain level

but if we are questioning how those numbers have been reported,

that would trigger us looking at that.

52

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. How many auditors do you have that can

look at that?

Ms. MCCURDY. We have a staff of four auditors.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. How many charities do you have registered in the State?

Ms. MCCURDY. We have information on more 10,000 charities in

Pennsylvania right now.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Wow.

Ms. MCCURDY. But we believe there are more out there, and we

have been engaging in a huge effort to bring as many of them into

compliance as possible.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What statute does Pennsylvania have

that might prevent a solicitor from engaging in fraudulent activities including obtaining money based on a false pretense, representation or promise?

Ms. MCCURDY. Well, I think we have several available generally.

The only one that falls under my jurisdiction would be the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act. That is found in Title

X of the Pennsylvania statutes. It starts at Section 162.1.

The attorney general, which also has jurisdiction over that law,

certainly has other avenues available under the consumer protection laws, but we have some specific prohibited acts that are identified in our law.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Have there been successful prosecutions

under those laws?

Ms. MCCURDY. Absolutely. I was a prosecuting attorney for the

last almost 5 years before I became the director, and we have been

very aggressive in our pursuit.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Would higher penalties in these areas,

including jail time, be appropriate in your opinion?

Ms. MCCURDY. Well, and I should say we have been working

with the local criminal authorities on pursuing criminal matters as

opposed to just pursuing them at the administrative level.

I don’t think it is necessarily higher money is going to get the

job done. It is going to be criminal prosecution.

And then it is also just going to be, and someone mentioned. I

think Chairman Waxman mentioned earlier that we have the problem where we have people in Pennsylvania. We get them out of

Pennsylvania, and then they go somewhere else, and that is unfortunate. But at the State level, all I can do is to work to get them

out of Pennsylvania if they deserve it, and we have done that.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I guess the last question is maybe federally there ought to be some Federal law or something that looks

at this. It always on our side to start some new regulatory agency,

but seeing some of the outrageous actions that are brought to our

attention today, I think it may be merited.

We appreciate the example that Pennsylvania is setting and, Ms.

McCurdy, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

Ms. MCCURDY. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

We are being called to the House floor. We do have 5 minutes,

Ms. Watson, if you want to take it now.

Ms. WATSON. Yes, let me go real quickly and thank Mr.

Edmundson. Your testimony was very moving.

53

This committee has been investigating Mr. Chapin and his charities, and we are concerned that he may not be using the money

he raises in an appropriate manner. I would like to ask some questions.

My understanding is that after your son, Eric, was injured, your

family sought assistance from a number of veterans’ groups and

that Mr. Chapin’s group, the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes,

is one of the organizations that provided assistance. Is that right,

Mr. Edmundson?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. That is correct.

Ms. WATSON. Can you tell us what Mr. Chapin’s group provided

to you?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Shortly after Eric was first injured, like I said,

he was based at Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK, and ended up receiving medical care at Walter Reed. Shortly after he arrived at

Walter Reed, his wife and daughter came down from Fairbanks,

AK, and stayed with him at Walter Reed for the 3-months he was

there.

That organization aided Eric and his wife in taking care of some

of their financial obligations back in Alaska, which took a great

burden off of them at that time and allowed his wife and his

daughter to stay with him there.

Ms. WATSON. We are concerned that Mr. Chapin and some other

people who operate these veterans’ charities are keeping too much

of the donations they received for themselves and not giving

enough to soldiers and their families. For example, we understand

that Mr. Chapin paid himself and his wife more than $500,000 last

year in salaries and benefits.

In your opinion, Mr. Edmundson, do you think it is appropriate

to make a half a million dollar salary in 1 year while running veterans’ charities? What is your opinion on that?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. I don’t think that is appropriate.

My son as well as the other thousands of injured soldiers from

this war or any other war, they are not a commodity. Organizations

come to us and offer their assistance. We gladly welcome them to

aid us in our quest to get Eric the care that he needs and help us

maintain so that we can help and be with him.

But I don’t think it is right that you can use these soldiers as

commodities to raise funds and, as an organization, to say that you

are raising funds to aid all of the thousands of soldiers and receive

charitable contributions from the public and then turn around and

give a small percentage of that to what you are saying you are

going to do with those contributions.

Ms. WATSON. Let me just comment that we understand that Mr.

Chapin’s group raised over $98 million through donations that he

solicited from people who thought they were helping people like

your son, Eric. But according to his IRS filings, his group spent

only 30 percent of those funds to help other veterans, and he used

the rest of the donations to pay for for-profit fundraising corporations to raise even more money for his groups.

For example, he paid one of those for-profit organizations—it is called American Target Advertising—$3.5 million last year alone,

$3.5 million. Think of how it would help Eric and other families

like yours.

54

I don’t think you know that less than a third of every dollar donated to Mr. Chapin’s groups actually goes to help directly the injured veterans.

So we asked Mr. Chapin to come into the hearing today to explain these actions, but he refused. In fact, the committee issued

a subpoena. I don’t know how you can refuse receiving a subpoena

unless nobody is ever there to receive it, but they evaded the Federal Marshals who were trying to serve the subpoena. That behavior alone speaks greatly to me and should speak greatly to you.

Let me ask you this.

Chairman WAXMAN. Ms. Watson, your time is up.

Let me indicate to you that we are not going to accept his evasion of service and unwillingness to be here.

Ms. WATSON. Yes. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. We are going to have another hearing, and

we are going to get that subpoena issued to him and demand that

he come before us.

Ms. WATSON. Yes. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Edmundson, and may God bless you and yours.

Chairman WAXMAN. We are going to break now because there

are four votes on the House floor. It will probably take us at least

a half-hour. So let’s plan to reconvene at 11:30.

The committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting of the committee will please

come back to order.

We were questioning Mr. Edmundson and Ms. McCurdy, and I

want to recognize Mr. Shays to proceed with questioning.

I wonder if somebody can close the door in the back, so we can

avoid the noise coming in the chambers.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Edmundson, thank you for coming.

Ms. McCurdy, thank you as well. Thank you for what your Government is doing.

There are so many elements to this. There is the element that

the chairman raised just about what is our country doing for our

veterans irrespective of the charity groups.

Then there is the acknowledgment that Americans want to assist, want to provide help and give to charities because they want

the charities also to be able to add value-added. It should be not

to do the basics. It should be for those extra things that can make

life a little more tolerable for the veteran and his or her family.

I got introduced to this issue a few years ago when we had another charity. Actually, it was for campaigns.

It was Americans for Bush and Americans for Dole, and each of

them raised about $10 million. It was the same outfit that raised

it for both. They gave $5,000 to George Bush and $5,000 to Senator

Dole, and they kept the rest.

Really, what it was is it was a fundraising phone bank operation.

So they just kept increasing their lists, but then they had lists to

sell and so on. They had money to pay all their employees, and the

people who ran it did well.

In this AIP, which is not a pamphlet I am too familiar with,

American Institute of Philanthropy, I think, Mr. Chairman, your

55

hearing has raised an amazing opportunity for us to do some good.

I was looking at some of these charities, and some score very well,

frankly.

Abortion and family planning, As and Bs and Cs; African American fundraising, As and Bs; AIDS, As and B pluses; American Indians, a lot of Fs, Cs and Ds; cancer, a lot of Fs, amazing number

of Fs; blind and visually impaired, a lot of As and Bs, and we go

down.

Then when they get to international relief, a lot of As and Bs.

Save the Children in my district is an A. Other organizations, I am

pretty impressed with.

Then you get to criminal justice issues, and we are back down

to Cs and Ds. Anyway, lots of opportunity to look at this issue.

But we ended up with a challenge with the Supreme Court when

we wanted to look at the constitutionality of putting a little bit

more requirements on the fundraising done for Americans for Bush

and Dole.

Ms. McCurdy, maybe you could tell me what challenges you

think exist when we deal with the Constitution on the Federal

level and why are the States able to do it a little better than we

are?

Ms. MCCURDY. First of all, you pointed out the challenge from

the perspective of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is the first

amendment, and that is routinely what is thrown out there as an

impediment sometimes for us to be able to do some further regulation because the professionals enjoy the same protection as the

charities of the person when they are raising money for the charities.

Mr. SHAYS. It is a freedom of speech issue, basically.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. They can say what they want and do what they

want.

Ms. MCCURDY. That is what it would appear although that is not

entirely true.

Mr. SHAYS. So why do the States have a little easier time or how

do the States deal with this issue?

Ms. MCCURDY. First of all, I don’t believe that there is any Federal agency charged with oversight of the sector other than the Internal Revenue Service, which, what they do is just focus really in

on the reporting issues, on how the documents are being reported

and their activities are being reported to the Internal Revenue

Service.

I am not aware of any Federal agency that enjoys the power to

regulate the sector as at the State level.

Mr. SHAYS. So one issue is that we should be looking to see if,

for instance, the Federal Trade Commission or the Internal Revenue Service should be empowered to have more oversight potentially or some oversight?

Ms. MCCURDY. If there is that ability. I know with the proposed

new Form 990, the Internal Revenue Service is looking at some

governance issues.

Mr. SHAYS. Explain again what you do that is so much better

than what other States do? What are the things that you do?

56

Ms. MCCURDY. We do enjoy the luxury, I guess, of having a dedicated staff of investigators and auditors who are devoted to this

issue, solely.

Mr. SHAYS. So you are allowed to audit them.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And that opens up opportunities.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You are allowed to publicize what they do, and that

probably is helpful.

Ms. MCCURDY. Actually, we are directed to publicize what they

do.

Mr. SHAYS. But what would constitute an illegal act in your

State versus another State?

Ms. MCCURDY. Well, I don’t know that I can say, make the distinction, but I can talk about what would be in my State, an illegal

act.

Mr. SHAYS. Your State does it better than others. I am just trying to understand what do you do. Is it just the people and just

the energy or do you have certain laws that give you opportunities?

Ms. MCCURDY. I don’t believe that our law is really that much

different from other States’ laws. I think it is that we have the

staff. We have the energy, as you pointed out, to be able to push

this forward. We have a prosecuting attorney who is dedicated full

time to work on the cases that are brought in by the investigators

and the auditors.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Evidently, my time went by faster than I realized. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Ms Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. McCurdy, I am interested in pursuing the question I raised

in my opening remarks about the amount of funds that go directly

to the charity as announced.

I have here this month’s Better Business Bureau guide, Wise

Giving Guide, and I note that their guide says no more than 35

percent of the money should go for what we will call fundraising

or expenses, in other words.

Then there is another guide, the American Institute of Philanthropy. This is the charity rate guide and the watchdog report.

Both of these are this month’s report, and they say $35 percent for

every $100. I think it is pretty generous.

I will ask you about that. Would you agree that fundraising costs

should be capped at one-third or below?

Ms. MCCURDY. I think this was pointed out in one of the opening

statements. You can’t say that necessarily across the board. If you

have a new organization that is just getting started, there will be

higher costs of fundraising at the beginning. It is where you look

at the historical tracking of that particular organization and if they

can’t find a way to reduce their fundraising costs to keep them

below that amount.

That is the, I think, the average. I think I made that point in

my statement as well, that is the generally accepted standard for

fundraising. So you have to look at it over a historical time, but

57

if consistently they are spending more than that, I believe it would

be a concern, yes.

Ms. NORTON. It would be a concern.

I wonder if you could look at a slide that I would ask the staff

to put up concerning the percentage of funds spent on veterans by

a number of groups. As you look at the first group, TAPS, and this

group has a solid record as they kept fundraising down to around

27 percent, meeting the benchmark.

But all four of the other groups failed the test. Some of them are

well-known groups. In other words, they spent the majority of their

funds raised from the public on the fundraising. It ranges, if you

look, from 58.6 percent to 85.9 percent.

Would you agree that at least people know in advance, for example, that 85 cents of every dollar they are giving is going to expenses, fundraising expenses? Is that at least the kind of knowledge?

I am not sure what kind of regulation. I am using, at least as

a guide, the one group I know under Federal jurisdiction and that

is Charitable Giving here.

Ms. MCCURDY. I assume when you are saying these people, you

are talking about the donors should know about this?

Ms. NORTON. Charitable giving.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes, absolutely, that is part of my point that I am

hoping I get across today. I believe the donors should know this,

and it should be disclosed at the beginning of any solicitation

whether it is in writing or oral.

Unfortunately, we are, as I mentioned earlier, constrained by the

Supreme Court case, the Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates case,

which says that it will be unconstitutional to require that disclosure at the outset.

Ms. NORTON. It would be unconstitutional? I am sorry.

Ms. MCCURDY. To require the disclosure of the actual percentage

of money that is going to go to the fundraiser versus to the charity.

Now, if the donor asks the question——

Ms. NORTON. Well, I don’t think we are violating the law. The

Combined Campaign Fund does, in fact, list what amount of funds

go to fundraising, so you know.

Ms. MCCURDY. Absolutely. The problem would be if the Government required that disclosure. I believe that the charities should

fully disclose that, and it is certainly not only acceptable, but I

think should be encouraged to disclose that.

Ms. NORTON. You said there may be constitutional problems with

requiring the disclosure of the amount of the funds that go for expenses even though they have to file an annual report that go for

expenses and that go to the charity.

Ms. MCCURDY. It is at the point of solicitation which is where the

issue is.

Ms. NORTON. Sorry?

Ms. MCCURDY. It is at the point of solicitation is where the issue

becomes the issue. If the donor asks the question, which is why I

want to focus so much energy on trying to better educate the donors, if they ask the question, they are required to answer truthfully, but we cannot require that there is a voluntary disclosure at

the outset.

58

The reason that is stated is it would quash fundraising efforts if

the donor knew, and it is sort of ironic because that is exactly what

we are hoping.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know this decision, but I think, Mr. Chairman, we will have to look at this decision because I don’t think the

Federal Government is in violation of this decision.

I know this: Federal employees, we have some jurisdiction on.

They are our employees. We have, forgive the expression, sole custody of these soldiers. They are under our command. They must do

exactly what we say.

So the notion that there can’t be at least some way to inform people whether they are giving to our soldiers or giving to expenses

does not seem to me to be forbidden.

Ms. MCCURDY. I think the Combined Federal Campaign is a perfect way to be able to do exactly what you are suggesting which is

to disclose how the money is going to be spent.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to first yield to my colleague, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just to correct the record, Mr. Chairman, I had said that myself

and Mr. Koch and Attorney Blumenthal had been used by the National Veterans Service Fund in quotes that they took from us in

1980, and Mr. Koch had notified me of that and we got ourselves

off the list. But it wasn’t Attorney Blumenthal. It was former Governor William A. O’Neill who just recently passed away, whose

quote they were using, I think, mistakenly.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. PLATTS. You are welcome.

Mr. Chairman, thank you and the ranking member for hosting

this very important hearing. We certainly are a blessed Nation because of those who serve in uniform, and we want to make sure

when individuals seek to help them by contributing funds to charity groups, that those funds really go to those who have served us

or the family members.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for your work and especially, Mr. Edmundson, please convey my sincere gratitude to your

entire family for your son’s service and sacrifice. As I said, we are

blessed because of him and all our heroes who wear the uniform.

Certainly, Ms. McCurdy, I am delighted to be here with a fellow

Pennsylvanian, and I appreciate your work at the Bureau.

Without breaching any privacy requirements on you, can you

give some examples of actual investigations you have done into

misconduct or allegations of misconduct?

Ms. MCCURDY. I can talk about a couple of veterans ones we

have done or I can talk in the broader scope if you would like.

Mr. PLATTS. If you can keep the focus on the veterans, that

would be great.

Ms. MCCURDY. Sure. As I mentioned earlier, and you weren’t in

the room at the time.

Mr. PLATTS. Yes, I do apologize if I am repeating because of trying to be in too many places at one.

59

Ms. MCCURDY. No. I certainly understand, but I mentioned that

we do work with the criminal authorities. The local district attorneys in Pennsylvania share jurisdiction over our act. It has been

one of our goals of our Bureau to work more. There are 67 counties

in Pennsylvania, and we probably have about 8 or 9 that we have

had some good working relationships with now, and we believe that

is the best way to get to some of this.

We have successfully prosecuted two individuals who were using

a veterans’ organization as a mechanism to raise money for themselves.

Mr. PLATTS. How did they or that information come to your attention that led to the investigation and prosecution?

Ms. MCCURDY. I know at least one of them was doing solicitation

in front of a Wal-Mart, and they were violating, I think, a local solicitation law. I am not sure on the facts, and I do have the chief

of our investigation division with us, and he can certainly amend

anything that I have to say.

But we learned about them through local authorities, that they

were out there, that they were asking for money, and someone

would report it to us. We have enjoyed the benefit of being able to

call up the local authorities, and then they would go out and exercise their arrest powers on our behalf, basically.

Mr. PLATTS. Does the Bureau only respond to when there is information brought to you—having been in the State House, but it

has been 7 years, so I am maybe a little rusty on the interaction—

or do you do any kind of spot checks on charitable groups, more

kind of an undercover approach, proactively?

Ms. MCCURDY. All of the above. We have reactive investigations.

Of course, if we receive a complaint, that is going to be something

that we will consider to be a priority that we would pursue, but we

have proactive investigations. We learn a lot about our investigations through the media, anyway.

We also do random audits. We do maintain the records for the

10,000 organizations that I mentioned in my statement, and we

have the ability. We have five investigators and four auditors to be

able to routinely check them.

Of course, it is sort of like any other agency. If you have come

to our attention before, you will stay on our radar screen, and we

will look at you in the future as well.

Mr. PLATTS. I apologize. This may have been asked as well earlier. Is there something, anything particular or specific that we

could do that would better help you at the State level and then alternately at the local level with our DAs in Pennsylvania and

across the country that is currently not in law?

Ms. MCCURDY. If there was some way that we could better educate the donors. We are one bureau in Pennsylvania. The attorney

general’s office also has jurisdiction, and they do some outreach efforts through their charitable trusts section.

But it needs to be more national. It needs to be more global. We

struggle with how do we reach the donors, how do we educate them

that the most important thing a donor can do before they give

money is ask questions. Question everything.

60

Mr. PLATTS. Yes. So we have done better nationally with identity

theft and outreach to better get the public aware or something

similar, that type of national effort?

Ms. MCCURDY. Absolutely, that is a perfect example of something

that I think has been done well. Whatever the methods that were

used to achieve that, if we can employ that in the charitable sector,

it would be really helpful.

Mr. PLATTS. Great.

Well, again, my thanks, Mr. Chairman and to our witnesses for

your important testimony and again, Mr. Edmundson, to your family for your family’s service to our Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Platts.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Edmundson, thanks for coming and talking to us today and

testifying. You really set the stage for all the testimony that follows

in terms of why we have to pay so much attention to this. So,

thank you.

Ms. McCurdy, I had a couple questions. I am going to go back

to this line of questioning that Congresswoman Norton was pursuing just so I can understand a little bit better because disclosure

seems to be a key ingredient here in solving the problem, and you

talked a lot about just needing to have more information available

to people.

Just so I understand, you are saying that the law currently prohibits at the point of solicitation a disclosure at that point, whether

it is orally like over the phone or something or embedded somehow

in a written solicitation.

It prohibits requiring that, at that point, you disclose how expenses have been paid for—is that what you are saying—versus a

requirement that would say how money is going to be spent going

forward? Is there any distinction there or are both prohibited?

Ms. MCCURDY. As I understand the case, the Supreme Court

case which was the Madigan versus Telemarketing Associates case,

first of all, they come right out and say that high fundraising costs

per se are not per se fraud. Then the second element of that is that

the States or whoever is regulating the disclosure cannot require

that they voluntarily disclose that amount during a solicitation.

However, if asked, they have to truthfully answer.

That is as I understand the case.

Mr. SARBANES. I, like others, want to understand that case better

because it seems to me there must be some way to build some basic

disclosure in there.

Ms. MCCURDY. It is critical.

Mr. SARBANES. But let me ask a different question. Are there any

accreditation opportunities out there? Are there organizations, and

maybe the next panel is better positioned to respond to this than

you are, but are there any organizations out there that, in effect,

accredit, where you can seek accreditation?

Like within the non-profit world, I know that there are accrediting organizations that have grown up where if you hit 15 measures

successfully, then they will say you have the stamp of approval

from such and such organization which gives people some conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
61

fidence in dealing with that non-profit. Are there any similar kinds

of organizations out there and, if so, is it having the effect of people, charities invoking that or using that stamp of approval as a

way of promoting their cause or giving more comfort to the donors?

Ms. MCCURDY. I am not aware. The only organization that I

have any knowledge of is the Association of Fundraising Professionals, and I don’t know if they have any accreditation process as

is done at the charitable level.

I know in Pennsylvania the Pennsylvania Association of NonProfit Organizations does use the Standards of Excellence Program,

but I can’t really speak on how they view the success of that. I

know it is a program that they are using more and more, so they

must believe that it is being successful for their member organizations in how they are building the donor confidence with their own

donors.

I am not familiar at the fundraiser level. I think the next panel

maybe might have some more insight into that than I do, but I

don’t know if that would help necessarily at the point of solicitation.

Mr. SARBANES. When you say that, why is that? What do you

mean?

Ms. MCCURDY. Well, it relates to the fact of it is like with any

profession. People who want to do good will do good. People who

will join those organizations, they are not the ones we are concerned about.

We are concerned about the other ones who aren’t joining member organizations, who aren’t participating in accreditation programs. They are the ones that we have to worry about. They are

the ones that are the profiteers. They are the ones.

I would imagine that if I were to look at the contracts in Pennsylvania, the ones that are problematic and they are in our report.

You can see the ones where the high numbers of costs are versus

the amount of money, and we also report on the ones that are responsible. They are not going to be helped by any further disclosure.

Mr. SARBANES. I guess what I would hope is if you develop a

mechanism, a kind of good housekeeping seal of approval thing

that people wanted to get to help with their credibility in solicitation, over time when people are calling in or you are doing your

education efforts, you could say, look for the good housekeeping

seal of approval, so that over time, people, the donor audience

would come looking for that as a way of giving them some comfort.

I was wondering, do you have any?

You have 10,000 charities that are registered, I think you said.

Are you aware of charities that are using in their solicitation and,

in the case that they make to the public, are pointing to how efficient they are? Do you instances of that and how effective do you

think that is as part of the pitch that they are making?

Ms. MCCURDY. I am aware that they are doing it. Of course, it

makes absolute sense to do that if they have achieved, and I know

it is a stringent process for PANO, the Pennsylvania Association,

to achieve that standards of excellence.

If they have gone through everything, and they look at everything. They pull out all the drawers and look at everything that is

62

in those drawers. So, certainly, if they survive that process, absolutely, they are going to use it.

How effective is it in their solicitation campaigns? I can’t comment. I don’t know.

Mr. SARBANES. OK.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just don’t understand how an organization can give less than

5 or 4 or 3 or 2 percent to the soldiers involved and not be guilty

of some kind of infraction, so they can be prosecuted. Well, what

is the standard?

I mean maybe you have answered this before. At what point does

it become fraudulent?

Ms. MCCURDY. There is not a legal standard that is applied.

Mr. BURTON. Is there a way to create a legal standard?

It seems like the State legislatures or, if we are talking about

veterans from across the country, the Congress could pass some

kind of a law saying that there has to be accountability and set

some kind of a standard.

Ms. MCCURDY. If the legislature can do that, I would applaud it,

and it certainly would make our job easier if we had a standard

for us to be able to look at whether or not the high fundraising

costs are a problem. Then certainly that triggers us to look at it

if it is a high amount, but we have to look at the underlying numbers and we really have to look for actual fraud.

Mr. BURTON. I get these things all the time. I am sure all of us

do. Some of these on this list, I have given money to on a regular

basis, and it is really distressing to know that.

That is a tax-deductible item to the person who is giving that

money. If they are frittering away that money or wasting that

money, it seems like they would be complicitous in tax fraud because they are taking my money and they are not spending it wisely or they are putting it in their own pockets. It seems like there

ought to be some retribution for that.

Ms. MCCURDY. I don’t disagree.

Mr. BURTON. Have you ever thought about or has there been any

legislative proposals to set some standards like that?

Ms. MCCURDY. Not in the 5-years that I have been working in

this area. I know we are revisiting our current statute in Pennsylvania. We haven’t done anything officially with the legislature, but

we in the Bureau are looking at it and looking for areas where

there might be some amendments that would be helpful.

Mr. BURTON. Are there any groups that are looking at a legislative way or a law that could constrict some of these people’s appetites for pocketing this money?

Ms. MCCURDY. I am not sure what you mean by are there any

groups looking at?

Mr. BURTON. I mean are there any groups coming up with any

legislative proposals?

You folks are watchdog groups, but have any of your organizations that are watching these charities come up with some legislative mechanism that we could work on here in Congress or in the

State legislatures to set the standard?

63

Ms. MCCURDY. Not that I am familiar with, but I can.

Mr. BURTON. That is something. That seems like to me that is

something that we need.

Having these hearings and talking about it and focusing attention on it like in the paper, the Washington Post this morning, I

think that is good, but I will bet you that not 1 percent of the

American people are following this hearing. They are not going to

know it is going on, and so they are going to continue to pour this

money into these charities that are wasting it.

It seems to me that there has to be some way to say, OK, if you

are getting a dollar, you have to at least put this much money into

the charitable purpose. You can use the rest for advertising and

whatever you want to, but you have to put at least this percentage

in. That would, I think, put a real hammer on these people.

But you don’t know of any legislative proposal like that?

Ms. MCCURDY. I am not aware of any, but the State, the State

regulators are all members of an organization called the National

Association of State Charity Officials [NASCO]. I am actually on

the board of directors for that. I can certainly bring that up at our

next board meeting and see if we think there is anything at our

level that we might be able to start looking at.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I have Brian, my staff guy, here. I would like

to really have somebody. When you meet with these people, if you

could give us some kind of parameters that could be put into a legislative proposal, that might at least scare the hell out of these people that are stealing this money.

Ms. MCCURDY. We can certainly do that. I would be happy to

provide further information to you to that.

Mr. BURTON. I will have Brian get in touch with you then.

I don’t think I have any other questions. I just feel the frustration—I think all of us do—especially when I think of the money I

have given them.

Ms. MCCURDY. You are not alone.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

I want to express my concern that there is not sufficient legislative protections. I think we ought to, on this committee in our oversight, not only find out the problems but figure out some solutions,

and I hope we can all work together on this committee to come up

with some ideas to do that.

I think a lot of people don’t realize how little of that money they

are giving to these charities, not just veterans’ charities but all

charities, actually goes for the purpose that they were told charities

serve.

Another thing that most people don’t realize is we have heard

about the charities raising money, but there are professional organizations. In fact, there is an entire industry of for-profit companies

that do nothing but send letters and make calls to solicit charitable

donations.

For example, you have a charity. Let me give an example, the

Disabled Veterans Association. They have a major fundraising campaign from August 2005 to April 2006, but they didn’t do the fundraising themselves. Instead, they hired a for-profit fundraising corporation called Civic Development Group to help them, and DVA

64

has provided the committee with a breakdown of its fundraising expenses. I would like to see if we can put that on the board.

As this document shows, the first number is the amount of

money that people donated. Fundraising collections were over $4.5

million, and that is a phenomenal amount for a charity. But the

next line indicates fundraising expenses were about $4 million. In

other words, out of $4.5 million in donations, this charity got less

than 500,000. That is what the charity got, and that is not even

10 percent of the money that was raised for that charity.

Now, Ms. McCurdy, based on your experience, do donors know

that up to 90 cents of every dollar they provide could be eaten by

fundraising costs?

Ms. MCCURDY. I don’t think that the large amount of donors do

know it, and I do believe that is one of the most critical things that

we as State regulators and that you as the Federal Government

can do is to provide better education, as I was discussing with Representative Platts, that there could be some way that we could take

this to the level that we have on other important issues and make

them more aware.

Chairman WAXMAN. So people aren’t aware.

That which we have just shown on the board is the breakdown

of the fundraising campaign’s expenses, but the actual expenses

are broken down even further. They have all kinds of things you

would expect. They are paying for salaries. They paid for rent,

equipment, telephones, all the supplies, printing and shipping.

Most people think, of course, there are fundraising expenses, but

then you come to the last line. Even after all these charges for

every expense imaginable, the for-profit corporation charges $2.2

million for ‘‘management consulting fees.’’ This $2.2 million is 55

percent of all the money that they have raised in that campaign,

and they have something called a management consulting fee.

I don’t know what goes through your mind, but let me ask you,

Mr. Edmundson. What goes through your mind when you now see

that they are taking $2.2 million or 55 percent of all the money

raised, and it is going to a management fee?

It is pretty outrageous, isn’t it?

Mr. EDMUNDSON. The first thing that goes through my mind

when I read this is anger, absolutely.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, we all share that anger. Just giving

them a seal of approval or not doesn’t seem to me enough. We

ought to do what we can do, but I don’t think this should be tolerated, and I don’t think most Americans would think it ought to be

tolerated either.

It makes all of us angry that the veterans, people who have

served our country, are used to raise money to give some professional organization and the business of fundraising, management

fees of 55 cents out of every dollar. It is absolutely inexcusable.

I see Mr. Van Hollen has come, and I want to recognize him.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. chairman, can I just take 1 second

to say I would associate myself with your remarks?

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We are talking today about veterans, but

I think unfortunately this stretches into every part of charitable

donations to diseases, orphans and the like.

65

I really applaud you for holding the hearing, and I hope we can

work with you to followup with some legislative action.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

calling this hearing on a very important issue. It is, obviously, important that the American people have confidence that when they

are providing money to our veterans, in support of our veterans,

that it is being used for that purpose.

I appreciate your testimony and, Mr. Edmundson, I heard your

opening statement. I want to thank you for being here and for the

sacrifice your family has made.

Ms. McCurdy, I had a question with respect to the recourse that

the public has in these cases. I understood your testimony with respect to the Supreme Court ruling which is they said that you can’t

essentially hold one of these non-profits accountable through the

criminal justice system anyway right now with respect to fraud.

If an organization that is raising money, one of these charitable

foundations, makes a statement, a representation to the public as

part of their fundraising, for example, if they say, 80 cents of every

dollar goes to veterans, and that proves to be untrue, then there

would, would there not, be some recourse against them in terms of

a misrepresentation and fraud on the public?

Ms. MCCURDY. Absolutely, and we would pursue that in Pennsylvania aggressively both administratively through my office and

hopefully with whatever criminal jurisdiction that fell in.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. So did the Supreme Court decision bar

in any way either State or local governments from requiring that

non-profit organizations that register in their communities be required to disclose the amount that goes to veterans’ organizations?

Ms. MCCURDY. There is disclosure that does take place. It is in

the annual reporting that they are required to do, and the professionals are required to file with us every contract.

I mean the disturbing thing for us—coincidentally, before this

issue came up that we had the opportunity to be here today and

speak to you, we had been looking. As I said earlier, in our annual

reports, we report on what professional solicitors are reporting and

we look at their contracts. Charities are agreeing to this, and it

doesn’t violate State law for them to agree to a contract.

I can tell you we looked at all the ones that were over 100 percent of the costs went to the professionals. So, in other words, the

charities were actually paying for the campaign, and they got nothing out of it, and they agreed to this in contract form.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I understand.

I guess my question is that you get the information. You get to

look at the contracts. But is there anything that would prohibit a

State government, for example, from saying as a condition of registering as a non-profit, you must tell the public how much of the

dollars you are raising goes to veterans and how much is going to

the purpose, so that then you can hold them accountable for making a public statement?

In other words, then if they misrepresent to the public what they

are doing, you do have grounds for going after them. Is there anything that would prohibit us from requiring that they disclose to

66

the public how much of every dollar raised is going got the cause

that people giving think it is going to and how much is going to

overhead and profit or overhead and to pay the salaries?

Ms. MCCURDY. Legislatively, we don’t have that ability to do that

right now. I don’t know whether or not that is something that can

be changed in Pennsylvania law. I don’t know whether or not the

Supreme Court case, any constitutional challenge to that law would

prevent it ultimately.

However, we can require them to state that when asked, and

that is required in Pennsylvania. If the donor asks the question,

they have to give a truthful answer. At that point, if it is not a

truthful answer and we are able to demonstrate that, we would

pursue it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, we want to educate the public.

Ms. MCCURDY. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But that, of course, puts the burden on every

financial contributor to ask that question.

Ms. MCCURDY. Yes, it does.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am just asking whether there is anything

that you know of in the Supreme Court decision that would prevent

us from reversing that burden and saying to somebody who is raising money for a good cause, how much of that money is actually

going to the cause that they are serving.

Ms. MCCURDY. I would love to see that if that could happen. We

are as frustrated in my Bureau as anyone else. At the same time

that we are regulating this, we are donors also, and we enjoy the

ability to be able to investigate the organizations. If that could happen, that would be a really, really helpful thing.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. Let me commend you for your leadership on this issue. I know it has been a

very important cause to you.

Thank you both very much for being here. You have certainly set

out the framework for the issue that we are looking at, and we are

going to have another panel of witnesses. I very much appreciate

your participation in the hearing, and we are grateful for that.

Mr. Edmundson, we owe you and your son to do something about

this problem. Thank you so much.

Mr. EDMUNDSON. Thank you.

Ms. MCCURDY. If there is anything that I or my Bureau can assist with in the future, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

I would like to now call forward Mr. Robert Friend, president of

the American Veterans Coalition, Gig Harbor, WA; Ms. Pamela L.

Seman, executive director of the Disabled Veterans Associations in

Rocky River, OH; Mr. Daniel Borochoff, president of the American

Institute of Philanthropy; Mr. Bennett Weiner, chief operating officer, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance; and Ms.

Bonnie Carroll, executive director, Tragedy Assistance Program for

Survivors in Washington, DC.

I want to welcome each of you to our hearing today. We very

much appreciate your being here.

67

It is the practice of this committee now that you are seated, to

ask you to stand because all witnesses that testify before us must

do so under oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. Let the record show that the witnesses responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Carroll, why don’t we start with you?

Let me indicate that your prepared statements will all be in the

record in full.

We would like to ask you to limit the oral presentation to no

more than 5 minutes. We will have a clock there that will be green,

turn yellow for the last minute and then red when the 5-minutes

are up.

Please proceed.

STATEMENTS OF BONNIE CARROLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

TRAGEDY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR SURVIVORS; PAMELA

L. SEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED VETERANS ASSOCIATIONS; ROBERT FRIEND, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN VETERANS COALITION; DANIEL BOROCHOFF, PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHILANTHROPY; AND BENNETT

WEINER, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU’S WISE GIVING ALLIANCE

STATEMENT OF BONNIE CARROLL

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of TAPS, the Tragedy Assistance Program for

Survivors, and the families of those who have died while serving

in the Armed Forces, I am honored to have this opportunity to

speak about the care provided to surviving military families.

Dr. Daniel R. Sudnick, the chief financial officer for TAPS, has

provided a written statement addressing critical aspects of the subject before today’s panel, and I respectfully request his statement

be submitted to the record.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, that will be the order.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sudnick follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Ms. CARROLL. The subject of today’s hearing reflects the gravity

of the words of President Abraham Lincoln, inscribed on the front

of the Department of Veterans Affairs building: ‘‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God

gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are

in; to bind up the Nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have

borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.’’

As the widow of a soldier killed along with seven other soldiers

in the Army National Guard, as a Reserve commander who lost

two of my airmen, as Chief of Casualty Operations at Headquarters

U.S. Air Force Casualty Affairs, as a Department of the Army civilian serving in Iraq and now as the executive director of TAPS, I

have seen the best of the services provided to our surviving families, both in the public and private sectors. It is my privilege to

offer insight today.

For the past 14 years, TAPS has been a sanctuary providing

hope, comfort and healing for all those whose lives have been forever changed by the death of a loved one who served in the Armed

Forces. Whether they are parents, children, spouses or siblings,

TAPS meets a critical need by offering a national network of peerbased emotional support, the Survivor Seminars and Good Grief

Camps for young survivors, long-term case work assistance connecting families with all public and private agencies, bereavement

and trauma resources, and information across America and crisis

intervention.

This network is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at no

charge to the family and at no expense to the Government. In cooperation with our fellow veterans service organizations such as

Gold Star Wives, Gold Star Mothers, Society of Military Widows,

National Military Family Association and others, we meet the need

of offering loving, emotional support services to all those grieving

the death of their loved one.

TAPS was founded after 2 years of careful research examining

the need, the existing services provided, and the private and public

support already in place. The goal of creating this veterans service

organization was to provide care not otherwise offered. From this

extensive research, TAPS identified those areas where gaps existed

and carefully benchmarked the best practices of existing peer-based

emotional support programs in America and abroad.

In speaking with officials from the Departments of Defense and

Veterans Affairs in 1993 and 1994, TAPS was able to determine

where the federally funded services ended and it was appropriate

for private sector support to begin. I would offer special thanks for

guidance in those early days to then Secretaries of Defense Cheney

and Perry, Senators Bob Dole and Ted Stevens, and the director of

our sister organization for police officers, Suzie Sawyer.

The military has a critical mission to meet. The surviving families, likewise, have a mission: remembering the life and grieving

the loss of their loved one while honoring their service and sacrifice.

TAPS provides an understanding embrace of care and comfort.

Through our peer-based emotional support network, families are

not only able to help others but, in doing so, continue to help themselves. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ‘‘It is one of the most beauVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
80

tiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to

help another without helping himself.’’

This network and the staff and infrastructure to support it is

made possible entirely through the generosity of Americans who

understand our mission and support our non-profit organization.

A decade ago, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs John

Shalikashvili looked carefully at our program, and when he spoke

at the TAPS National Military Survivor Seminar, he told our families, ‘‘We can’t do for you what you can best do for each other.’’

This solidified our mission and forged the bond that exists to this

day between TAPS and the military casualty teams. After 9/11,

TAPS served alongside the American Red Cross as the only private

organization inside the Pentagon Family Assistance Center. It is

our partnership with the military that allows us to provide a comprehensive package of support to all who are grieving a loss.

TAPS supports over 15,000 surviving family members in our

data base with 24–7 support, quarterly journals, invitations to regional and national events and weekly online support services.

In the past year, TAPS has hosted 11 regional and national survivor seminars and Good Grief Camps, serving over 2,500 family

members. We provided TAPS Care Teams to support 4 major national gatherings of surviving military families attended by over

5,000 people. We sent 5,236 TAPS Survivor Care Packages to grieving families, casualty officers and military installations supporting

surviving families.

Our call center received 8,844 calls from surviving families on

our toll-free line. We averaged 750,000 Web site hits per months,

hosted 208 national online support group sessions, organized 24

TAPS Care Groups, trained 254 peer mentors to support newly

grieving families, provided Care Team training to over 834 military

members and DOD civilians, recruited and trained 465 military

volunteers who serve as mentors to surviving children.

We have expanded our services to support the families of 1,000

civilian contractors who died while serving in Iraq and conducted

outreach to the large population of Spanish-speaking surviving

family members.

To meet our mission, we must have a sophisticated technology

and communications infrastructure and a staff who not only understand the military surviving family but who are also academically

and professionally qualified.

We are in the process of developing our next level of staffing and

infrastructure to meet the demands of today. This will require

TAPS to invest significant portions of its operational budget in the

technology infrastructure and training that will enable to deliver

critically needed support services to the surviving family members.

Chairman WAXMAN. Ms. Carroll, your time is up. Do you want

to conclude your testimony?

Ms. CARROLL. Yes. I am sorry.

81

On behalf of the families of our fallen heroes and TAPS, I appreciate the dedication and commitment of the distinguished members

of the committee to protect, defend, restore and improve the services provided to those who have served our Nation in peace and

war and to their families, and to ensure the organizations who are

seeking funds from a patriotic public use the funds wisely to meet

essential mission requirements as dictated for the needs of the

military and the families, not by the needs of the non-profit.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Carroll follows:]

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Seman.

STATEMENT OF PAMELA L. SEMAN

Ms. SEMAN. Thank you, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member

Davis and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Disabled Veterans Associations.

My name is Pamela Seman, and I am the executive director of

the Disabled Veterans Associations.

Disabled Veterans Associations, which started in 1996, is a charitable organization registered under Ohio law. Its mission is to help

improve the quality of life of our veterans through aiding and assisting needy and disabled veterans, their families and dependents,

whether they have been hospitalized at one of the U.S. Department

of Veterans Affairs medical centers, admitted to one of the 100

State-run and State-funded veterans homes, or simply in need at

home.

We have developed a number of programs to assist veterans and

have funded these programs through our fundraising efforts. Our

organization accomplishes its goals with the assistance of only

three paid employees.

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are staggering. There are now more than 23 million living veterans. Nearly

2.2 million of these veterans suffer from a service-connected disability and nearly 40 percent are 65 years or older.

There are over 100 State-run, State-funded veterans’ long-term

care and domiciliary homes that provide care exclusively to veterans and their spouses. Yet, four out of five people you meet on the

street have no such idea that these facilities exist. Our public service announcements inform the public and veterans that these

State-run veterans homes exist and are available to the men and

women who gave up so much for our freedom.

Our public service announcements can be heard on more 3,500

radio stations nationwide. They inform the listener that help is

available to honorably discharged veterans. A toll-free number is

provided for the listener to obtain information not only on the

State-run homes but on any veterans’ issues they may have.

We offer gifts and grants to the State-run veterans homes and

the VA medical centers throughout the country, so they may provide veterans with day-to-day necessities that they otherwise may

not receive due to budgetary limitations. We have provided everything from basic toiletries to reconstruction [sic] and refurbishing

an audiology room. These gifts and grants have proven to be vital

to the well being of veterans in these facilities.

Our Helping and Assisting Veterans in Emergency Program allows us to assist our veterans on a more individual basis. Many of

these veterans are awaiting their benefits through the VA and find

they are unable to pay their bills during the interim. By working

hand-in-hand with county service offices and other agencies, we are

able to assist veterans on a short term, beneficial basis. Veterans

can receive a one-time gift to help them through their rough period.

We assist with mortgages, rent, utilities and various other items.

89

We also offer a veterans’ entrepreneurial training seminar program. The day-long seminars are available to all veterans free of

charge. We include speakers from the Small Business Administration, the Service Corps of Retired Executives, certified lenders and

State taxation departments. The program is designed to help veterans struggling with their small business or who are starting a

small business.

The Disabled Veterans Associations first entered into a fundraising contract with Civic Development Group in 1998. I became executive director in 2002. At that time, the contract was already in

place for fundraising services provided by Civic Development

Group.

The first time a fundraising contract came up for review while

I was Executive Director was in September 2004. The percentages

in the contract remained the same as they were from the beginning, 12.5 percent for us and 87.5 for Civic Development Group. I

questioned the split and actually made inquiries with other vendors and learned that the percentages were pretty much a standard in the industry.

Though we were unhappy with the split, CDG agreed to provide

us with a guaranteed minimum of 600,000 which was more money

than Disabled Veterans was able to raise under past contracts.

Under the arrangement, Civic Development Group became a consultant. This appeared to be a good thing for us because we were

going to receive more money than we had in the past and it would

mean more money for our vital programs.

My primary goal as executive director of this charity was and is

to raise as much money as possible to fund the programs that we

offer in order to make a difference in the lives of veterans.

I would like to thank the committee again for the opportunity to

be here today and would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Seman follows:]

90

91

92

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Seman.

Mr. Friend.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT FRIEND

Mr. FRIEND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

here to testify today as president of American Veterans Coalition

and as a Vietnam veteran, regarding an ever-increasing needful

sector of our population, our American veterans.

I served proudly for my country in Vietnam. When entering the

Navy in late 1969, I was sent on four WESTPAC tours of Alameda.

The first two were on the U.S.S. Bellatrix, and the next two were

on the U.S.S. Pictor. We acted in the capacity of a refrigerated reefer in the Tonkin Gulf at sea for the grocery needs for those ships

afloat. We also acted as a freezer and refrigeration depot when the

Danang facility was bombed in early 1970.

In 1971, I was transferred to the Gator Fleet, assigned to the

LST 609 Clarke County. Our duty was that of moving supplies up

and down the Mekong Delta from as far south as Vung Tau to

Dong Dang, which was our home base, and as far north as the

Cambodian border.

I spent 11⁄2 months recuperating at Great Lakes Mental Hospital

for a small wound, saw many amputees, servicemen paralyzed and

those who had sustained massive injuries while in Vietnam. My

last 9 months of service were that of being part of the first 34 to

arrive on the Ranger stationed at Diego Garcia in the Indian

Ocean. There, we were part of the Seabees out of Quonset Point,

RI, responsible for building the initial runway and basic infrastructure for those to follow.

So the veterans scene is not a foreign one to me. One of the

things I promised myself while there was to continue to care for my

fellow servicemen and others who entered service before me or

were to serve after me and who struggle with assimilating back

into society with their return.

AVC was founded with these things in mind in late 2002 to provide financial aid to needy veterans and their families and to educate veterans on various Government and public service programs

available to them as well as educate the public on the needs of and

problems facing our Nation’s veterans.

The focus of our organization, aside from education on veterans’

needs and issues, has been providing direct assistance to individual

veterans in need and their families and making grants to VA hospitals, homeless centers and non-profit veterans organizations who

provide assistance to veterans.

We have provided thousands of dollars in grants and aid to individuals and organizations in Los Angeles at the National Veterans

Foundation. We came to an agreement and developed a program

where they receive calls and immediately send them to us via

phone or our Web site.

All the veterans have to do is go to our Web site into assistance,

pull down the forms, fill them out to the best of their ability and

send them on to us. We move very fast on the applications for those

in need of help. We ask that they send us a letter and let us know

how they are doing and revisit their situation on many occasions,

helping some veterans two or three times a year.

93

We also ask our professional fundraising counsels to send us any

names of veterans they come across that need help as well, and we

act on those as well as quickly as we can.

We are striving to be more efficient in our fundraising so that we

may make our program services available on a continuously increasing basis. This is a slow process but can and will come to fruition as other alternate activities are entered for that of raising

moneys without the assistance of professional fundraisers.

I have been with the American Veterans Coalition since its inception and am the Fundraising and Program Service Director. I

spend a significant amount of my week in service to the organization. The organization is small and has limited resources.

As you can see from the financial information we supplied in response to your invitation to be here today, the organization has

three employees, one of whom is my wife. She and I both draw

minimal salaries although her service to the organization entails financial recordkeeping, fundraising regulation compliance issues,

corresponding with contracted fundraisers and other activities that

take up most of her week. We receive no other fees or payments

from the organization.

Like my other colleagues present here today, we can appreciate

the committee’s interest in fundraising efficiency and the cost associated with raising funds to help our veterans. We are proud of our

program service accomplishments. We know we can be more efficient and continue to strive to lower our cost of fundraising.

As I stated previously, we are a small organization. Without the

help of outside fundraisers, we would not be able to disseminate

the information we are able to get out to veterans and the public,

and we would not be able to raise enough funds to continue as a

going concern.

We maintain fundraising registration with all States that require

same and provide significant information to those State agencies

when information is designed to be available to the public. We are

completely transparent on our fundraising, accounting and other

operations.

We have taken steps beginning in the early part of this year to

scale back our use of outside fundraisers and to consult with counsel and other professionals on steps we can continue to take to lessen our fundraising costs.

It is evident that there remains a significant number of people

who were put off with organizations that incur high costs of fundraising. We aren’t proud to be one of those organizations but still

believe that the first amendment has given us the opportunity to

make some differences in the veterans’ world.

Despite some of our inefficiency, we are still able to reach a multitude of people with information about veterans and veterans

issues that would otherwise not reach those people. No one is

forced to contribute to our organization or listen to our message.

However, we hope that the steps we are taking continue to allow

us to deliver our message while generating significant revenues

that can go directly to benefit our Nation’s veterans.

I was proud to serve our country and believe that American Veterans Coalition can make a significant difference in the lives of veterans. I have a personal interest as a veteran of the Vietnam War

94

in making such a difference and hope the American Veterans Coalition can strive to do bigger and better things to help my fellow veterans in the future. I believe we are taking steps to do that in a

better and much more efficient manner.

Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Friend.

Mr. Borochoff.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BOROCHOFF

Mr. BOROCHOFF. Hello. I am Daniel Borochoff with the American

Institute of Philanthropy. I am gratified that we are holding this

session today. It is going to be a really big help.

I am gratified for Mr. Burton that his interest in furthering legislation to help donors make more informed giving decisions. Right

now, there is incredible waste out there, and it is being done in the

name of our brave veterans. We really owe a lot. We owe a lot more

to the veterans than too many of these nonprofit groups are providing.

The American Institute of Philanthropy, since 1993, has been one

of the most independent and toughest watchdogs. We are not afraid

to give an F grade when it is called for.

If there is one point that I want people to be able to walk away

from today, to understand that we have these numbers and percentages out there. A lot of the groups are able to make themselves

look good and appear as if most of the money is going to charitable

programs when in fact that is not at all the case. That is why some

of these ratings and ratios that we are putting out there are helping the public have a clear sense as to how the money is actually

being spent.

I am going to focus on four key areas. First, fundraising efficiency, it is too low with these veterans’ charities; second, low accountability; third, excessive asset reserves with some of the charities; and the misuse of Congressional Charter status.

First, I will describe our rating system. We give groups an F

grade if they have 35 percent or less of bona fide charitable programs. They may be saying things are charitable programs, but it

is not at all what the donating public thinks, and I will get into

that.

We believe that if your fundraising costs are $60 or more, $60

of $100, that deserves an F. If you are holding asset reserves in excess of 5 years, that deserves an F. We consider 3 years to be excessive.

Most of the charities that we rate do a good job. Seventy-eight

percent of the groups get C or higher grades. But with the veterans’ groups, this is also true for police and firefighter type groups,

75 percent of them get Ds and Fs, certainly not adequate.

One of the main reasons is the very high fundraising costs that

they incur. This is what is happening. Many of these veterans’

charities and a lot of the major ones are broadly soliciting everybody under the sun. It is ironic because they are one of the most

very popular causes, so they ought to be able to raise money more

inexpensively than anybody else.

95

But what they are doing is they are asking everybody, and they are going for little $5 and $3 contributions. It is too expensive to

raise money that way. You have to go $25, $50, $100 contributions.

They are sending out trinkets, address labels, greeting cards,

things that cost money to send out because they know many people

feel guilty and send a few dollars in return, but that is not a way

to build loyal long-term supporters to get little contributions here

and there because somebody got a gift and feels they should respond.

Accountability is a big problem. Fifty-nine percent of the veterans’ groups that we rate are not willing to provide basic financial

documentation on their activities. That is the first screen. If a

group is not willing to answer basic questions about their finances

and other areas, one should look elsewhere about giving to them.

The tax forms, while widely available on the Internet, are very

helpful but a lot of them are dated with information being like a

year or two old.

We encourage donors to look at the audited financial statements

and notes. It is a lot more solid document. You can find out things

where maybe they denied it on the tax form, but you can see it

happening on the audit.

But the trouble is audits are hard to obtain. They are with a lot

of States. Some of the States have them. A few of the States have

them, but they are hard to get a hold of.

This is what is going on. A lot of people don’t realize this, but

you know those telemarketing calls that interrupt your dinner or

all the solicitations that we talked about flooding your mailbox. A

lot of that is counted as a program service.

What they can do according to the accounting rules is they can

put a little nice message in like, Hire a Vet, Buckle Your Seatbelts,

Fly Your U.S.A. Flag, put a magnet on your refrigerator that shows

you care about vets, and then they can allocate those solicitations

costs as a charitable program. It shows up on the tax form this way

and gets reported on the Internet this way. It is in the charity’s

promotion this way. The public needs to know what is really going

on with the finances.

Another thing that goes on are in-kind donations. Things of highly questionable value are flowing through these charities’ financial

statements. The person giving that gets a tax deduction, and then

the charity can show that they are having like millions of dollars

worth of things that really are not much value to veterans. Then

they pass them on to another group.

OK, another problem is excessive asset reserves. Unfortunately,

three of the major military charities have high asset reserves. In

fact, Army Emergency Relief makes the top of our list. They could

operate for 17.6 years with what they have already got. They have

over $300 billion in reserve.

We consider it a poor basis to ask for more money if you already

have more than 5 years in reserves. Part of the problem is the people that are allowed to access this money are not able to access it

because they have too tight of rules of who the money is made

available to.

One final point on the Congressional Charter status since this is

Congress. A number of the charities like to boast of their CongresVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
96

sional Charter status, and the public thinks that means somehow

they are better or superior or they are good groups, but it doesn’t.

I think that these charities ought to be required to state if they

want to say they are Congressional Chartered, they need to state

that it does not imply endorsement or recommendation by Congress.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Borochoff follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Borochoff. The

rest of that statement is going to be in the record. Your time is up.

Mr. Weiner.

STATEMENT OF BENNETT WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I am Bennett Weiner. I am chief operating officer

of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us here today to share our views on this important subject.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance is a charity-monitoring organization. We are affiliated with the Council of Better Business Bureaus,

the national office of the Better Business Bureau system, and we

evaluate charities in relation to 20 accountability standards. In

fact, under various names, we have been doing this work for almost

a century.

About 45 percent of the 114 local Better Business Bureaus have

a similar program for local charity evaluation. We don’t charge

charities for our evaluation, and the resulting reports are free to

the public.

Certainly, veterans’ charities fill a very important need in society

for current and former members of the Armed Services and their

families, and I am pleased to say a number of these organizations

meet our standards. However, we have also seen some concerns.

Currently, we find that about half, 50 percent, of all the veterans

charities we contact do not provide any of the requested governance, financial program and fundraising information needed to

complete our evaluations. This 50 percent non-disclosure rate is

significantly higher than the 30 percent non-disclosure rate that we

see for the 1,200 national charities that are the subject of our reports.

While participation in our evaluation service is voluntary, it certainly suggests to us that many veterans’ charities have a way to

go in demonstrating accountability.

Now for those charities that do provide the requested information

to our office, we generally find that overall about 65 percent of all

the charities meet our standards. However, of the veterans’ charities that we evaluate that provide information, we find a significantly lower number of veterans’ charities meeting our standards,

less than 40 percent of them.

It is difficult to say that there is no single reason they don’t meet

standards. Some of these organizations are relatively new, created

in the past few years. But the reason that they don’t meet standards is not solely because of financial issues. Financial issues, we

feel, don’t provide the full picture of accountability.

The accountability issues in our standards in terms of these organizations range from conflict of interest policies not being

present, insufficient frequency of governing board meetings to problems with donor privacy, the accuracy of the way expenses are reported on financial statements among other things.

Now, in our view, the message for donors, we think, is to be

proactive in making giving decisions, to check with outside sources

such as the BBB Wise Giving Alliance and others in making an informed giving decision, and that can certainly go a long way.

106

I do want to make one comment in response to Congressman

Sarbanes’ earlier questions about accreditation seals. We do have

such a program at the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, an accreditation

seal for charities that do meet our standards. I am pleased to say

that about 200 of the 1,200 national charities that we evaluate display the seal indicating they meet our standards on their Web sites

and in their appeals, and we think that is a program that is having

an impact.

So, thank you again for allowing us to share our comments, and

I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiner follows:]

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, all of you, for your testimony.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine whether donations to

veterans’ charities are getting to the people who need them. So,

Mr. Weiner, your view is that of all the charities, the veterans’

charities seem to be the most out of line in terms of the small

amount of money that is actually going to veterans’ care. Is that

an accurate statement?

Mr. WEINER. I don’t know if I could say if they are the most out

of line because we evaluate so many different types of organizations, but clearly in what we have seen there is less of a degree

of cooperation with our self-regulatory process. About half of them

don’t even send us information on request and a higher degree of

non-compliance with the standards that we have. So, yes, I would

agree that is an issue that concerns us as well.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Borochoff, what would you say is an appropriate proportion of the resources a charity is spending on fundraising? Would you give us a number you think is OK to spend on

fundraising?

Mr. BOROCHOFF. Well, it should be $35 or less. The problem is

charities are saying things. They are labeling things. They are disguising their fundraising costs and calling them programs.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, we put together a chart based on what

these veterans’ charities spend on fundraising and program services, and I would like to put it on the screen. The chart is based

simply on the numbers that they report on their Form 990 reports

to the IRS.

Mr. Friend, in fiscal year 2006, you reported to the IRS that approximately 59 cents of every dollar donated to American Veterans

Coalition was spent on fundraising costs.

Ms. Seman, according to your tax returns, approximately 71

cents of every dollar donated to Disabled Veterans Associations in

fiscal year 2006 went to pay for fundraising and not for programs.

In fact, that is what you reported to the IRS, but these numbers

are actually worse because your organizations count many of your

fundraising materials as program activities. Mr. Borochoff mentioned that.

You call them program activities that help veterans when you

send out a solicitation that includes some language about the

plight of veterans or when you say that the fundraising letter is actually a charitable service because it is educating the public about

the plight of veterans.

Let me give you some examples. Well, one is American Veterans

Coalition, and it has information about the plight of the veterans

themselves, the face of veterans in need.

So, when you report to the IRS, you report only a portion of the

costs to produce this mailer under fundraising. That is allowed

under the accounting rules. Am I right about this, Ms. Seman?

Ms. SEMAN. Yes, you are correct.

Chairman WAXMAN. And, Mr. Friend?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes, I agree.

Chairman WAXMAN. So, Mr. Borochoff, what do you think of

these practices when they claim that some of the fundraising costs

are actually services to the veterans?

116

Mr. BOROCHOFF. The donors don’t know this is what is going on,

and I think the charity ought to tell the public when they solicit

money, to say that 80 percent of the money is going to pay for the

solicitation that you are reading.

The accounting rules are very flexible, and they allow for a lot

of different ways of reporting this information.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, we made a chart that indicates what

the actual figures would be if you claimed that these are fundraising expense and not the services for veterans.

We look at these numbers, and it is clear that the American Veterans Coalition is spending over three-quarters of the money it

raises on fundraising expenses, salaries and overhead. Less than

25 cents of every dollar goes to help veterans.

The numbers are even worse for Disabled Veterans Associations.

Over 90 percent of the money you raise goes to fundraisers. Less

than 10 percent actually helps veterans.

Mr. Friend and Ms. Seman, how can you justify what you are

doing? The money you are raising is enriching the fundraisers and

yourselves, and virtually none of it is going to actually helping the

veterans when you look at such a small percentage for actual services?

Mr. FRIEND. In a sense, that is true. Unfortunately, the only way

a small startup charity can exist and move into the spectrum of

making direct support with its own tap base is by using professional fundraisers. Their fees are exorbitant. I mean we are probably between 80 and 85 percent with any professional fundraiser

that we bring into our fold.

We do want their tap base. We want to use it for traditional mail

later on. We want to mail and raise money under our own guise,

not with professional fundraisers, and we are trying to move into

other programs so those numbers can reflect true numbers and not

what you are talking about.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, how long have you been in existence?

Mr. FRIEND. I am sorry?

Chairman WAXMAN. How long has your organization been in existence?

Mr. FRIEND. We incorporated in 2002.

Chairman WAXMAN. So, for 5 years, you used professional fundraisers.

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Chairman WAXMAN. Ms. Seman, how long have you been in existence, and how can you justify this kind of expenditure, less than

10 percent going to help veterans?

Ms. SEMAN. Part of the problem we have found is these fundraisers ask for very long contracts with exclusive and non-compete

clauses in them and, across the board, every telemarketer and

every direct mail I researched asked us for the same thing. We get

locked into these long contracts, and we can’t get out, and we have

no other means of raising money on our own.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, it is not just small startup charities.

Mr. Chapin’s group raised, what was it, $98 million. They have

been around for some time. Less than 10 percent is gong to help

veterans in that organization.

117

So I find it unconvincing that small startups need this extra expenditure when so little is actually going to the veterans.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

I am not sure where to start. It is not that the groups may not

be trying to help veterans, but the fact is that people who are donating need to understand that their money is not going to help

veterans. That is really the problem, and maybe they want to put

it somewhere else where their money would go directly.

So I don’t want to question anybody’s motives in terms of what

they are trying to do, but the people out there who are soliciting.

Many of them are seniors on fixed incomes, but they just want to

do something to help people who have given some to their country.

They send you $10 and less than $1 is going directly to help veterans in some cases.

Ms. Seman, what is the Disabled Veterans Associations going to

do in the next year to try to improve the fundraising ratios we have

talked about?

Ms. SEMAN. We are still deciding what we are going to do, but

we are not going to hire another professional. We are going to do

it on our own.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I mean your argument, as I understand,

is you have a higher net by going with a professional route.

Ms. SEMAN. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I understand that. You want to help people. You have more money to hand out and do public good. Our job

here is not just to look after the end result but also to look at the

people how are donating, and that is really our concern.

Mr. Friend, what are you going to do next year?

Mr. FRIEND. We are looking into some conservative events. It

wouldn’t be a golf event because of inclement weather or something

like that, where we would be trapped into a lot of expenses and not

being able to raise the money, for instance. We want something

that can be a proven winner for us.

We are raising money, starting to raise money on our own without professional fundraisers. We think that can be or that will be

a big step forward. However, it is quite surprising when you look

at those numbers even in-house, how much it actually costs to raise

money even on your own when you take into account the printing

and the envelopes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Friend, you are talking up here to

someone who has been chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee in the House for two cycles and knows something about direct mail and phone solicitation and Mr. Van Hollen, who is the

current Democratic Chair.

Mr. FRIEND. Well, I was speaking from my perspective.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, it is the same. In fact, we have

more restrictions.

I understand. I mean I understand the difficulty, but I think at

the end of the day, what we look at is the people that you are soliciting and what they are giving and should they, in fact, know that

their money is not going for the intent that it is solicited.

Let me ask this, Mr. Friend. How many other charitable organizations do you have?

118

Mr. FRIEND. We have three other organizations.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Are they all about the same in terms of

using the same outsourcing for raising money?

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

I am sorry. You mean professional fundraising?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes.

Mr. FRIEND. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You use the same fundraiser for all the

groups?

Mr. FRIEND. No. Some, we do.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In 2005, the Hartford Courant did an investigative story on veterans’ charities. It is still on the Charity

Navigator Web site, which is another charity watchdog group.

Your charity is mentioned first as paying staggering costs to a

telemarketer that pocketed 85 percent of every dollar you raised.

This is back in 2003. Is that correct?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes, I think so.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What would you do to correct that?

Would you change?

Mr. FRIEND. Well, we are starting to work on traditional mail,

traditional and direct mail.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just ask this. Are you still using

that same telemarketer?

Mr. FRIEND. I can’t answer that accurately because I would have

to go look. I don’t have those numbers or those telemarketers in

front of me if they are still——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Borochoff, can you add? Can you

shed any light on that, Mr. Borochoff?

Mr. BOROCHOFF. It is the same telemarketer.

Mr. FRIEND. Sir, what is your question?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I guess my question is if you have a telemarketer that you are hiring that is taking 85 percent for every

dollar?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes. Yes, we do.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You are still using them?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes, we do.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you think that is fair to the donors

that are solicited?

Mr. FRIEND. I don’t think it is fair at all. I think it is the only

way for a startup charity to generate enough money to spread its

wings and be able to fly independently of using professional fundraisers. I know.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. That was 2003. You are no longer a

startup, and you have three other charities going.

Mr. FRIEND. No, we are not a startup. It just takes a long, quite

grueling number of years to get where you are independent, a lot

longer than any of us wish it would.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. The IRS 990 form for the American Veterans Coalition tells a sad story provided based on donations received. In 2003, it says nothing went to veterans. In 2004, 1.4 percent.

What improvements are you making to see that more of the

money you raise goes to veterans programs and, in general, what

119

percentage of money you raised this past year do you think will go

directly to veterans services, not solicitation costs?

Mr. FRIEND. I don’t think our numbers are going to be that much

better. They are a little better this year, but next year they should

probably improve, and if they don’t improve every year, quite

frankly, we are in the wrong business.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You can say that again. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In your statement, Mr. Friend, you said that nobody is forced to

contribute to your organization.

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That, of course, is true. They want to contribute to your organization because you solicit them on the phone,

telling them they are going to do good things for veterans.

In fact, the Hartford Courant that my colleague, Mr. Davis, referred to in 2005 has part of the script: the American Veterans Coalition is dedicated to helping veterans right here, fill in the name

of the State, who are homeless or in desperate need. The foundation provides assistance to these veterans in the form of food, shelter, clothing, job search assistance and any other reasonable request.

That is why people are giving to you because they think the

money that is going to you when they give you a dollar, that most

of it is going to help veterans, and so I think a lot of them would

be very surprised and extremely disturbed to find out exactly what

is going on.

Now, as I understand it, you have been at this, as you described

it, a business, for a very long time. Beginning in 1999, you founded

a non-profit called Abundant Life Foundation in California. Is that

correct?

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. When you did that, you hired a man named

Mitch Gold to conduct a telemarketing fundraising for your organization. Is that correct?

Mr. FRIEND. That is also correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Gold, as I am sure you know, a notorious

figure in the world of charitable organizations. In fact, in 2002, a

Federal judge sentenced him to 8 years in prison for charity fraud

before he was caught, he was apparently making $10 million a

year, operating dozens of non-profit organizations. Those were supposed to be helping firefighters, police officer, children and veterans.

The Orange County Register, a newspaper in California, of

course, characterized you as part of Mr. Gold’s ‘‘money machine.’’

Do you recall that article?

Mr. FRIEND. Of course, it is completely incorrect.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But you hired him. Let me just say this. They

are saying here he went to prison in 2002. You moved to Washington State, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And began four operations, charitable operations: National Association for Disabled Police Officers, the DisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
120

abled Firefighters Foundation and the Children’s Cancer Assistance Program. Is that correct?

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. These groups, you have testified, operate

under the same sort of approach with the telemarketers? Is that

right?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. How is it that you are really being that different in the sense of Mr. Gold’s kind of operation?

It sounds like you set up businesses that are very appealing to

the public, charities from children’s cancer on the one side to veterans, and you are raising a lot of money, but very little of that

money is going, at the end of the day, to the people who all those

callers, who want to help, hope it will go to.

Mr. FRIEND. I can’t speak for Mitchell Gold. I wasn’t a disciple

of his, and a lot of the things that were written are incorrect insomuch as they say I was a pupil or he was a mentor. That is totally

incorrect.

He raised money for us when we first got into this business. Unbeknownst to the way we should do it, he gave us a contract, if I

recall, where he gave us so much money a week and he kept the

difference. He even went so far as doing his own banking, as conducting his own banking. That is a deal-breaker for us.

If we can’t control the purse strings and the banking and know

where this money is going and can account for everything, we don’t

want anything to do with anybody in any other way, shape or fashion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Friend. If you had

a choice as an individual to give between two charitable organizations, one of which gave a lot more to the ultimate beneficiary than

the other, you would choose the one with the ultimate gain, right?

Mr. FRIEND. I would give to the one that gave a lot more.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There are lots of organizations out there to

help veterans, isn’t that right?

Mr. FRIEND. True.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. A lot of them give more of every dollar that

is contributed to the veterans services, isn’t that right?

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So, as an individual, you would give to one of

these other organizations before your organization, isn’t that right?

Mr. FRIEND. At this time, I would. I hope that in the future we

grow into the area where you will want to give to our organization.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, I think it is clear you would not, as an

individual, trying to make sure your moneys were used to the help

benefit veterans.

Mr. FRIEND. At this time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me ask you this. Do you have any objection to disclosing publicly on a Web site or your materials how

much of every dollar goes to fundraising operations and costs, including the ones Mr. Waxman raised with respect to the literature,

and how much actually goes to veterans? Do you have any objection to that?

Mr. FRIEND. Well, we certainly do it over the phone. I don’t know

how.

121

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Oh, you call over the phone and you tell people

that only 15 cents.

Mr. FRIEND. No, no. If someone asks us the question.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am asking you if you have any objection to

putting on your Web site or on your literature that you send out

exactly how much is actually going to the veterans. Do you have

an objection to that?

Mr. FRIEND. I wouldn’t be happy with it, but I suppose I would

adhere to it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. Why wouldn’t you be happy telling people how their money is being spent?

Mr. FRIEND. Because, unfortunately, all the charities in the country do hide behind what they call joint cost allocation, and the only

way you can grow to a point where you can begin to utilize that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But you wouldn’t mind if all charities had to

disclose, you are saying, if all charities had to disclose?

Mr. FRIEND. Oh, if all charities did? Absolutely not.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right, but then everybody would know that

less of the money they gave to you went to veterans than other organizations, correct?

Mr. FRIEND. I think that would be all right as long as it is the

same playing field for everyone.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think it is important for people to know

where there is money going. We want to make sure that people

have confidence that when they are contributing to veterans, it is

going to veterans.

Mr. FRIEND. No. I agree as long as it was the same playing field.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I just have a couple questions.

I was interested. This Mr. Mitch Gold, how did you meet that fellow?

Mr. FRIEND. I met him through an individual that was working

at the time for Shiloh Ministries, that wanted to bring in some

products from China. At the time before the advent of the Internet,

it was much easier to broker and act in a broker capacity.

Mr. BURTON. Had he had any trouble with the law before he affiliated himself with you?

Mr. FRIEND. I wasn’t privy to that, sir.

Mr. BURTON. Did you do any kind of a background check on him

or anything?

Mr. FRIEND. No, no, I didn’t. No.

Mr. BURTON. When you are talking about the kinds of money

that you are talking about, it seems to me that you would want to

know whether or not somebody has some kind of a problem.

Mr. FRIEND. Now, we do.

Mr. BURTON. You do now?

Mr. FRIEND. Now.

Mr. BURTON. How much did he get away with? They estimate

$10 million before he went to jail?

Mr. FRIEND. Well, again, I am not privy to the background on

what exactly happened to Mitch Gold. I know it was a lot, but at

122

that time I didn’t know. I didn’t have knowledge of it. That is all

I can attest to.

Mr. BURTON. But when you are talking about that kind of

money, I mean I had a business, and I didn’t deal with anything

like that, and we sure checked everybody out before I did business

with them.

Mr. FRIEND. Well, again, that was when we first got into the

business, and we were given so much a week.

Mr. BURTON. How about these new charities that you have? Do

you check the people out that you are dealing with there?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes, we do, and I also make a point of going whenever I can, as possible, and lumping some of these vendors together. I make a point of going out and visiting their organizations,

looking at the way they raise money, and I pay some pretty close

scrutiny to it.

Mr. BURTON. I just want to followup with one more question, and

I will yield to Mr. Shays.

That is I don’t understand why all the charities don’t divulge

when they are soliciting money, the amount of money and the percent that is going to go to the charity involved. I think everybody

ought to do that.

I know it would discourage some people from giving to some

charities. I mean I saw some on this list I have given money to that

I wouldn’t after that. But if everybody did it, I think that the public deserves to know that.

I know it would be a difficult thing for some of you folks out

there because of the margin of profit that you are making, but I

think that is one of the things we ought to look at legislatively.

In the Supreme Court decision, did they say anything about, in

any of those decisions, that you did not have to divulge the amount

of money that was being used for overhead and the amount that

was going to the charity? Was there anything in any of the decisions?

Mr. FRIEND. Is this directed to me?

Mr. BURTON. Any of you?

Mr. BOROCHOFF. Well, what is interesting about that decision, as

long as you don’t go out and lie and specify a certain amount, you

are OK.

Mr. BURTON. What I am wondering is it has not been tested in

the court that the legislative branch of Government could mandate

that the percentage that is going for the charity and the percentage

that is going for overhead be divulged. What I am trying to make

is it has not been tested in court from what I have heard today.

Mr. BOROCHOFF. There has been like four cases, four Supreme

Court cases, to my knowledge, concerning this issue, as a first

amendment issue, highly controversial.

Mr. BURTON. In that first amendment issue you are talking

about, did it say specifically that they did not have to be required

to divulge the amount that was going for overhead and the amount

that was going for the charity.

Mr. BOROCHOFF. Yes, at point of solicitation, they are not required to.

Mr. BURTON. So, they are not required to, and the Supreme

Court upheld that? All right, OK.

123

I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must tell you, Mr. Friend and Ms. Seman, that this testimony

has been a bit painful and, in my opinion, you give reputable charities a bad one. That is why I want to ask Ms. Carroll just a few

questions about TAPS.

Ms. Carroll, it appears to be more efficient and they seem to be

more efficient at fundraising. We have heard that many of these

other organizations use for-profit corporate fundraisers to do direct

mail and telemarketing solicitations and, as a result of those professional solicitors, keep 80 to 90 percent of the contributions. Did

you hear that testimony?

Ms. CARROLL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand that TAPS does not currently use

a for-profit fundraising company to raise its money, but you did try

it at one time. Is that correct?

Ms. CARROLL. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Why did you first decide to try raising money

through a for-profit direct mail campaign?

Ms. CARROLL. We were approached by the firm, and they gave

a very compelling case for this being a solid way to raise money.

One of our sister organizations that I mentioned in my testimony,

COPS, Concerns of Police Survivors, does use that. We tried it for

a year. We found the percentage far too high and terminated that

agreement.

Currently, we have an in-house development director. She is the

surviving sister of Captain Blake Russell, who was killed in Iraq,

and not only is she now raising money for us internally, but it is

also part of her healing.

Mr. CUMMINGS. She probably has a passion for it.

Ms. CARROLL. She absolutely does. When she is connecting with

our donors and with our families, she is connecting from the heart.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now what kind of promises did your fundraiser

make, the telemarketing fundraiser make to you?

Ms. CARROLL. Well, that over time, as they build a house file

from the direct mail, there would be quite a bit of money, revenue

coming in. After seeing this in place for a period of approximately

1 year, we determined this was not an appropriate way for us to

be managing, and the ratio was far, far too off, and it did damage

our ratio for a period which we are very, very disturbed about.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me ask you this. How much money did

you make under the telemarketer? How much money did you

make?

Ms. CARROLL. If I could just defer to our CFO here.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure.

Ms. CARROLL. It is upsetting to say that our income was approximately $50,000 to their total of $500,000.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Wait a minute. Let me get this right. I know I

didn’t hear that right. Let me get this right. They got $500,000, and you got $50,000?

Ms. CARROLL. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Jiminy Christmas.

124

Ms. CARROLL. And we terminated that very quickly, and it was

a regrettable experience.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You did something that Ms. Seman just talked

about, and she said that it was almost impossible to terminate

these agreements and they had to be long range. Did you find that

they were requiring long range agreements?

Ms. CARROLL. They did, and we terminated immediately upon

making the board decision.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So provisions in your contract allowed you terminate?

Ms. CARROLL. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. They did pretty good now in a year. Was it a

year? How many years?

Ms. CARROLL. It was approximately 1 year.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In 1 year, they made $450,000.

Ms. Carroll, what methods are you using to raise now? I think

you told me that a minute ago.

Ms. CARROLL. We have one of our most successful fundraisers is

the Marine Corps Marathon. We have a team in which every runner honors a fallen service member. Many of those runners are

themselves, surviving families. They run. This year, we raised over

$200,000.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So that is a much better rate.

Ms. CARROLL. Yes. Yes, that is a wonderful rate, and the really

great thing about the program is we are bringing together the families.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last but not least, Ms. Seman and Mr. Friend,

I am so glad you had an opportunity to hear that testimony. Perhaps we can improve on your performance. Perhaps we can see

more money going to the appropriate folks.

You say you have no other option than to use direct mail and

telemarketing, but that is not true, is it?

Ms. SEMAN. I never said I had no other option. I said I was

locked into a contract for right now and that we weren’t going to

do that in the future. That is what I said.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Cummings, I am going to have that as

a question that you put out there rather than get the answer because I think it is the kind of question that we all should think

about.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Seman, you are under oath. Mr. Friend, you are under oath.

All of you are under oath.

Ms. Seman, how much do you make? How much does anyone in

your family make from this?

Ms. SEMAN. I make $85,000 a year; none of my family members.

Mr. SHAYS. You make $85,000 a year?

Ms. SEMAN. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Friend, I want to know how much you make

overall from all four of your charities.

Mr. FRIEND. Myself?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. FRIEND. About $85,000.

Mr. SHAYS. How much does any of your family members make?

125

Mr. FRIEND. My wife makes about the same.

Mr. SHAYS. Not about, I want to know what she makes.

Mr. FRIEND. About $85,000. I think we made a hundred——

Mr. SHAYS. Does anybody else in your family make any money

from this?

Mr. FRIEND. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Who else?

Mr. FRIEND. A small amount, my father-in-law works in a capacity of working in the office in regard to——

Mr. SHAYS. Anybody else in your family?

Mr. FRIEND. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Do any of you get a kickback from the firms that do

it?

Mr. FRIEND. No, no.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you get a kickback from anyone?

Mr. FRIEND. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you make money from any other source?

Mr. FRIEND. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Seman, I don’t understand why you just don’t get

rid of your foundation.

Ms. SEMAN. We are in the process of doing that right now.

Mr. SHAYS. Just dissolve it.

Ms. SEMAN. We are in the process.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, yes.

Mr. Friend, I think it is just bull that you have to hire these

folks to do your calls. I think it is a ripoff to the public, and I think

you are in the business just to make money. I don’t think you are

there to help cancer patients, the police or the veterans.

You tell me how I should believe you are in the business to help

people.

Mr. FRIEND. Unless our numbers can start to prove otherwise,

then I would agree with you, and I think that I wouldn’t stay in

the business unless I felt that our numbers were going to.

Mr. SHAYS. You have been in the business too long to make that

statement. You have been in the business over 5 years.

Mr. FRIEND. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, well, it is pretty pathetic.

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.

We thank all the witnesses for being here today.

We are going to have another hearing in January, and we are

going to work on this issue because it is one I think we owe to our

veterans and all of the people who give to charities.

Thank you for being here.

The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

(127)

ASSESSING VETERANS’ CHARITIES—PART II

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Davis of Virginia, Cummings,

Tierney, Watson, Lynch, Yarmuth, Braley, Norton, Van Hollen,

Sarbanes, Burton, Shays, Platts, Cannon, Duncan, Issa, Bilbray,

and Sali.

Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett, staff director/chief counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and

senior policy advisor; David Rapallo, chief investigative counsel;

John Williams, deputy chief investigative counsel; Suzanne

Renaud, Susanne Sachsman, and Stacia Cardille, counsels; Earley

Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal, assistant clerk; Caren Auchman,

press assistant; Ella Hoffman, press agent; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Kerry Gutknecht and Miriam Edelman,

staff assistants; Matt Siegler, special assistant; David Marin, minority staff director; Larry Halloran, minority deputy staff director;

Keith Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Grace Washbourne, minority senior professional staff member; Nick Palarino, minority

senior investigator and policy advisor; Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; Brian McNicoll, minority communications director; Benjamin Chance, minority clerk;

Ali Ahmad, minority deputy press secretary; and Todd Greenwood,

minority research assistant.

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting of the committee will please

come to order.

This is the second hearing our committee is holding on how veterans’ charities raise and spend their money.

This issue matters a great deal. More than 4,000 Americans have

been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands more are coming home with debilitating physical and psychological injuries. Our

country owes these heroes honor and genuine gratitude. If these

soldiers and their families face crippling financial burdens as a result of their service, we owe them generous help there, too.

Our December hearings show that countless Americans are ready

and willing to help. They are selflessly donating hundreds of millions of dollars to charities that purport to help veterans. They are

trying to help those who gave such tremendous sacrifice for us all.

Many of the charities are doing invaluable work and spend most

128

of the dollars they receive directly on veterans. Other organizations, however, engage what I think is an intolerable fraud. Most

of the millions they receive never reach veterans or their families.

Instead, the groups waste those contributions on bloated overhead

costs and self-enrichment.

We were privileged at our December hearing to receive testimony

from Ed Edmundson, the father of a soldier who was seriously

wounded in Iraq. He told us about the great challenges families

like his face as they try to get their loved ones the care they deserve. He told us this: ‘‘My son, as well as the other thousands of

injured soldiers from this war or any other war, they are not a

commodity. Organizations come to us to offer assistance. We gladly

welcome them to aid in our quest. But I don’t think it is right that

you can use these soldiers as commodities to raise funds and, as

an organization, to say that you are raising funds to aid all of the

thousands of soldiers and then turn around and give a small percentage of that to what you are saying that you are going to do

with the contributions.’’

Well, Mr. Edmundson’s concern is why we held our first hearing

and why we are holding our hearing today. Although we had invited Roger Chapin, who has operated a number of veterans’ and

military charities over the past 40 years, to join us in December,

he refused to attend voluntarily and he evaded service of a subpoena by Federal Marshals. I am glad Mr. Chapin reconsidered his

position for this hearing. His charities raised over $168 million

from 2004 to 2006. But our analysis reveals that only 25 percent

of that money was spent on veterans. During those 3 years, Mr. Chapin and his wife received over $1.5

million in compensation from his groups and received hundreds of

thousands of dollars more in reimbursements. My staff prepared a

memorandum that provides an analysis of the funds received by

Mr. Chapin’s charities and how they were used. Without objection,

that memorandum and the documents it cites will be made part of

the hearing record.

[The information referred to follows:]

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Chapin believes there is another side to

this story, so it is important that we have an opportunity to share

his perspective with us. I look forward to his testimony and the testimony of all of our witnesses on this very important issue.

Our actions, not our words, are the true measure of our commitment to our veterans. And this committee will continue to try to

honor their service through fair and thorough oversight. My colleague and friend, Tom Davis, has done exactly that, and I want

to recognize him for his statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman follows:]

139

140

141

142

143

144

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee understand the great needs of our Nation’s wounded veterans. We have heard first-hand accounts of the

pain and the suffering endured by hundreds of individual service

members and their families, too often trapped in bureaucracy,

mired in disjointed administrative processes and inertia.

We have seen a stubborn failure to acknowledge and effectively

treat traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

We have been to Walter Reed and met America’s heroes and their

families trying to heal and go home.

For many veterans, an important part of their journey back involves critical help provided by charities. Those charities are supported by millions of generous, patriotic Americans. So this committee’s effort to assess the reach and effectiveness of veterans’

charities is a legitimate and timely exercise of our oversight responsibilities.

While it is well-settled law that charitable solicitations merit

broad protection from government interference under the first

amendment, it is just as clear Article I of the Constitution charges

us to guard the integrity of commerce and protect the general welfare. There should be no doubt our investigation is a sincere effort

to understand what can be done by Congress, by States and individuals to protect donors from wasteful, fraudulent and abusive

charities that exploit public support for veterans and siphon precious resources from truly worthy causes.

At our first hearing in December, we learned about Federal and

State oversight of charities, and we discussed some of the standards developed by private watchdogs and others to assess charitable operations and help donors make informed choices about how

to best help veterans. At that time, I said there is no per se test,

no magic ratio of program expenditures to fundraising costs that

automatically distinguishes good charities from bad ones.

Other factors have to be considered—transparency, governance,

track record. But we have to be concerned about complex business

models and business practices that consistently direct as much of

the money raised to insiders and captive well-paid vendors as to

veterans. Wrapping a commercial activity in the flag and parking

it behind the first amendment can’t shield sharp practices indefinitely from responsible public scrutiny. Sooner or later donors will

see through flowery direct mail rhetoric to the base realities of exploitative self-serving charities. We just want to make sure wellmeaning contributors have the tools to do so.

Today the committee looks specifically at the management and

governance of charities operated by Mr. Roger Chapin. His biggest

charity, Help Hospitalized Vets, has been praised by some, criticized by others. He was the focus of a series of articles in Forbes

magazine that questioned whether fund transfers across the network of veterans’ charities and advocacy arms were being used to

disguise high salaries, illegitimate expenses and other fiscal trickery.

After some initial difficulties in scheduling his appearance, Mr.

Chapin has agreed to testify and has provided substantial documentation in response to the committee’s request. We appreciate

145

his cooperation and hope to learn in more detail how he runs his

veterans’ charities.

Testimony by direct mail vendors and others will also help us understand the operational realities and legal principles that sustain

this important segment of our national support systems for veterans.

Without question, veterans’ charities, including Mr. Chapin’s,

have provided help of inestimable value to American heroes. Now

we ask him and others to help us be sure no one is taking advantage of the generosity of Americans who also care deeply about our

Nation’s wounded. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

146

147

148

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

I wanted to give Members a chance to make an opening statement before we hear from our witnesses. On this side, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I join my colleagues in thanking you and our ranking member for

holding this hearing. Those of us, and I am sure most Members of

Congress do have occasion to visit with our veterans and to also to

go to the various hospitals and we also have opportunities to have

them come into our offices and talk about the issues that concern

them.

I find it very difficult to understand why it is that folks can raise

money for these veterans, these men and women who have given

their blood, sweat and tears, and in some instances, in the long

run, their lives, trying to lift up our country, and when the American people come forward and say that we want to be supportive

of them, that anyone would do anything that would cause a reasonable amount of those funds that should flow to them not to.

So it is our duty as the Congress to look into this matter. I am

sitting here because I am very, very curious as to what the counterargument is to the article that appeared in the Washington Post

this morning, written by Philip Rucker, that says between 1997

and 2005, the Chapin charity paid $3.8 million in salary and benefits to Chapin and his wife, and spent more than $200 million on

fundraising and public education campaigns.

The public records also show that the charity awarded at least $19 million in contracts during that period to companies owned by

Richard Viguerie, who is with us, a prominent conservative political commentator and advertising consultant based in Virginia.

So today we take a moment to try to figure this out, not to accuse anybody of wrongdoing if they haven’t done wrong, but simply

to try to figure out, how do you take the American people’s generosity and make sure that it gets to the very people who have given

so much and continue to give, and make sure that nobody is getting a part of that money, an unreasonable part of that money that

they should not be getting. Hopefully from this hearing, Mr. Chairman, we will be able to figure out how, if necessary, to create or

revise the laws of this Nation so that these things do not happen.

I think that if true, we have a lot of work to do, and it is very,

very disturbing, as it should be, for every single American. I think

it is un-American if one takes that money and takes an unreasonable amount of it and steers it in another direction when our veterans sit waiting and hoping that someone will not only recognize

them but do them right.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are thousands of veterans coming home who will need our

assistance. Ultimately, we are all accountable to our country’s

wounded veterans and their families. Whether we are in Government, business or charities, or just private citizens, we are responsible for Americans who defend and protect us, particularly those

who have been maimed and wounded in service to our country.

149

The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs need to continue with their major overhaul of the services provided to our wounded and veterans, and our committee will continue its comprehensive oversight of these departments that ensure

that these much needed changes are made.

But our society is also in need of other venues of giving and caring for veterans. I know there is a common expectation that charities, by their very altruistic nature, will function at a high level

of effectiveness in providing services and use donations efficiently.

This committee is learning this is not always the case. At our

first hearing on veterans’ charities, it was disconcerting to hear the

amount of donations that were recycled into fundraising costs versus used to provide services to veterans these charities were claiming to help. This practice does a great disservice to Americans who

think their pennies and dollars are providing aid and comfort to

our Nation’s veterans. It is appalling to use veterans as poster children to keep poorly run charities in business, while claiming to

provide substantial services to this large and needy population. If

charities are failing or are not providing proper assistance, then it

is our role to identify and make transparent to the public those

charities who are not reputable.

Today we will hear Mr. Roger Chapin, whose veterans’ charities

have been negatively rated by some charity watchdog groups, and

whose practices have been the subject of negative investigation reports in Forbes magazine. But Mr. Chapin’s veterans’ charities

have collected and millions and millions of dollars over the years,

the vast majority of which are not reaching veterans or their families. That fact alone merits his appearance before this committee.

The U.S. Supreme Court has restricted the ability of States and

the Federal Government to require charities to divulge fundraising

costs to donors or to limit the percentage charities may spend on

fundraising. The court noted that for many charities the process of

raising money is often intertwined with advocacy and education, so

fundraising should be considered a form of free speech protected by

the first amendment.

Some causes are hard to raise money for, but groups like veterans, policemen and firemen are the subject of the most instances

of charity fraud and broad direct solicitation, because it is easy to

exploit feelings of patriotism and community to solicit money for

those hard-to-say-no-to heroes. I question the content of some direct mail appeals and the costs associated with direct mailings. I

question the promises and allusions to programs made by charities

in direct mail solicitations that are not kept, and language that is

purposely confusing.

I question the use of sweepstakes and free trinkets as a proper

use of donations to secure more donations. I question repeated

mailings directed to our seniors on limited incomes, exploiting their

patriotism and generosity. I question the reasoning behind the

number of mailings sent to the same people, month after month

after month.

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Richard Viguerie and Mr.

Geoffrey Peters, whose direct mail companies have contracts with

Mr. Chapin’s charities. It is important to understand the nature of

150

the direct mail business, what contracts contain, who drives mail

content, and why fundraising costs are so high.

I have specific questions about the management practices of the

Chapin veterans’ charities, Help Hospitalized Veterans, the Coalition to Salute American Heroes Foundation and Help Wounded Heroes. Internal Revenue Service 990 forms and board of director

minutes from these charities indicate that over the years, Mr.

Chapin and his wife have received millions of dollars in salaries

supplemented by large expense accounts. I question the merit of

Mr. Chapin’s high salary and lack of adequate documentation for

expenses paid by the donors in the name of veterans.

I question the movement of funds and loans between these charities. It disguises real fundraising costs in an effort to achieve higher ratings by charity watchdog groups, ultimately deceiving donors.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee

on a bipartisan basis and in the Congress to see what might be

done to stop waste, abuse and fraud by charities so that Americans

will continue to give with the confidence their donations actually

make a difference.

Mr. Chairman, again, and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for

holding this hearing.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As usual, you

are right on point for these issues that are so critical.

Mr. Chairman, Americans have given millions of dollars to help

thousands of veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans are known as a giving people who will open up their hearts

and wallets for just causes. It is therefore all the more disconcerting when we learn that some philanthropic groups spent relatively

little money on the wounded while collecting millions.

According to an article in last December’s Washington Post, the

American Institute on Philanthropy reported that 20 to 29 military

charities that were studied were managing their resources poorly,

paying high overhead costs and direct mail campaigns and excessive salaries. The Institute gave Fs to 12 of the 29 military charities reviewed and Ds to 8. That is nearly a 70 percent failure rate.

According to the same article, one of the most egregious failures

is Help Hospitalized Veterans, founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin,

who belatedly has decided to cooperate with the committee and

present his testimony today. And I am very pleased that Mr.

Chapin has come forth.

Mr. Chapin, as president of Help Hospitalized Veterans, we understand you received $426,000 in salary and benefits, and your

wife received an additional $113,000. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want

to begrudge anyone earning a livable wage or profiting from their

endeavors, but profiting in excess on the backs of those who are in

need does not strike me as very American or at least the way

Americans view themselves. Such practices do not benefit veterans,

veterans’ organizations, nor the public at large and don’t speak

well of us as a society.

So I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Chapin. But what I

have read about these charities appears to me to represent a patVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
151

tern of decades of abuse, maybe not in law, but in the spirit of

charitable enterprises.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield my remaining time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing.

As you know, San Diego County is ground center when it comes

down to veterans and active duty military. And this issue is obviously a very important issue to the community of San Diego.

The fact is that Mr. Chapin served for 6 years as one of my constituents during my previous stint in Congress. Though I have no

personal knowledge of his involvement with veterans’ organizations

of any kind, I did have the opportunity to work professionally with

him on an issue that I think you agree strongly on, Mr. Chairman,

and that was to perpetuate a national program of health prevention. Because of my previous personal relationship with Mr. Chapin

I will not be asking him any questions today.

But I do appreciate the fact that this hearing is being held and

that we get these issues. At that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the

chairman and the ranking member for their persistence in investigating these questionable fundraising practices, especially given

the fact that Mr. Chapin resisted the first subpoena.

No. 1, I think that it is disgraceful that anyone might capitalize

on the good will and the support of the American people to support

our men and women in uniform for their own personal benefit. As

have many of the members on this committee, I have just come

back from my seventh trip to Iraq. I have been in Afghanistan

quite a few times as well. To see the sacrifice of our men and

women in uniform close up and on a daily basis, having been to

Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital far too many times to visit our

soldiers, it is disgraceful that anyone would capitalize on those circumstances and on the goodwill of the American people to rally behind our troops for ulterior motives.

I think it is a disservice to the memory of those who have made

the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is a disservice to those brave Americans who

continue their brave service. I think it is a disservice as well, and

most dangerously, to the legitimate veterans’ support organizations

that are out there who are legitimate, who are operating transparently, and who are trying to do their very best on behalf of our

veterans. Because I fear that when the facts of these irregularities

come out and the circumstances that we are investigating today,

that Americans might grow hesitant or reluctant to support certain

charities, even though their programs are up to snuff and are legitimate and are intended and used for the best interests of veterans and their families.

So Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Chapin resisted the last subpoena,

I am eager to hear his testimony, as you said, to hear his side of

the story. I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.

152

Mr. Sali.

Mr. SALI. Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I have no questions.

Chairman WAXMAN. Opening statement?

Mr. BURTON. No opening statement.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you

and Mr. Davis for bring us together again around a very, very important issue.

The American people are a very generous people. And they are

willing to give to help those in need, and I think the American people are especially concerned about our veterans and those who have

served our country overseas and their families, who have made sacrifices, many of whom return here wounded and deserve all the

support that we can possibly give them.

And I hope out of these hearings two things will emerge. One is,

we need to make sure that the American people have confidence

that when they are giving to organizations, non-profits, that serve

our veterans, that their money really is going to benefit the veterans, and that the money is not going instead to benefit just those

organizations and the people who are involved in raising the

money. Because having that confidence is very important. We want

the American people to continue to give and support our veterans,

and they need to have a confidence that when they make that contribution, it is in fact going to the people that they want to support,

the veterans.

Of course out of that we are also helping the veterans, because

the whole purpose of making those contributions is to help those

who we intend to help. I do think that we need to do a lot more

to protect the public that wants to give and at the same time protect our veterans in that process and make sure that they get the

benefit of what the American people want to give them.

So I really hope that both in terms of the education process that

these hearings provide, but also if we can look at other measures

that we might take to make sure that people have to fully disclose

how much of what they raise goes to the veterans, and how much

goes simply to finance the operations of the non-profit and to benefit those who are running the non-profit instead of the veterans, so

that the American people can make sound choices about how best

to help our veterans, as we go forward.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I

think we should proceed and I appreciate the work that you are

doing here.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to reinforce the comments that have been made

concerning our resolve to make sure that veterans are paid all the

respect that they deserve and they are not exploited. I have been

in the private sector running businesses and I have been involved

153

with a lot of legitimate non-profit organizations. Some clearly operate as public services and some clearly operate as businesses. Unfortunately, we have seen too many instances here where organizations look a lot like businesses and are using our veterans as basically a raw material and a marketing tool.

And I think that is what we are all concerned about, uncovering

and correcting if that is the problem. So I thank you for this hearing and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I yield

back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know we are all anxious about whether there needs to be stricter regulation of charities to see how they spend their money. I

would just say this. I think that any charity has a duty and obligation, they have a trust that is being placed in them when they go

out and they make their pitch. But it seems to me that charities

that serve our veterans have an extra obligation because there is

a deeper trust placed in them, a broader trust than with respect

to just about any other charitable endeavor.

So the standard, the expectation is even higher in this arena.

And I think that is why we are here today for this hearing.

I look forward to hearing this testimony and asking the questions

that need to be asked.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Issa, your opening statement?

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.

One is an administrative matter that I hope to air, in the spirit

of doing better in the future. Mr. Chairman, there is a developing

pattern that I object to, that we think we are ready for a hearing,

but in fact rather than 3 days before the hearing receiving the

scope and the intention, which obviously the people testifying today

have to be equally informed of why we brought them here and

what we expect, the Members on the dais need it.

So once again, we received a draft supplement last night and to

this moment have not, even though it is in the record, have not received our official copy of that statement. It is an administrative

matter. I realize that although your leadership is critical, that it

is a staff matter, that in the future, I will have to object if we don’t

have legitimate statements from the majority 3 days before. Otherwise, I will have to ask, at least attempt, to postpone hearings

until we have that.

And I would hope that now is the right time to say it for future

hearings, because I want these hearings like this one, which is very

bipartisan, to be about getting to the meat of it. And 3 days is not

a lot to ask for to make sure our staff is prepared as much or more

than anyone else here on the dais.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa. I will take your concerns into consideration.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. I have been informed that there was a distribution of the memo 3 days in advance. Was that to Members?

Well, rather than——

Mr. ISSA. We will deal with this offline.

154

Chairman WAXMAN. You raise a good point, and we will try to

make sure that we do better.

Mr. ISSA. And then in order to get to our panel, I just want to

add one thing, that between the first go-round on this, in which I

spoke, like many of us here on the dais, very strongly as a veteran

about how bad it is that you are using people who have been injured in their service to our country as a way to often line the pockets of individuals who have no interest in that, I would hope when

we conclude this that we also expand this. Because ever since the

first hearing, my office has been widely informed of other abuses,

abuses very similar to the veterans’ ones, dealing with the homeless, dealing with food banks, and dealing with environmental

groups.

I would hope that we use this as a springboard for a broader reform of the whole charitable giving, versus the lining of pockets of

those who solicit. I know that is a bipartisan effort that we can do,

and I would, once again, hope that we would do it. I look forward

to completing this cycle though, because we need to get to the bottom of it and find real solutions so that fundraisers not prey upon

our veterans.

With that, I yield back and thank the chairman for this hearing.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

We have before us Roger Chapin, from San Diego, CA, who operates several different veterans’ charitable organizations.

Richard Viguerie is president of American Target Advertising, a

direct mail business located in Manassas, VA.

Geoffrey W. Peters is president of Creative Direct Response, a direct mail business, located in Bowie, MD.

Belinda J. Johns, senior assistant attorney general for the State

of California. She heads the Charitable Trust Section of the California Attorney General’s office.

We are pleased to welcome each of you to this hearing today.

Your prepared statements will be made part of the record in its entirety. What I would like to ask each of you to do, because it is the

practice of this committee that all witnesses testify under oath, is

if you would please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The record will indicate that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

As I indicated, the statements will be in the record in full if you

submit it to us. For your oral presentation, we are going to limit

the presentation to 5 minutes. We will have a timer. It will be

green during the 5-minute period and it will turn yellow in the last

minute, and then red when the 5-minutes are up. When the red appears, we would like you to conclude your statement.

Mr. Chapin, there is a button on the base of the mic that is in

front of you to turn it on, and I would like to hear from you first.

155

STATEMENTS OF ROGER CHAPIN, PRESIDENT, HELP HOSPITALIZED VETERANS, INC. AND COALITION TO SALUTE

AMERICA’S HEROES FOUNDATION; RICHARD A. VIGUERIE,

CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN TARGET ADVERTISING, INC.; GEOFFREY W. PETERS, CHAIRMAN, CREATIVE DIRECT RESPONSE;

AND BELINDA J. JOHNS, SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, CHARITABLE TRUSTS SECTION, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE

STATEMENT OF ROGER CHAPIN

Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, Representative Davis, members of

the committee. On November 26th, the committee sent us a letter

requesting the voluntary production of thousands of documents,

and inviting me to testify at a hearing 16 days later, on December

13th. I was consumed with our third Road to Recovery Conference

in early December, an inspiring event where we invite severely

wounded heroes from the War on Terror and their families to Walt

Disney World at our expense.

Because of the conference, because my wife was recovering from

back surgery, because we had moved out of our home for scheduled

renovations and because I did not have time to prepare, I declined

the committee’s invitation to appear. I have written a personal letter of apology to Mr. Waxman and Mr. Davis for the inconvenience

I caused the committee. I have done what I can to make it clear

that so long as I have adequate time to prepare, I have no problem

cooperating with the committee.

I voluntarily appeared for a transcribed interview with the committee staff that took all day Friday. I am proud to report that

Help Hospitalized Veterans [HHV], which I founded in 1971, has

generated $470 million in donations and distributed $362 million

worth of products and services based on their market value. This

represents 77 percent of total donations, proof positive that HHV

does right by its donors, as long as they are hospitalized vets. HHV

has distributed 23 million craft kits and millions of greeting cards

signed by donors helping boost the morale of hospitalized veterans.

Charity Navigator, the leading internet charity rating service,

gave HHV two stars, the same as numerous well-respected charities, including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes

Association, National Wildlife Federation, the Boy Scouts, the

YMCA, VFW and Paralyzed Veterans of America. Special Olympics

only got one star. You might say HHV is in very good company.

The Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes has distributed over

3,000 $500 Christmas gift checks to needy, disabled War on Terror

veterans and their families, in addition to helping over 6,000 families with direct emergency cash assistance, hosting over 1,200 disabled veterans and their family members in our life-changing 4-day

all-expense-paid Road to Recovery conferences at Disney World,

providing six nearly cost-free homes to catastrophically disabled

vets, assisting hundreds in finding jobs, furnishing counseling to

many more, and picking up the travel expenses of many families

visiting their wounded loved ones in military hospitals.

The bottom line on direct mail is that if you disregard allocations

for educational and programmatic content, direct mail generally

nets us approximately 35 cents on the dollar and administration

156

costs generally average another 10 percent. That is true for my

charities, and it is true for the thousands of charities in the United

States that raise $60 billion annually by direct mail, although most

other charities have higher direct mail costs than we do. The same

numbers apply to political fundraising by direct mail, and also to

State lotteries who raise tens of millions of dollars.

Throughout my life, I have endeavored to do well for my family

while I try and do some good in this world. I have been working

for HHV for 21 years, 8 of those as a volunteer, before HHV’s board

paid me more than $74,000 a year. In 1993, the first year I made

over $100,000 in salary, I was 60 years old and I had no retirement

plan. I am grateful that HHV’s board voted for a retirement plan

in 1998, benefiting me and other full-time employees. Because I

was 66 when the plan began, HHV had to make very high annual

contributions to fund my retirement benefits. I am grateful for the

board’s generosity, but I still make less than the average of nonprofit executives of similar-sized organizations.

Before closing, I have one request. I would hope that we can

work together in helping to ensure that Congress finally fulfills its

solemn obligation to over 300,000 veterans of the War on Terror

who are afflicted with PTSD and/or TBI. By the Pentagon’s own admission, government hospitals are woefully ill-equipped to treat

them, yet the vast majority are still denied the opportunity to seek

necessary therapy in the private sector at government expense. I

consider this to be a national scandal of the worst sort. I know, Mr.

Chairman, that you and the committee have held hearings designed to focus attention on this problem, but Congress still has not

appropriated the funds necessary to provide the necessary care.

Thank you, and I look forward to a full and fair opportunity to

answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapin follows:]

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapin.

Mr. Viguerie.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD VIGUERIE

Mr. VIGUERIE. Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, and

Members of the committee. I am here today at your so-called invitation. I must say this is the first invitation I have ever received

from Members of Congress that wasn’t for one of your fundraising

events.

In 1960, just 5 years before I started my marketing agency, I estimate there were only about 60,000 donors to the Kennedy/Nixon

Presidential campaigns. Americans received their news and information from very limited sources who controlled, filtered and limited what Americans knew about what really happens in Washington.

Applying commercial marketing principles to cause-related fundraising, I pioneered direct mail for political and ideological causes.

JFK’s late son’s magazine, George, credited this as one of the defining political moments of the 20th century.

I developed ways to communicate with, involve and raise money

from millions of everyday citizen supporters, rather than the few

traditional fat cat donors. Today, the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, chaired by Congressman Van Hollen of this

committee, markets its lists of 282,000 names. So he is a beneficiary of what I pioneered. I estimate over 8 million people will

make a contribution in this Presidential election cycle to some campaign or political cause.

The Founding Fathers added the first amendment to our Constitution because it is inevitable that political elites will seek to silence their critics and competitors in the marketplace of ideas. This

hearing is one of those attempts.

Four times in the past 27 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has

ruled that charitable fundraising with high cost is fully protected

by the first amendment and is not fraud. However, Mr. Chairman,

at the December 13th hearing on veterans’ charities, you defamed

certain charities for their high fundraising costs by calling that

fraud. That hearing was based on the false premise that the sole

purpose of a charitable solicitation is to raise money. Charities’ advertising mailings do far more than just solicit and dole out money.

I remember all too well, Mr. Chairman, that many Vietnam veterans were spit on when they returned to the United States. However, hundreds of millions of advertising mail, which includes the

American flag, car magnets, Support Our Troops car ribbons,

bumper stickers, decals, etc., has helped veterans of the unpopular

Iraq war be received back home very differently than returning

veterans from the unpopular Vietnam war.

Rather than providing enough Federal funds for our veterans, too

many Members of Congress have spent billions on earmarks and

pet projects in their districts. That abuse of congressional power is

a major reason why veterans and their families are getting the

short end of the stick.

But that is not the only abuse of power I want to discuss today.

Today is just the beginning of a very public national airing about

issues that Congress for too long has swept under the rug. It is a

173

debate about hypocrisy, legal fraud and quid pro quo money-laundering, or call it what you will, and political fundraising conducted

by Members of Congress. Americans are angry because of the

abuse of power by Congress and other elites in Washington. Your

ratings are at their lowest level because now more than ever Americans have access to information from the new and alternative

media about what really goes on in Washington.

Some of the most effective and most outspoken critics of Congress are charities and other non-profit organizations. Many of the

landmark first amendment cases, such as the NAACP v. Alabama,

and New York Times v. Sullivan, involve attempts by the government to intimidate and silence non-profits because they are such

effective critics of government. This committee is investigating

charities that have received bad grades from one individual whose

methods are not accepted by other charity rating systems nor the

standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Also surprisingly, even shocking, he does not grade nor evaluate

the effectiveness of a charity. Members of Congress aren’t required

by law to hire independent certified public accountants and file detailed reports about your own cost of fundraising under American

Institute of Certified Public Accountant rules. But charities must.

Your contracts with fundraisers aren’t regulated by State attorney

generals [sic], but charities are. Nor are your contracts on file for

public inspection. But the contracts for charities are.

And charities can’t strong-arm lobbyists and corporate PACs in

exchange for access, influence and legislative favors. In other

words, the playing field is not level. I say, level the playing field.

Whatever charities must do to report and comply with the law,

Members of Congress should do the same.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 10 years, your own personal campaign committee has raised money ostensibly for your own re-election, yet you have passed through almost exactly 50 percent to

other political candidates and committees. Fifty percent over 10

years looks less like a campaign than a money-laundering enterprise.

You also formed this thing called LA-PAC to solicit and pass

through even more money. You give that money to candidates with

whom your donors may disagree on issues important to the donors

and candidates to whom the donors would not have made a contribution. That sounds like what is called bait and switch in a commercial context. Any way you look at it, it appears wrong and unseemly.

There are a host of rotten issues in congressional fundraising, yet

this committee is not merely chilling first amendment rights of

non-profits and other citizen-backed organizations, but is attempting censorship in direct contravention with what the U.S. Supreme

Court has said repeatedly. There are plenty of outstanding or very

influential charities with high fundraising costs.

Mr. Chairman, your agenda here is political, anti-competitive,

unconstitutional, and if I may be frank, mean. You grab cheap

headlines at the expense and in defamation of some very worthy

charities. You have caused harm for the unconstitutional purpose

of limiting the amount of information that the public receives.

174

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Viguerie, your time has expired. You

ought to complete your remarks.

Mr. VIGUERIE. I have one paragraph. What you have said and

what you are trying to do has and will continue to result in harm

to, not help for, veterans. As part of that process, you are abusing

the powers of this institution. Shame on you, Mr. Chairman. And

shame on any member of this committee who would participate in

such an agenda.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Viguerie follows:]

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Peters.

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY W. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, who happens

to be my Representative, and also members of the committee.

When Mr. Williams contacted me and invited me to testify, I

asked what information I could provide that would be of use to the

committee. Mr. Williams indicated perhaps information concerning

costs of fundraising. A number of you have asked about that. Mr.

Sarbanes and Mr. Issa in particular have mentioned that they are

concerned about the possibility for how regulation might be formulated.

Let me start by giving you a hypothetical. Which charity deserves our support? The one that raises $100,000, spends 90 percent of it feeding the poor, has 10 percent administration cost, and

overhead and fundraising cost, and feeds 90 people, or the one that

raises $100,000, spends 25 percent on fundraising and administration, but manages through innovative management and creativity

of its staff, to feed 180 people?

Clearly, if your goal is to have an effect, the second charity is

more effective than the first, yet it has a higher cost of fundraising

ratio. Cost of fundraising ratio has been looked at within our industry for decades. Scholars have looked at it, people within the industry have looked at it, State regulators have focused upon it, and we

have had four Supreme Court decisions on it.

One of the things that I can tell you from the literature is that

costs of fundraising ratio as a measure of the effectiveness or as

the measure of an efficiency of the charity have been widely debunked by nearly everybody in the industry.

Let me give you another example. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a charity that sends out millions of direct mail letters every

year. Every year those direct mail letters include an appeal for

funds, yet they get joint costs allocated and, contrary to what Mr.

Shays implied, having to do with shuffling money, that joint cost

allocation under the accounting rules that the charity is required

to abide by, yet allocated in part to public education and in part

to fundraising. Does that make sense?

Well, if you ask the people from Mothers Against Drunk Driving,

which reporters have done and regulators have done, their response is, those letters save lives. They remind people in their

daily life at home, when they are sitting down to dinner with their

teenagers, don’t drink and drive.

So how should we account for that? If we don’t account for that

was part of their mission fulfillment, how do we account for it? And

won’t that charity that uses those letters that way end up receiving

a poor rating from Mr. Borochoff and AIP because he doesn’t allow

for joint cost allocation in his rating system?

Ms. Watson, you mentioned that you relied on Mr. Borochoff’s

study when you read the Washington Post article. Let me ask you

what you think of Harvard University, one of our great educational

institutions, but an institution which has a huge endowment?

Should other charities be denied the opportunity to raise money for

an endowment because Mr. Borochoff says that charities that have

190

reserves should be downgraded in their grade that they receive? It

doesn’t make sense.

Mr. Borochoff’s rating system that then goes after all of these

charities that receive failing grades is not only not agreed to by

most of the industry, it is not even agreed to by all the other charity watchdog groups. If you try to do a study of this, which has

been done by the National Association of Non-Profit Agencies, that

study shows that the ratings systems are inconsistent. So who

should we follow?

If you are the manager of a charity, should you follow GAAP

guidelines in doing your accounting? Or should you follow the charity watchdog’s that make up their own way of looking at things?

I would hope that the committee is interested more in public policy and in legislative opportunities than they are in going after Mr.

Borochoff’s failing grade charities. If so, I would be delighted to answer questions about what recommendations we might have for

legislation that could be helpful to the charitable community and

the veterans, and to, as Mr. Issa suggested, members of other charitable communities, including cancer victims and unwed mothers

and the homeless and so forth.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you Mr. Peters. Ms. Johns.

STATEMENT OF BELINDA J. JOHNS

Ms. JOHNS. Good morning, Chairman Waxman, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here

to speak.

The California Attorney General represents the public beneficiaries of charity, who cannot sue in their own right. He has

broad supervisory and investigative powers over the activities of

charitable organizations and their fundraisers. The Charitable

Trusts Section carries out this oversight role. Our mandate is to

detect fiscal abuse and mismanagement that results in a loss of

charitable assets and to take the necessary action to return diverted assets to charity.

We are divided into two parts: the Registry of Charitable Trusts

and the Legal and Audit Unit. The Registry is responsible for administering California’s registration and reporting law, and for responding to the high volume of complaints and inquiries received

from this sector and from members of the public.

The Registry’s three auditors review and investigate complaints

and provide audit support to our attorneys. The legal and audit

unit, 11 attorneys and 7 auditors State-wide, carries out the enforcement component of the Attorney General’s jurisdiction. We

conduct audits and investigations into allegations of fiscal abuse,

fraud, diversion, mismanagement of assets with regard to both

charitable organizations and fundraising professionals, whether

registered or unregistered. Based on the results of those inquiries,

we take corrective action to recover diverted charitable assets, remove trustees and board members, restrain solicitation activity, involuntarily dissolve corporations and restore assets to charity.

Cases relevant to this inquiry include our civil prosecution of

Mitch Gold, a series of cases which eradicated storefront solicitation, a criminal case filed against an executive director who embezzled funds from a small veterans’ charity.

We face three major challenges. One is our limited ability to address compliance because our registry is still paper-based. We are

in the final phase of an automation project, which when completed

will allow us to more comprehensively supervise and systematically

address compliance. For example, we have over 92,000 registrants.

We estimate 50,000 of them are delinquent. Another 90,000 which

have incorporated in California are not registered, and we think at

least half of them should be.

Our second challenge is related to the first. Case selection is primarily complaint-driven. Once we are automated, we will be able

to track abuses in a more sophisticated fashion and target specific

issues.

Our third challenge is to protect charitable assets effectively

given our limited staff and budget resources, a challenge faced by

many State charity offices. We encourage compliance by offering

guidance on our Web site and in community outreach. We offer

charities the opportunity to take corrective action before we take

legal action. We form relationships with other government agencies

so that we can triage complaints and refer them to other agencies

that may be able to more effectively deal with them.

203

We participate in multi-agency task forces and multi-State litigation in order to extend our enforcement capability. We publish

guidance to assist donors in gathering the information they need

to make wise giving choices.

Our ability to address high fundraising costs is limited by the

Supreme Court cases that have been discussed. Our response was

to amend our supervision act to require fundraising professionals

to register and file annual reports. We post them on our Web site.

We publish an annual report summarizing their content. We have

also added provisions that require specific contract terms and prohibit non-voidable contracts.

With regard to addressing fundraising abuse, we primarily rely

upon complaints. Our guide to charitable giving includes a primer

to help donors find relevant information on the 990, and a checklist

of questions donors can ask and factors they may consider to assure their contributions are used in the way they intend.

Problem areas in solicitation in our experience include telemarketing and direct mail appeal, because of misrepresentations.

Again, donors are the first level of defense, because if they are educated, they can make wise choices and they can refuse to give to

organizations that do not fit the profile they set.

We have found no mechanism to quantify fraud in this area.

Fraudulent schemes will not necessarily come to our attention, and

if they do, it is after the fact and generally after the assets are lost.

For these reasons, donors must be vigilant and willing to take the

time to assure they know who will benefit from their contribution

and how it will be used.

The bottom line is that, in order to minimize waste and diversion, donors, members of board of directors and State charity regulators all have a role in controlling abuses in the solicitation of contributions and in the operation of the charities themselves.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johns follows:]

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Johns.

I will now proceed to questions by members of the committee

who will have 5 minutes each. I will start out with my questions

first.

Mr. Chapin, in your written testimony, you stated your groups

use most of their contributions to provide services to veterans. You

say Help Hospitalized Veterans uses two-thirds of its funds to

serve veterans. You claim that the Coalition to Salute America’s

Heroes uses more than 90 percent of its budget to help veterans.

That sounds pretty good, but it is not true. It is not accurate. The

committee staff examined your group’s financial statements and

found that if you removed all the grants from one group to the

other, and if you don’t count your mass mailings as a service to veterans, your numbers are actually much, much lower.

Here is what we found. And let me put up a chart. In the last

3 years, 2004, 2005 and 2006, your two groups combined received

donations of $168 million, but only a quarter of these revenues

went to providing actual goods and services for veterans. That

means only one out of every four dollars you received ended up directly assisting veterans. That is a very different story than what

you said in your testimony.

But it does match what you told our committee staff when you

met with them last week during your interview. Last week you

confirmed that three-fourths of the donations do not result in the

delivery of goods or services to veterans.

I want to quote from what you said: ‘‘I told you what our costs

are. Direct mail is, you know, 65 percent range, not any given mailing, but the whole mix of a program, 60, 65 percent. You put 10

percent on top of that for administration and overhead, this is

without any, you know, allocation business, you are pushing 75

percent, so you got 25 cents goes to charity. I will be very up-front

with you about that.’’ That is what you said to our interviewers.

So last week you told the committee that you were pushing 75

percent and only 25 cents goes to the charity. But today, in your

written testimony, you are saying you use more than two-thirds

and more than 90 percent to help veterans. Which is it?

Mr. CHAPIN. So, what is your question, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, you said in your testimony that 90

percent and 75 percent actually goes to help veterans. But in your

interview and according to the records of your company, it looks

like 75 percent actually goes to fundraising and only 25 percent to

veterans. Which is which?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, the difference has to do with the allocations.

I mentioned in my prepared remarks this morning that if you disregard allocations, only about 25 percent of the donor dollar actually goes to the cause. I was very forthright in acknowledging that

to you. That is if you disregard allocations. If you consider allocations, which—let’s look at the——

Chairman WAXMAN. What do you mean by allocations?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, sir, has set forth the ground rules by which charities

must report. We don’t make the rules, we follow the rules.

Chairman WAXMAN. What do you mean when you say an allocation?

212

Mr. CHAPIN. OK. If we make a—our marketing costs are divided

into two categories, per the Institute. One has to do with what is

known as program services, and the other has to do with fundraising. This is a very arbitrary and subjective and discretionary matter. Now, we have a very conservative accountant, who happens to

be a very good friend of mine. Because of that, I respect him and

I go along with him. We get, and I would like to put this up on

the chart, if I may, we get a very small allocation toward program

services, and we get a very high toward fundraising.

And by that, I mean—can we put that up, please? So, in other

words, a very small percentage, compared to other organizations,

compared to other veterans’ charities and many others, a very

small percentage of our marketing costs are allocated to program

services and a very high percentage are allocated to fundraising

costs. It makes us look bad.

Chairman WAXMAN. So your own accountant then allocates more

to fundraising than to actual services?

Mr. CHAPIN. That is right. Because we play by the rules.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. Now let me ask you this. The committee staff asked you why you used inflated numbers in your mailings rather than the real figures. In response, this is what you

said: ‘‘Because we wouldn’t raise any money. I mean, that’s a pretty straight answer.‘‘

You are right, that was a straight answer, but the question is

whether it is an acceptable one, because you falsely inflated the

numbers to raise more money by telling them more money is actually going to go to veterans, but in fact, your own accountant and

your own figures show that less money is going to the veterans.

You are not telling them the truth. It is unethical, it is wrong. It

is really a fraud against Americans who agree to give you their

hard-earned dollars, isn’t it?

Mr. CHAPIN. Absolutely not. We made no representations whatsoever to the donor as to the percentage of the money that was going

to the charity. Not so.

Now, our costs——

Chairman WAXMAN. What representations have you made to the

donor?

Mr. CHAPIN. What did you say?

Chairman WAXMAN. What representations have you made to the

donor?

Mr. CHAPIN. We told the donors that we are going to provide

craft kits and we are going to provide—we are going to help turn

back on the utilities of our severely disabled veterans that have

been shut off. We are going to make payments on their cars so they

don’t get repossessed, such as many of them are. We are going to

pay their mortgage payments on their houses, so they don’t get

evicted from their houses. We are going to do everything that Congress is not doing to take care of these guys. Unfortunately, we are

very limited——

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, let me conclude, because my time is

up, but in the mailing that was produced by Help Hospitalized Veterans, it said, ‘‘This mailing was produced by Help Hospitalized

Veterans, which retains 100 percent of the contributions made.’’ A

hundred percent, it says, and then you would think that 100 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:31 Feb 20, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\44005.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
213

cent is going to help veterans, but that is not the reality, only 25

percent.

Mr. CHAPIN. That is not the—no reasonable person, if you will

pardon me, Mr. Chairman, would interpret it in that way. As a

matter of fact, the State of Florida——

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, if you say 100 percent goes to veterans, most people who are reasonable would believe that.

Mr. CHAPIN. We didn’t say to the veterans, we said to the charity, 100—that is not what it says, sir. The State of Florida requires

us to put that precise language in the solicitation. And Mr. Peters,

I think, will attest to that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Viguerie, his

mailings, he represents about 75 percent of all the revenues that

we generate, he doesn’t use that statement. Mr. Peters, who has

CDR, that is the organization’s he is the CEO of, his attorneys apparently believe that it is necessary to use that language——

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me ask Ms. Johns. Is that California?

Do we require them to say 100 percent is used for the charity, even

though 100 percent is not used to help the veterans?

Ms. JOHNS. We do not.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank God.

Mr. Davis, your turn.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, I am familiar with the high costs

of fundraising. I was chairman of the Campaign Committee for the

Republicans. We raised a lot of money through the mail. But the

costs were very high, particularly in prospecting and the like. I got

criticized for it, but we looked at the net that we could end up

spending. So, I am familiar with it.

But I have a couple of questions. Mr. Chapin, I have a letter

here. It is a copy of a Help Hospitalized Veterans mail solicitation

dated June 18, 2007, directed to a Harvard-area mailing list. It is

focused on a Massachusetts wounded veterans fund drive.

This mailing indicates that the donation will support Massachusetts’ wounded and hospitalized veterans. How do you ensure that

these donations help veterans in Massachusetts?

Mr. CHAPIN. By providing——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you keep records to make sure that

those donations go where the mailings come from?

Mr. CHAPIN. We have records showing——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Or is this just more aspirational than

specific?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, we have 288 veterans and military and State

veterans’ homes that we service. And we have records. We would

be happy to provide them to you, of all the money——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I am not asking—I am just asking, this

was a targeted letter into an area basically saying, this is targeted

to people in Massachusetts, just saying, we want to help Massachusetts’ hospitalized veterans. If you can send your fund drive in the

enclosed envelope, it would be greatly appreciated.

If the money was mailed from Massachusetts, do you allocate

that back to Massachusetts or do you not keep that?

Mr. CHAPIN. Not necessarily 100 percent of it. It helps veterans

all across the country as well as veterans in Massachusetts.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So, it is kind of a—there is not a direct

linkage? It is a little puffery in there, then.

214

Mr. CHAPIN. No. If you give that $10, we can’t absolutely guarantee you that $10 will wind up in Massachusetts, but a lot of other

$10 will wind up in Massachusetts, as you will see by our records.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. From what Mr. Waxman said, if you give

$10, $2.50 goes total, right? And then maybe it goes to Massachusetts. But you don’t keep a direct allocation?

Mr. CHAPIN. No. You will get a better value than if you went

down to the store and you bought him a craft kit and mail it yourself.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I am just trying to understand it. I am

questioning the motive. I am just trying to understand. The Better

Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance sent a letter to the Coalition

to Salute America’s Heroes Foundation, and stated that the Coalition did not meet its charity standards for governance and oversight, finances and fundraising practices. The letter also asks for

clarification on your organization’s related party transactions.

Can you tell us more about these standards? The Better Business

Bureau standards now, not the other standards that were referred

to earlier.

Mr. CHAPIN. Relative to the Better Business Bureau standards,

if you take recent years, we meet the financial standard. Now, I am

not suggesting that we necessarily meet all 21 Wise Giving Standards that they have. But we meet the two financial standards,

which are a maximum of 35 percent of fundraising. The year that

ended in 2006, we were at 26.9 percent, which is lower than most

of the other veterans’ charities and lower than a lot of big name

charities all across the country. And the program services is a minimum of 65 percent. We also met that. We were slightly over 66

percent.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Now, board minutes for the Coalition to

Salute America’s Heroes, December 29, 2005 minutes, contain a

motion to formally evaluate the performance and effectiveness of

your charity every 2 years. What performance metrics did you use

and what assessments were made? Can you tell us?

Mr. CHAPIN. I can’t tell you precisely. I would be glad to provide

that information.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. If you could get that back. You did

have internal controls?

Mr. CHAPIN. I can elaborate if you want me to. I will be happy

to.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Mr. CHAPIN. May I?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. We take a look at how effective our funding has

been in terms of meeting the needs of the VA hospitals and the patients. As an example, we are shipping over 65,000 craft kits on the

average every single month, which is enough to, if every veteran

wanted a craft kit, which is our goal, every hospitalized veteran in

a hospital, we would be able to provide it. Now, the fact of the matter is that some of these fellows might use 6 or 8 or 10 a month,

and others may choose not to do any at all.

So that is how effective our are we in that regard, as an example.

We provide virtually over 100 percent, well over 90 percent, let me

215

be conservative, of all of the craft kits that are provided in the veterans’ hospitals.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Mr. CHAPIN. Along with, incidentally, we pay the salaries of 51

creative craft specialists who enhance the program enormously. Because the VA was no longer able to do that, so we——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What does a creative craft kit entail? I

mean, what is in that kit?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, we have over 350 different kits. We have

leather, which is extremely popular, we have moccasins, we have

wallets.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. I get it. OK. Thanks. That is fine.

Mr. CHAPIN. I would be happy to expound on that. There are lots

of them.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. That is fine.

I just want to ask a quick question to Mr. Viguerie and Mr. Peters. How many different mailings do you do annually for Mr.

Chapin’s charities, particularly for Help Hospitalized Veterans? Are

the numbers of mailings done dictated by your contracts? How do

you make the decision when a mailing is done who it is directed

to? I assume you do some prospecting with that, which are not

going to have as high yields to try to build. And who owns the list,

at the end of the day? I am trying to just get an understanding of

that.

Mr. VIGUERIE. Who is the question addressed to?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. To both you and Mr. Peters. You may

have different answers.

Mr. VIGUERIE. We mail—I don’t have the figures at my hand

here or on the tip of my tongue, but something in excess of 50 million letters in the last year, I think, in that neighborhood that we

have mailed, which means hundreds of different mailings, mailing

thousands and thousands of different lists. And we have something

in excess of 20 people working on this project.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And these are your lists that you own?

Is that right?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, it is a combination. We are—a small, small

fraction of what the organization mails is our names. Probably less

than 1 percent. The vast majority, we will get names from the Republican National Committee, they will rent our names, we rent

theirs.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You buy lists, and everything else?

Mr. VIGUERIE. We don’t buy. Usually we exchange. We will exchange and rent for one-time use.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Peters.

Mr. PETERS. We don’t own any lists ourselves. We manage lists

on behalf of charities but we don’t own any lists. And then if their

list is rented, the revenue goes to the charity. But mostly the

names are exchanged with other charities, which is the industry

practice in order to keep fundraising costs as low as possible.

I have no idea what the volume of mail we do is. I know that

I asked this morning of my staff, we raise about 9 percent according to their 990 of the amount of money that they raise in a year.

But I don’t know what the actual mail volume is.

216

Were you asking, though, about frequency or were you asking

about——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I was asking also about frequency.

Mr. PETERS. I don’t know precisely in this case, but I can tell you

typically a charity will have a number of prospect mail drops during a year, somewhere between two and six or maybe even eight,

which is an attempt to find new donors. And then they will mail

existing donors who have shown an interest in their cause somewhere between 6 and 12 times a year. And how often any individual is mailed is a function of that individual’s own propensity to

give money or otherwise participate with the charity.

Sometimes the charities are not asking for money. They are asking for like a petition drive, and I am sure you all have received

petitions from constituents that come in very large volumes. Sometimes they are asked to complete a survey, sometimes they are

asked to volunteer. Depending upon how the individuals respond,

they get different frequency of solicitations.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To all of

you, thank you for testifying here today.

Mr. Chapin, you know, you started off your written statement by

saying ‘‘I am passionate about veterans’ issues,’’ and I do believe

that you are. And I am just wondering, as I am sitting here, I am

just curious, do you see anything wrong with the 25 cents on the

dollar going to the veteran, and the 75 cents being spent elsewhere? Do you see anything wrong with that?

Mr. CHAPIN. Let me tell you. When I started out, I sent 600,000

gift packs to GIs in Vietnam. Then I went into a veterans hospital

and somebody asked, a very severely wounded fellow asked me, I

asked him was there anything I could do to help him, he said, yes,

give me something to do with my hands. That is how the craft kit

program started. Initially I was horrified at the direct mail expense. I will just tell you that flat-out. I was horrified.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, I want you to answer the question because

I have a lot of questions, and I have only got 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAPIN. Oh, all right. I am trying to answer. Let me tell

you——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you see anything wrong with 25 cents——

Mr. CHAPIN. When somebody can go down to the store, buy the

craft kit for $15, go to the post office, spend another $4, that is $19.

And we can send a craft kit with that $15, they take a tax deduction. It is only costing them $10.50, opposed to $19 that if they sent

the craft kit on their own. We are giving the donor a good value

and at the same time, we are providing a very important service

for the hospitalized veterans who otherwise would not receive these

craft kits. This is an extremely important program.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I got you. So, you see nothing wrong with it?

Mr. CHAPIN. I didn’t say I see nothing wrong.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me ask you this——

Mr. CHAPIN. I would rather have lower fundraising costs. Yes, we

would. I have tried everything under the sun to lower our fundraising costs.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How about reducing your salary?

217

Mr. CHAPIN. Excuse me?

Mr. CUMMINGS. How about reducing your salary? Mr. Chapin, let

me ask you a series of questions.

Mr. CHAPIN. Certainly.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chapin, the documents the committee received show that most of what you raise never gets to the veterans

you are supposed to be helping. At the same time, however, you appear to be doing quite well for yourself and your wife.

Mr. CHAPIN. By whose standards?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me finish. You have provided the committee

with a spreadsheet detailing your compensation history and I

would like to walk you through exactly how much you and your

wife have received over the past 3 years from 2004 through 2006.

First, both you and your wife receive salaries. Yours was

approximately——

Mr. CHAPIN. She is now retired.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m sorry?

Mr. CHAPIN. I say she is now retired.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When did she retire?

Mr. CHAPIN. What say?

Mr. CUMMINGS. When did she retire?

Mr. CHAPIN. February 28, 2007. She worked for the first 20 years as a volunteer. She got a salary of a maximum of $65,000 at her

highest point. She is my right hand arm. She has raised over $7

million with her newsletters.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I believe you.

Mr. CHAPIN. She has raised more than 10 times her salary.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am convinced that she is a great wife and a

great asset to the company. We will stipulate to that. Both you and

your wife receive salaries. Yours was approximately $250,000 a

year. That is more than the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs receives. Then your wife made about $60,000 a

year.

You both also received bonuses during this period. They varied,

but in 2006 you received a $50,000 bonus.

Mr. CHAPIN. That was for 2 years.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. You received your $50,000 bonus, your

wife also received thousands of dollars in bonuses.

Mr. CHAPIN. Well——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me finish. I know you want to get at it, but

let me get my little piece out. Finally, you have generous pensions.

I think you referred to that a moment ago. When you retire, you

will get 75 percent of your salary for life, over $200,000 per year.

This costs donors to your charity about $100,000 a year.

So, based on the data you provided to the committee, when you

total up all these salaries, bonuses and pension contributions for

2004, 2005 and 2006, you and your wife received more than $1.5

million. That is based on your data.

My question is not a legal one. It is not whether you broke the

law. Because I don’t think you did. My question is whether you believe this compensation is appropriate for someone who works at a

charity for veterans. Mr. Chapin, you and your wife got over $1 million during these

3 years. The public thought this money was going to veterans. But

218

instead it went to you and your wife. Over a 3-year period, you

raised $168 million from the public but very little of that made it

to veterans. You spent an astounding $124 million in overhead, salaries, mailings, payments to Mr. Viguerie’s firm, and you and your

wife kept over $1 million for yourselves.

This sounds like a great business for you and Mr. Viguerie, but

a lousy deal for contributors and veterans. How do you respond to

that?

Mr. CHAPIN. First of all, Congressman Cummings, my salary is

in the lower half as measured by the Chronicle of Philanthropy November 1, 2006 survey of several hundred non-profit CEO’s. I am

in the lower half. I think my performance is in the upper half. I

have probably raised—I have raised more money for veterans than

anybody in the United States. I have also delivered more services

than anybody else who ever founded a non-profit organization and

still the CEO of that organization today.

The point is, my cash compensation, sir, is about six tenths of 1

percent of the gross revenues of my organizations. No. 2, the total

compensation, of which a good bit of it I have never received, because it is in the form of futures retirement benefits—I don’t intend

to retire for one heck of a long time, so I may never see it—is

roughly now $300,000.

Even if you take the total compensation benefits, which include

retirement money I have never seen, that would be less than 1 percent. The average non-profit executive, sir, receives 3 percent of

gross revenues. So I don’t know what standard you want to use,

but it is measured by a comparison to other non-profit executives,

of which there are thousands and thousands of them, I am in the

lower half of salary.

Now, yes, I get what I think is a generous one.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Your time is expired.

Mr. Sali, do you wish to ask questions?

Mr. SALI. Not at this time, thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Burton, I think you were next.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. Thank you.

This is very interesting. Ms. Johns, have you ever contemplated

or think that there needs to be legal action taken against Mr.

Chapin or his companies?

Ms. JOHNS. Well, after reading the articles and hearing what I

have heard in these hearings, we will certainly take a look. I don’t

know.

Mr. BURTON. No, I am not talking about taking a look. Because,

you know, that is speculative. Has the Attorney General of California found any reason in the past or done anything to investigate

or charge them with any illegal activity?

Ms. JOHNS. We have not in the past, no.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Thank you.

I was looking at this list from Charity Navigator of charities in

the same category as the Help Hospitalized Veterans organization,

the same category. The Alzheimer’s Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American

Heart Association, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, the

219

Art Institute of Chicago, the Boy Scouts of America, Ducks Unlimited, the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, the

March of Dimes, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National

Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, the National

Wildlife Federation, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and YMCA and on and on.

I understand that we would like to see a lot more of the money

that is spent in raising funds go to these charities, but the cost of

raising this money is expensive. And I think a lot of my colleagues

understand that.

I would just like to ask the members at the table, all of them,

what would happen if we didn’t do the direct mail, and what would

happen to the amount of money that would come into these charities that does get to help these people? Any one of you can answer

that.

Mr. CHAPIN. $60 billion would evaporate tomorrow. Of all the

$300 billion that is raised by the 1.6 million non-profits, over 20

percent of it comes from direct mail. You folks might lose 25 percent of all your donations in 2008, because 25 percent of all the political donations come from direct mail, at the same expense that

we have. And I am not sure that you folks disclose to your constituencies—I am not trying to be a wise apple—that only 25 cents on

the dollar is actually going to your campaigns.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Peters.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Burton, I think it is an excellent question. What

I would like to do is turn back history 50 years. If you looked at

charity in the United States, there were a lot fewer charities. It reminds me of Alexis DeToqueville’s comments about Americans’ propensity to get together in clubs and groups and the huge diversity

of interests that they have.

But back then there were a lot fewer charities. And I guess I

have outgrown my tux, unfortunately, but back then you attended

a charity ball. And you were with the rich, the famous and the influential.

What has happened in our country is the democratization of

fundraising. Direct response, not just mail, but other forms of direct response fundraising, have allowed us to reach into communities that previously were never asked to support non-profits. It

has allowed us to get into those communities and allow people to

express their feelings and who they support and how they support

them.

And yet we, through regulation and through IRS rules and

through transparency, we allow the donor to see whatever they

wish to see. Every charity has a Web site. The 990’s are all available. Everyone can go to GuideStar and look up the ratios if they

wish to do so.

But without that, we would be back to the days of rich people

letting a few crumbs drop off the table for poor people.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say this. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is

good to keep an eye on these charities to make sure that they

aren’t any illegal activities or fraud going on. But I think for those

of us who have been familiar with charities and fundraising in the

past, we realize that there is a great deal of cost involved. So as

long as there is reporting, and as long as we know what is going

220

on, and it is in the public domain and we can check it, then I think

that we can hold them accountable and make sure they are not

wasting money.

There is no question that there is probably some fraud and

waste, and I appreciate Ms. Johns being here and I am sure they

are going to investigate that sort of thing, as they will across the

country. But charity giving through the mail, I think, is important.

We should keep an eye on it and make sure that they aren’t blowing money unnecessarily. But I think it is an absolutely necessary

thing. Otherwise, it if we didn’t have these charities, I believe the

Federal Government would have to take up some of this slack and

do it ourselves. Charities do provide a necessary function in this

country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. CHAPIN. We can’t begin to fulfill the need. I am the first to

acknowledge that, but at least we are trying and something is better than nothing. And Congressman Cummings, if you had experienced as I had disabled veterans without legs who got—a young

child, as a matter of fact, a baby and a wife who is living in the

back of his car and he is freezing, because this guy doesn’t have

any other means, as a matter of fact, he was evicted from his trailer, and we are helping him.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Chapin, I am going to have to interrupt

you. Members have the opportunity now to ask you questions.

Mr. CHAPIN. Sure. Something is better than nothing.

Chairman WAXMAN. Save it for an answer to a question.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chapin, we are looking very carefully at the

facts that were presented to us. And you are here to help clarify

if we have the right information. I do appreciate your coming. As

you know, we sought your input before, and you were not here.

This gives you an opportunity to speak directly to us with the facts.

So I want to query you about a letter that was sent to you on

December 22, 2006, from a Dorothy W. Smith, Houston, TX. And

she says, ‘‘Dear Sir, I have contributed to your organization in previous years, and am in the process of evaluating my contributions

for 2007. I would appreciate knowing the percentage and charities

received versus administrative costs and other expenditures.’’ And

she goes on. Your response, or Alicia Griffin responding, says:

‘‘Dear Mrs. Smith, as per your request, enclosed please find an annual report for the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes. Please

note that 92 cents of every $1 donated goes toward programs supported by the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes.’’ And then the

programs are listed, Emergency Financial Relief, etc.

Can you then clarify for us, you said that 100 percent, 92 percent

of what is donated goes out for charitable causes. Can you clarify

that for us, please?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, now we are speaking specifically in terms of

the Coalition as opposed to Help Hospitalized Veterans. You are

talking about a particular year. Now, what happened was, when

we started the Coalition——

Ms. WATSON. Well, your response—the response was March 14,

2007.

221

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. The Help Hospitalized Veterans board of directors saw fit to make a substantial loan, which was later converted

to a grant, in the neighborhood of, about $2.5 million to the Coalition. And so therefore, the Coalition did have extraordinarily low

fundraising costs. Starting in 2007, the Coalition did its own direct

mail as opposed to HHV doing the direct mail and passing on the

money to the Coalition. And that was the reason why, yes, we did

have very low fundraising costs.

To start the Coalition, if I may just mention this, I had to loan

$500,000 of my own money, which represented that together with

an additional $260,000, which I advanced the Coalition in expenses. I didn’t collect any of the various expenses that I was incurring over the first 3 years. A total of $760,000, which represented over half of my after-tax compensation for the previous 10

years, because I believed in what I was doing.

The fact of the matter is, just so you have some idea of my commitment to this, when I started the Coalition, the first thing we did

was some direct mail with, not Mr. Viguerie, but this other gentleman, and we bombed. Is that correct, Mr. Peters?

Mr. PETERS. I can’t say. I believe it is true, but as you know, my

partner, who did the mailing, is——

Mr. CHAPIN. It was very unsuccessful. So, then I went out to corporations. So, I begged corporations—I just assumed the corporations were going to open up their pockets or their wallets. That

didn’t happen.

In the meantime, we had planned this wonderful Road to Recovery Conference, which everybody, the DOD, the VA, all were participating in this, and were helping launch these guys on their road

to recovery. We have had over 1,200 of them come down there, the

most severely disabled veterans and their families. And by that

time, we had committed to well over 100 of these veterans and

their families to come to the Road to Recovery Conference that December 2004. I was faced with a very, very tough personal decision.

Ms. WATSON. Well, let me just ask you this——

Mr. CHAPIN. Let me just tell you——

Ms. WATSON. Let me—sir. My time is——

Chairman WAXMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Chapin. You have to let the

Members ask the questions and respond to the questions.

Ms. WATSON. Maybe you can give me another minute. I understand you are trying to get all this out, but there are some very

specific things I would like you to address for us.

Mr. CHAPIN. Absolutely.

Ms. WATSON. And I would like the staff to put up on the screen,

there was an issue dealing with a country club in Temecula, CA.

It is called the Cross Creek Golf Club. Are you familiar with it?

Mr. CHAPIN. I am a club member.

Ms. WATSON. Yes. Well, according to a resolution from HHV

board in 2001 that has been provided to this committee, HHV authorized the payment of $17,000 a year for a corporate membership

to the country club in the name of Mike Lynch, the executive director.

Can you help clarify and explain to us why your group is spending money donated to help veterans on a country club membership?

222

Mr. CHAPIN. I think it was entirely appropriate. The board plays

golf when they come to meetings out there. The board is all volunteers. They don’t get paid to come to meetings. And that is what

you might call a ‘‘perk,’’ which I think we are all familiar with.

Ms. WATSON. That is a benefit, being on the board?

Mr. CHAPIN. I never set foot in that country club.

Ms. WATSON. OK. I just wanted to hear from you that you put $17,000 into a membership where they can play golf rather than

$17,000 into the hands of a homeless veteran that might be renting

a motel.

Mr. CHAPIN. Unfortunately, we are not able to——

Ms. WATSON. I have another question for you, Ms. Johns. Could

California have concerns—and I am from California—and I was

there for 20 years in the Senate, so I am very concerned. Would

we have concerns about a charity in our State using donations for

a country club membership regardless, for a board member?

Ms. JOHNS. Yes, I believe we would.

Ms. WATSON. And is there any way to track to see how many

memberships were purchased by this outfit?

Ms. JOHNS. The way to do that would be to initiate an audit.

Ms. WATSON. OK, thank you very much.

Let me ask another question about another expense that was related to Mr. Lynch. Let me show you a copy of minutes from a

meeting of the HHV board on July 28, 2003. These minutes state

that the board authorized a loan of $135,000 to Mr. Lynch. According to the minutes, the purpose of this loan was to provide Lynch

the ability to purchase his ex-spouse’s interest in his home.

Now, to me, this looks like a personal loan to Mr. Lynch, not a

business expense. So Mr. Chapin, can you clarify for me?

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but we

will let Mr. Chapin answer.

Ms. WATSON. OK, thank you.

Mr. CHAPIN. It is exactly as you have characterized it, and I

think it was entirely appropriate. It has been paid back with interest. And this fellow has done an absolutely extraordinary job. He

works around the clock to help hospitalized veterans.

Ms. WATSON. OK, I really appreciate the Chair allowing time. I

just want to say this. It seems to me that a personal loan of

$135,000 at a time when we have veterans that are not receiving

the care immediately, regardless of whether he paid it back or not,

appears inappropriate. This is something that I would like our Attorney General to take a look at.

And is it, Ms. Johns——

Mr. CHAPIN. It is absolutely legal, I can assure you of that.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. But Ms.

Johns, is this appropriate? Is this acceptable?

Ms. JOHNS. No. California law requires loans to be approved by

our office.

Chairman WAXMAN. Your office?

Ms. JOHNS. Yes. By our section.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Shays, do you have questions?

Mr. SHAYS. Not at this time, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

223

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Ms. Johns, I think if anybody knows about fundraising, Governor Brown [sic] has a lot of experience on that. But

you were stating that California right now, the office is in transition from going to a paper system over to electronic. Do you feel

that will give your agency the ability to monitor non-profit activities and keep a closer watch on what has been going on in California?

Ms. JOHNS. We do.

Mr. BILBRAY. The other issue that you really raise was the fact

that the front line of, let’s just say review of the most effective

charitable giving is the donor themselves. Now, I have run into situations where I have seen fundraising going to my mother, trying

to scare the heck out of her, over the fact that, give us money now

or they are going to take your Social Security, they are going to

take your Medicare and all this other stuff. With this new type of

electronic review, are you going to be able to monitor those kinds

of fundraising activities, especially the scare tactics to seniors?

Ms. JOHNS. No. Because unless somebody sends us those mailings, we won’t know that they are occurring. We require fundraisers to give notice before they start a campaign in California.

But they don’t have to send us their mailings.

Mr. BILBRAY. Do you have any way of developing a policy of

proactive contact with donors to make sure that they know that if

they have any questions they have the ability? Because I think it

is pretty well public record that, especially among the senior population, that there are certain individuals, not necessarily very

wealthy, who really are the backbone of the charitable direct mail

contributions. Are you planning any proactive contact with them,

saying, if you have any questions, if you have any concerns contact

us, rather than waiting for them to just come up?

So I guess I am asking you, are you going to do direct mailing

yourself?

Ms. JOHNS. We have no way of knowing who donors are. What

we do is post a lot of information on our Web site for donors. We

invite them to call us and send us e-mails. And we can give them

guidance where to go and tips about how to assess charities. Several years ago, I did a series of presentations to senior communities. And I am about to do that again to help communities at

large understand what they can do to make wise decisions.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Peters, Ms. Johns has no ability of knowing

what the lists are that non-profits are receiving contributions for,

those can’t be made available? Are those all protected under the

Privacy Act?

Mr. PETERS. No. In fact, when I teach with the NASCO group,

or Ms. Johns’ group of charity regulation officials, I tell them exactly how to do that. And that is, they need only a very modest

budget of a couple hundred dollars. They make a $10 contribution

to 20 charities and they will be on the mailing list, they will get

all the mail. So what I have done is I have taught the regulators

how you can actually look and see what is being mailed, in addition

to the usual process of people submitting complaints and things

like that, and inquiries. But there are lots of ways to seed mailing

224

lists. And pretty much everybody in our industry seeds other mailing lists.

Mr. BILBRAY. But is there any way to do an outreach to the contributors themselves, sort of sensitizing them to contact, or whatever, is there any way for Ms. Johns to know basically who you are

mailing to and is that protected under Privacy or does she have an

ability to be able to get that information so that she can then do

an outreach saying, if you have any questions, if you have any concerns?

Mr. PETERS. There is a very thin line, and I don’t want to get

over-complicated, but basically the answer to your question is yes,

it is protected by Privacy. It goes back to a case that went to the

Supreme Court on the NAACP where they were investigated and

the State officials asked them for their donor list. And it was pretty

clear why the State officials wanted the donor list, because they

were going to harass the donors.

And so the Supreme Court said, no, the State does not have a

right to simply subpoena or get the donor list. However, in an situation where it is more of an enforcement situation, there are opportunities to get on the donor list so you can see solicitations.

The other answer to your question is, if you look at any solicitation that is made in the United States, you will see contact information for, I believe it’s 23 or 25 different State charity offices. And

these are required by law, they are disclaimers, and they include

typically the address of the State charity office and often an 800

number, so that the citizens of that State can call in toll-free and

register any complaints or concerns they have. And those are included on every single solicitation that is made by a legitimate

charity. The only people that don’t include them are the charities

that never register and never comply with the law who are the

ones we hope Ms. Johns enforces against.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. Ms. Johns, I appreciate you guys upgrading, because coming from local government myself, I know that

we can talk about the problems, but the real answers are going to

come from your part of the political spectrum.

Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. Tierney.

Mr. CHAPIN. Mr. Chairman, her office was notified in writing by

us of this loan to Mr. Lynch, and I have the letter here. I would

be happy to read it. I don’t want to interfere.

Chairman WAXMAN. Let’s let Mr. Tierney ask questions.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chapin, for gratuitously taking my

time.

Let me ask a question. I was interested to see, since 2004, apparently you have been using General Tommy Franks to sign fundraising letters for your organization. I guess maybe millions of letters

have gone out with his signature on there, asking the public for

their contributions. I presume that when a general endorses a

charity like that, he is doing it because he thinks the charity is

worth endorsing and that he is not being paid to do it. But in fact, you paid Tommy Franks about $100,000 to sign

those letters, didn’t you?

Mr. CHAPIN. That is correct.

225

Mr. TIERNEY. A hundred thousand dollars to General Tommy

Franks to sign those letters. And then I also understand that General Diehl gets $5,000 a month to sign letters like that. Is that also

true?

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. Can I respond to that?

Mr. TIERNEY. You just did, and I appreciate your candor.

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, the fact of the matter——

Mr. TIERNEY. But the fact of the matter is that you give $100,000

to General Franks, you give $5,000 a month to General Diehl, and

I don’t see anything in your disclosure to individuals that these

people were paid to put their signature on there.

So my question to Ms. Johns is, do you have any difficulty with

that?

Ms. JOHNS. There is no specific law prohibiting the payment for

endorsements by charities. It could be considered a waste of charitable assets.

Mr. TIERNEY. I could look at this, $100,000 to General Franks,

$5,000 a month to General Diehl, $14 million to Mr. Viguerie’s

company, a million and a half dollars to you and your wife, at some

point in time hopefully the veterans are getting a little slice of this

action on that.

Also, Mr. Viguerie, let me ask you, you apparently have a longstanding personal relationship with Mr. Chapin, of about 40 years,

is that right?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Something a little short of that, but we have been

a client and a friend for many years.

Mr. TIERNEY. So when we look at the tax returns for the that the

committee has for HHV, it looks like between 2000 and 2005, your

direct mail company, American Target Advertising, and your list

management rental companies, earned more than $14 million.

Would that be about accurate?

Mr. VIGUERIE. I don’t have those numbers at hand, sir.

Mr. TIERNEY. That is what the record seemed to indicate. So it

seems like a lot from just one client. Is that one of your largest clients?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Yes, it is.

Mr. TIERNEY. And it looks, as I said, that a lot of money is going

to two beneficiaries in particular, Mr. Chapin and then your corporation, your groups on that. They don’t seem to be paying the expenses, like direct mail, postage, printing fees. It just seems to be

going toward consulting fees on that basis.

So is all that $14 million a direct profit to you, sir?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Sir, that is a very incorrect word to use, consulting. We are a vendor. And we employ on the HHV account something over 20 people, writing copy, ordering envelopes, ordering

lists, getting the mailings out, analyzing the returns. We are going

to——

[Simultaneous conversations.]

Mr. TIERNEY. It doesn’t look like direct costs——

Mr. VIGUERIE [continuing]. Advertising agency.

Mr. TIERNEY. It didn’t look like there was any direct mail or

postage or printing fees associated with that. It looked more like

it was for the list on that. And I was wondering, for the list, how

226

much of that other than for list cost, for rental or whatever it is

you do, would be just profits to those companies?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, sir, we have, as I said, over 20 people putting out hundreds of different mailings, something in excess probably of 50 million letters a year. It is an enormous undertaking.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chapin——

Mr. CHAPIN. He only gets about 6 or 7 cents of the 45 cents that

he pops in the mail.

Mr. TIERNEY [continuing]. I am going to ask you a question now

so you will have a chance to respond. I know you like to ad lib, but

I want to cut back a little bit.

You told the committee that you had given Mr. Viguerie nearly $1 million in loans to provide capital for another venture on that.

Do you see it within your corporate charitable purpose to give loans

to other individuals for startup companies or for capital costs?

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes, very much so if it is in the interests of the nonprofit to do so. Because he has very, very high expenses, startup

expenses or seed money expenses in terms of a particular mail

campaign. And if he is not able to fund that mail campaign, and

front the money until such time as the revenues come back, then

we are extremely disadvantaged by it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Viguerie, did you try to seek those funds first

from commercial lenders?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, for the 43 years we have been in

business——

Mr. TIERNEY. I am sorry, I have very limited time.

[Simultaneous conversations.]

Mr. VIGUERIE. For over 43 years we have not been able to do it,

because our assets go up and down the elevator every day.

Mr. TIERNEY. So Ms. Johns, do you have any difficulty with the

fact of a charitable corporation lending money to a startup company that couldn’t get the money from commercial lenders? Do you

see that within the charitable purpose, or do you see any problems

with that?

Ms. JOHNS. That could either be speculative investment or it

could be a loan requiring notice to our office.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you.

Chairman WAXMAN. That certainly is a lot of self-dealing.

Who is next over here? Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CHAPIN. I can’t allow that go unchallenged. This business, of

self-dealing. Not a penny—every penny has been repaid. Interest

rates have gone at the rate of 10 to 12 to 18 percent that Richard

has been charged. And we would not have been able to raise anywhere near the amount of money that we raised had it not been

for the fact that we have made some of these advances. It would

have been a lousy business decision on my part and the board of

directors had we not advanced some of these moneys. So I will defend that all day long.

Chairman WAXMAN. I am sure you will.

Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the ranking member and I suspect like you, I am also familiar with the high cost

of fundraising. In fact, I am quite familiar with Mr. Viguerie,

227

whose son was a volunteer on my first campaign. And I have

watched these issues for a long time.

I am actually quite surprised at the moral outrage and the hectoring of the witnesses here today, and I hope we can get to a little

bit of an understanding about why that is and what we are really

talking about here. But I understand we have a number of veterans in the audience today. Would you mind, Mr. Chairman, if we

asked for a showing of hands so we can identify those veterans? We

want to applaud their honor, their integrity.

[Applause.]

Mr. CANNON. It is, I think, extraordinarily important in America

that we not only honor our veterans, but that we fund their health

care and their recovery. If we don’t do that as a Nation, we are

going to end up with their children and their nephews and their

nieces and their relatives not wanting to go into the service. And

so I would hope that rather than folks have so much on this issue

with such animosity and hectoring of our witnesses that we actually talk about what we can do to help veterans.

So I would like to ask just a quick question to Mr. Viguerie.

There is a high cost to fundraising. But we do raise a significant

amount of money that way. Could you compare briefly the effectiveness of fundraising through mail to the effectiveness of government? [Laughter.]

The laugh is all we really need there, by the way. The fact is,

we don’t do things very efficiently in America, and the market

helps us do things remarkably efficiently. And what we need is

transparency as to these things.

I don’t mean to cut you off, Mr. Viguerie, but the point is that

I think it is a laugh when you start considering what we do here.

And there are a couple of things that I think are really important.

Mr. Chapin, you offered a letter there and were cutoff, I think, that

was sent to Ms. Johns’ division. Would you allow us to have that

letter submitted for the record.

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, it will be received for the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

Mr. CANNON. Ms. Johns, if that letter was submitted, then your

earlier opinion that it was illegal would not be correct, wouldn’t it?

Ms. JOHNS. Right. What I meant to say was that loans must be

submitted to our office. They would be illegal otherwise.

Mr. CANNON. So we don’t want there to be anything in this

record today to suggest there is something improper as to that

loan, which a big deal was made about, because apparently it was

disclosed. So Mr. Chapin, if you could introduce that into the

record, I would appreciate that.

And you would mind, you were asked questions without any opportunity to respond, can you tell us a little bit about the relationship with General Franks and General Diehl and what the nature

of that relationship is, or anything you would like to tell us on the

record about that?

Mr. CHAPIN. Thank you, Congressman. Very much so. The General, this was, sir, in 2005, that the General’s arrangement with us

was taking place. And his endorsement of the whole operation was

responsible for raising millions and millions of dollars, I think over

and above what otherwise might have been raised had it not been

for the association of Tommy Franks with the organization. And

Tommy, I have had any one of a number of conversations with

Colonel Michael Hays, his aide, about this. Tommy originally had

said no, that he had been approached by any one of a number of

organizations to do similar tasks.

So the arrangement was entered into with the understanding

that he can’t do it for everybody and it is a lot of time that is being

consumed by his involvement in this thing. He himself cannot be

a charity case. He devoted, I think, 36 or 38 years in the service

of his country. And he had a short window of opportunity. And he

had to capitalize to some extent on his celebrity. And I thought

that was totally appropriate. And it has benefited the charity enormously.

So I and General Diehl likewise, as devoting quite a bit of time

to us, has done a marvelous job, well beyond the few thousand

bucks that he gets to sign our letters. And that is just reality. I

wish we could find more folks like that.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chapin, if I could ask, Mr. Chapin, I am up

here, thank you. I take it that both of these generals have looked

at your program and have decided that they are somewhat more

effective than, say, the Federal Government is in some of the

things that the Federal Government does and therefore they support your charity?

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes, sir. And my quarrel is, quite frankly, that the

government has abrogated its responsibility to help these folks in

desperate need. Let me just explain one thing to you. The wives are

having to give up their jobs in order to be with their very severely

wounded spouses at the VA and military hospitals. So right away,

their income is cut in half. This is a total disaster. Because now,

they don’t have the money that they had before. Their utilities are

being shut off. Their cars are being repossessed. Many of them are

being evicted from their houses. This is criminal, in my opinion.

And this is the reason why I am doing what I am doing. And if

takes 90 cents on a dollar to help these guys, I will help them. And

I beg the government, and Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I

247

want to commend the chairman. Because he personally, I have

been advised by the staff, Suzanne told me about this, that the

chairman has really made a serious effort to try and persuade the

Congress, unsuccessfully, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, even

though we have some issues on other points, that he has really

tried to make a serious effort to get Congress to face up to their

obligations in respect to our disabled veterans. And again——

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chapin, since it is my time, and I appreciate

that, and I also agree that the chairman has been important in

doing what you are talking about here, but there was an implication here that General Diehl and General Franks had sold their integrity by being paid by you. Is there any truth in that?

Mr. CHAPIN. Absolutely not. That is an insult. This is a great——

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. It is an insult, if I can just take my

time back. It is a dramatic insult. I am offended by it. What I

would like to do now is just take a moment to try and establish

what the heck we are doing beating up charities that are helping

soldiers when they are very similar to many other charities in the

world. Ms. Johns, I think you have been stuck here as sort of a

stalking horse, you have been asked hypothetical questions, you

have been left in an awkward position. You obviously understand

your business. I am going to try and move you out of that and into

a different context.

Do you understand the various systems out there for rating charities?

Ms. JOHNS. I don’t, really. We aren’t allowed to rate ourselves,

so we refer——

Mr. CANNON. But you understand there are rating systems out

there?

Ms. JOHNS. Oh, I understand they are there, yes.

Mr. CANNON. Would you be surprised if under those rating systems the YMCA had a similar rating to Mr. Chapin’s charities, or

the Disabled Veterans Association [sic] or the Paralyzed Veterans

Associations?

Ms. JOHNS. I don’t know that.

Mr. CANNON. You don’t? OK, thank you. I will tell you there are

rating systems out there, and maybe Mr. Peters and Mr. Chapin,

you could take a moment to describe those systems and then establish how these charities rate compared to these other systems. Let’s

start with Mr. Peters briefly and then go to Mr. Chapin.

Mr. PETERS. By best count, there are over 50 different charity

watchdog groups. Most of them operate on a State-only basis.

There tend to be four large ones that operate on a national basis.

Mr. CANNON. And how did Mr. Chapin’s rate compared to, say,

the YMCA, if you have the knowledge?

Mr. PETERS. It varies, because the ratings systems all use different criteria. Some of them don’t even use the criteria that the

charities are required to use in order to file GAAP, according to

generally accepted principles.

Mr. CANNON. Do you have any sense about Mr. Chapin’s charities in particular?

Mr. PETERS. I know that the ratings systems for Mr. Chapin’s

charities are inconsistent, and that in some cases, some of the ratings people rate them the same. I believe one of the Members read

248

a list, it might have been Mr. Burton, that read a list of almost 30

or 40 charities that had the same rating. That kind of inconsistency

is very typical.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chapin, could you talk about the ratings of

your charities and other charities and how they compare? And how

your salary compares with the salaries of comparable charities.

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, your first question, sir, is about the ratings.

And we compare very favorably to most of the major charities in

the United States. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that

a myth has been perpetrated by the whole non-profit industry. And

the American public has been deceived to think that fundraising

costs are only 10, 15, 25 percent. That is not reality.

And I have tried to be very straight with you. I may be the only

guy in the whole cotton-picking non-profit establishment that is

willing to tell it like it is. I do the best I can. And if I could do

better, I would. I have tried television, I have tried radio, I have

tried foundations, I have tried corporations. And the only thing

that works is direct mails.

So we have this gentleman, Borochoff. Now, I suppose that it is

his prerogative to be a maverick and to disregard the whole system

that has been set up by the American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants and by which we are required to report. Borochoff disregards allocations. Personally, I think the guy is a wacko. And the

reason why he does this is because he set himself up——

Mr. CANNON. Pardon me, Mr. Chapin. Mr. Chairman, I see the

light is off.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Cannon, for some reason or another this

timer went completely kaplooey. It was adding time.

Mr. CANNON. Well, that is how it ought to be, under the circumstances.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, I know. [Laughter.]

Mr. CANNON. May I ask unanimous consent for an additional

minute to wrap up?

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, we will do that.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you.

Mr. Chapin, I appreciate that answer. Look, there are some very

important issues here. I am deeply concerned that we are whacking

on groups that are supporting the military. There is a dramatic difference today in how we are treating our servicemen than the embarrassment of the post-Vietnam war. As an American citizen, I

was humiliated that we would treat our military so badly after that

war. And I think a big part of that is what I think Mr. Chapin was

referring to as allocations, which is by having these expensive processes, we not only get some money that comes in, but we send a

message out, and that message is, we care about vets.

Why are we whacking on these guys when what we ought to be

talking about is helping Ms. Johns with her job? And helping her

with her job means creating a system of greater transparency. That

is where this committee ought to be focused, not on whacking people that are helping vets, and in a very substantial way. And with

that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. You did take a

minute, but the clock did not reflect it.

Mr. CANNON. Is that adding 2 minutes now?

249

Chairman WAXMAN. It is not worth going into.

I do want to just point out for the record that General Tommy

Franks has disassociated himself from your organization, Mr.

Chapin, and as I understand it, he asked that his name be removed

from the information that is provided by your organization.

Mr. CHAPIN. That is correct.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. Now I want to recognize——

Mr. CHAPIN. Can I explain to you why?

Chairman WAXMAN. Pardon?

Mr. CHAPIN. Can I explain to you why?

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, wouldn’t he be the better one to explain it? Why do you think he left?

Mr. CHAPIN. He left because he had a number of letters from fellow generals who said, hey, I am getting too much mail. And then

the one that broke the camel’s back was he got something, his sister called him up and his sister got on him about how many mailings in a single day, he said, that is it. He also had a problem, I

am trying to be very frank with you, he had a problem that we

didn’t meet all of the Wise Giving—we met the financial standards,

we didn’t meet all the Wise Giving of the Better Business Bureau.

And Tommy’s out, trying to make himself a living, he gets about

$100,000 a pop for speeches to corporations and so forth. And he

says, Roger, he says, I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to

renew the contract. As a matter of fact——

Chairman WAXMAN. So he did not renew the contract, he is no

longer with you, and he is no longer signing mail on your behalf.

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes, but I nevertheless——

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, I think that is what we want on the

record. We don’t want to hear a long story about the whole——

Mr. CANNON. But Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me, you

have just put on the record an indictment of Mr. Franks, who may

have a much more complicated view of the world, and in addition,

this very hearing is maybe part of the problem there. We may be

dissuading heroes like General Franks from doing things that are

helpful to soldiers by having this hearing.

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Franks was being paid $100,000 to lend

his name for this organization. We understand he had misgivings

about it and he asked that his name be taken off. We will hold the

record open for Mr. Franks to submit any additional or contrary information.

Now the time goes to Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chapin, I would like to pursue something that came up earlier, and I was confused by the response and I just want to clarify

it. One of the mailings that you send out that was produced by Creative Direct Response, Mr. Peters’ company, has that disclaimer,

this mailing was produced by Help Hospitalized Veterans, which

retains 100 percent of the contributions made. The language is on

the screen there. And we have already established, and you have

basically conceded, that is not literally true.

Now, was it my understanding that you said that precise disclaimer was required by law in a State even though it is demonstrably untrue?

250

Mr. CHAPIN. First of all, the statement is true. I don’t know why

anybody is questioning the statement. Yes, we did retain 100 percent of the contributions. We didn’t give it to somebody else before

we got the money. We took in the money, we paid our expenses and

what was left we passed on to the hospitalized veterans. And yes,

the State of Florida does require this language.

Mr. YARMUTH. That precise language. Now, you said that you paid Creative Direct Response $100,000. Did all the money come

into you and you paid them and that is why you say it is literally

true? Is that your argument?

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. I have been advised by CDR, which is their

outfit, Creative Response Direct, that this language is required. I

have never seen it in a statute. The State of Florida has never told

me that. But I was advised that it was necessary to put this verbiage in the mailing. That is the reason why it is there.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chapin, before I came to Congress, I was a

journalist, an editor to be specific. So I think very closely about exactly what words mean. And when I saw that during our last hearing, my thought was that this is exactly the type of language that

is designed to create the impression that 100 percent of the dollars

being donated are going to the beneficiary group. Basically when

I looked at it, I said, you know, this basically says that you kept

all the money. It doesn’t say that you spent one dollar actually for

veterans.

Now, I know you have. But I took it exactly the other way.

Mr. CHAPIN. The fact of the matter is that, what did you say you

did, 10 percent of our mailings, I think you do 20 percent of our

mailings?

Mr. PETERS. Nine percent of the revenue is what I said.

Mr. CHAPIN. Nine percent of the revenue, maybe 20 percent of

the mailing. The fact of the matter is, this is not in the other 80

or 90 percent of the mailings that Richard Viguerie’s company is

doing. So if we were trying to misrepresent to people, we would

have this in all of our mailings, not just in a small percentage of

him. His attorneys happen to believe that the State of Florida requires this. I could care less if——

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, if I——

Chairman WAXMAN [gaveling]. This is a committee where there

are 5 minutes granted to Members to ask questions. Respond to the

questions. Don’t give us a speech. Because that time is used up and

it is unfair.

Mr. CHAPIN. I apologize.

Mr. YARMUTH. You have answered that question. There has been

suggestion that possibly there has been some self-dealing here, and

I want to give you an opportunity, Mr. Chapin, Mr. Viguerie, Mr.

Peters, to answer some questions on the record, so that we can

clarify if there has been or not.

Is it your testimony, Mr. Chapin, that Mr. Viguerie’s company,

you said you fronted the money, are they the only direct mail company that could have facilitated the type of solicitation that you are

talking about, that you do, that you are involved in?

Mr. CHAPIN. Congressman, would you be kind enough to repeat

that just one more time? I want to make sure I have it clear in my

head before I answer you.

251

Mr. YARMUTH. You fronted Mr. Viguerie money to basically allow

him to make the investment to produce your, to help you with your

mailings and your solicitation. My question is, is Mr. Viguerie’s the

only company, in your judgment, in the United States, that was capable of doing such a project?

Mr. CHAPIN. Put it this way. Richard out-performed every other

direct mail house, of which there were several, some of the top direct mail agencies in the country. That is the reason why he gets

the bulk of the business. If somebody else can beat Richard, we will

be there in a minute.

Mr. YARMUTH. Is that your testimony, that you explored and you

talked to other direct mail companies before you chose Mr.

Viguerie’s company?

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. Matthews and Smith struck out with another

program that I started some previous years. Richard made it work.

This other gentleman here, as much as I admire his work, when

we first mailed for the Coalition, struck out. And Richard made it

work.

Mr. YARMUTH. OK, fine. I am just trying to get this on the record

now.

Second question. Do you or does anyone in your company, including board members, have a financial interest in either Mr.

Viguerie’s company or Mr. Peters’ company?

Mr. CHAPIN. Absolutely not.

Mr. YARMUTH. Does anyone in your company, you or a board

member, have any financial interest in the manufacturers or creators of the craft projects that you distribute?

Mr. CHAPIN. Absolutely not.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Viguerie, I just want to, and this is a small

point, but your reputation precedes you, you are a passionate and

outspoken advocate for your cause. I congratulate you on that. And

all of us here are familiar, both sides of the aisle, with spin and

pivoting and all those types of techniques, and I respect your statement in that light.

But I have one question. You mentioned New York Times v. Sullivan as some kind of evidence for your position that you are in

some way under assault here on a first amendment basis. And

wasn’t the point and the principle of Times v. Sullivan that public

figures couldn’t sue news media for libel or slander based on, unless under certain circumstances there was a reckless disregard for

the truth?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, I am clearly not an attorney. But I think you

are probably right, but I couldn’t say for sure.

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, as I have said, I spent a long time in journalism, and every journalist knows that case. And I really have a

hard time figuring out how that relates to your testimony or your

argument at all.

But with that, I yield back.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I know that you have made it clear

that the Members are to ask questions. But since this question has

appeared twice now about why that language is there, I think I can

clarify for the committee.

Chairman WAXMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. PETERS. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

252

As I tried to indicate earlier in response to another question

about the State disclaimer languages, the States passed statutes

that require certain words to be present in any mailing that is

mailed into that State. When you mail mailings throughout the

United States, you have to amalgamate all of the State disclaimer

language throughout the whole States.

Because of concerns about telemarketing costs, where the money

doesn’t necessarily go directly to the charity, it goes first to the

telemarketing firm, and then the charity gets what is left over

after the fees, a number of States have required language that

states whether or not that is the case. So the State of Florida has

required language that states how much of the money that is contributed goes directly to the charity without requirement for saying

how the charity may use the money that is contributed.

But the language is required by the States. As to the specific language, we have our lawyers who are specialists in regulatory law

for charities, examine the State disclaimers, and then we tell our

clients that they have to comply.

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me ask Ms. Johns if I might, do you

think saying that 100 percent is a disclaimer or is it something

that might well lead to confusion and misrepresentation to what

people believe when they read it?

Ms. JOHNS. When we bring a cause of action under our unfair

competition law, we send questionnaires to donors and ask them

what they thought a phrase meant. If a phrase has a tendency to

mislead, then it violates our unfair competition law. And I would

think that if we sent donor questionnaires out on this language,

they would say, gee, I thought they were going to use it all for a

charitable purpose.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just on that last point, obviously the language used has to be

looked at very carefully, and I guess States ought to review what

they are requiring, so there isn’t any kind of confusion.

I just wanted to, on this issue of whether the Federal Government and what it is trying to do for our veterans is more or less

efficient than what some of these charities are doing, I just pulled

some statistics which suggests that the Veterans Administration’s

administrative costs come to about 8 percent of the total budget

and 16 percent of the discretionary budget. So just for the record,

I wanted to put that out there. That is not a question, that is just

an observation.

I would like to understand a little bit better how, Mr. Viguerie,

your company and companies like yours get paid. Is there a per

piece of mail fee that goes with the contract? Is that how it works?

Mr. VIGUERIE. I can only speak for my agency, Congressman. But

when I started 43 years ago, I didn’t know a whole lot about how

agencies charge, so I decided on a per piece fee that probably has

increased 60, 70 percent over 43 years, unlike inflation. But every

once in a while, I will work it out, and it comes to almost exactly

what the typical advertising agency markup is, which is 17.65. So

the answer to your question is yes, we charge a per piece fee and

have for 43 years.

253

Mr. SARBANES. So whatever profit you need to build into your operation, obviously you need to build something in, is part of that

per piece fee?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Right, exactly.

Mr. SARBANES. Which means obviously the more mail pieces you

send out, the more fees are going to accrue. So I guess it becomes

relevant to you, Mr. Chapin, how that mailing operation works and

whether it is efficient or not efficient. I think the staff pulled some

evidence that some of these pieces of mail are going to incarcerated

prisoners. In fact, I think one State began confiscating some of that

mail because it was coming with dollar bills as part of the solicitation.

I am just curious if, as part of the RFP process, now, I worry

about whether your relationship with Mr. Viguerie is arms-length

enough for you to bring a careful analysis to his efficiency in terms

of providing these mail services versus somebody else. But if you

were starting from scratch and doing an RFP and having people

come in and make the case, what are the kinds of things you would

look at in comparing and contrasting how efficient these vendors

are in deciding whether to hire them?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, it is always a tough decision. You really go on

the basis of a track record and what other charities has he mailed

for, what kind of success has the particular vendor had. It is very

difficult sometimes to determine that, because most of these numbers are pretty confidential.

I will say that as far as Richard is concerned, we do have an

arms-length relationship. As a matter of fact, Richard wanted to do

more mailing than we thought was appropriate not too long ago for

the Coalition. So I said to Richard, I will tell you what, typically

you lose 10 cents on a prospect mailing. I said to Richard, look, you

want to do a few million more than I think is appropriate, then we

are going to limit you, we are going to put a Governor on you of

5 cent loss. Anything over that, you have to pay for.

Now, I paid a premium of a penny a mailing.

Mr. SARBANES. That is interesting you mention that. Why did

you think he wanted to do more? Why did you think what he wanted to do was not appropriate? What was there about it?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, Richard gets paid, I would rather pay him on

a performance basis. Richard gets paid 6, 7 cents per mailing, for

the most part. So there is an incentive from Richard’s point of view

to maximize the mailing. We have a guy who used to be Richard’s

account executive who now works for us that sort of puts a Governor on Richard.

So I said to Richard, look, I will pay you a premium of a penny

a mailing, but you have to absorb any loss over 5 cents, because

typically we lose 10 cents. So Richard put his money where his

mouth was, and he said fine. Well, it cost Richard almost $500,000.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, you have introduced into the conversation,

this is kind of where I was heading, the notion that there has to

be more scrutiny of the terms of these contracts between the charities and the mail houses. Both to make sure they are efficient and

to make sure that there is not an incentive to just send mail out

willy-nilly , because you are going to get a return on each piece.

254

Which brings me to the last sort of point or question I wanted

to put to Mr. Peters and maybe Ms. Johns. I am very focused on

the kind of disclosure there can be. You have suggested that it is

so hard to compare and contrast the different criteria for determining whether a charity is a good one or using money efficiently or

not.

But that can’t be the end of the conversation. There has to be

a way to provide more information to the donor, apples to apples,

oranges to oranges, so that they can make some judgment of

whether this is a charity that is going to handle their donation in

a responsible fashion. All I keep hearing is it is just so complicated

to do that we have to throw our hands up.

So help me with that, because we need to think about the donors.

Mr. PETERS. Let me narrow your perception of what I said. Because I was focused on the measure cost of fundraising ratio as

having been thrown out by everybody that has looked at it in a responsible way.

That does not for a moment mean that charities should not be

transparent, that they should not be required to reveal whatever

information the donor wishes to receive, and in fact under IRS

guidelines, charities are required to post and give to everyone who

wish a copy all of their financial statements in their 990 and 1023,

which is the original application for exemption.

So I do not for a moment want you to understand me to be saying that we are opposed, or the charitable community is opposed

to disclosure. We are in favor of transparency. We are in favor of

disclosure. We are in favor of informed donors.

What we are not in favor of is a regime, either by the government or by misguided private watchdogs that rely exclusively on a

measure that we know to be unreliable and use a one size fits all

measure for the ranking of charities. And that is all I was trying

to say.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I just wanted to make a comment. Mr. Chapin, you are quite a

witness. You talked about General Franks, he just didn’t want all

these mailings because some people said there were too many mailings. Well, the truth of the matter is, General Franks said you are

sending too much mail because he knew more money was going to

pay for the overhead costs to Mr. Viguerie as he sent more mail

out. General Franks got $100,000 from you, and he said he didn’t

want to be part of it any more. General Diehl got money. Others

got money. You got your cut, Mr. Viguerie got his cut. Everybody

got a cut.

But what was left was only 25 cents for the veterans. Now, I

know you said this is the way it is. I don’t think that is the way

it should be. I don’t think that is right. And as I look at how you

are paid from this whole operation, you are doing very well for

yourself. No one, no veteran could get the kind of pension you are

going to get. No veteran could get the kind of money you are getting. No executive except at the very top of some major corporations get the kind of take you are taking out of this.

And I wouldn’t mind it if we had something really returned to

the veterans more than just 25 cents on the dollar.

255

It is Mr. Shays’ time and I am going to comment, unless you

want to comment.

Mr. CHAPIN. I would like to comment. This nonsense about lining

my pockets, as every other CEO, which is over half of them, getting

the same kind of compensation that I am getting or more, are they

lining their pockets? Is the YMCA, is the Boy Scouts, are the

American——

Chairman WAXMAN. There are other veterans groups that raise

money and provide services to veterans and don’t have nearly the

overhead costs that you have. It isn’t true that every charity has

the same overhead costs that you claim. A lot of them have held

down their costs so they could do more for the charitable purpose

and less for the overhead and the personal purposes for which a

lot of that money goes.

Mr. CHAPIN. Paralyzed Veterans of America has higher costs

than we do. They are not here. DAV has about the same costs, they

were not invited. The American Legion, I am very, very friendly

with them. The VFW, all these folks have higher, higher costs——

Chairman WAXMAN. Then it is your view everybody does it. That

to me is not a good enough excuse, that everybody does it. Because

it seems to me that the ones who are losing out are the veterans.

Mr. CHAPIN. If you have a cheaper way of doing it, I would sure

like to know about it.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, I will tell you one cheaper way is the

Federal Government ought to do what is right for its veterans.

That is what we should be doing.

[Applause.]

Mr. CHAPIN. We are all for you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. This is, in my 32 years in public, this has been a fascinating hearing for a lot of reasons. First, I do think the issue is

very serious. And I do want to ask you, Mr. Chapin, am I to understand that Help Hospitalized Veterans, the Coalition to Salute

American Heroes Foundation and Help Wounded Heroes, all of

them basically have 75 percent cost and a 25 percent benefit to the

veteran? Is that accurate? Is that your statement before Congress?

Mr. CHAPIN. Generally speaking, I would say that does not really

apply to Help Wounded Heroes. That is just now getting off the

ground. That is an advocacy organization.

Mr. SHAYS. So Help Wounded Heroes even has less or more to

the veterans?

Mr. CHAPIN. Probably has close to 100 percent, because——

Mr. SHAYS. A hundred percent goes to the veterans?

Mr. CHAPIN. No, the other way around.

Mr. SHAYS. A hundred percent does not go?

Mr. CHAPIN. A hundred percent goes to the message to beat on

Congress in order to pass the necessary legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. To raise money? Is it cost or benefit? I just want to

know the difference. And I don’t want to spend a long time.

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission that I can

keep going on until I get answers to my questions.

Chairman WAXMAN. It is your time, keep going.

Mr. SHAYS. So the answer is, is most of that an expense or a benefit to veterans? It is not a hard question to answer.

256

Mr. CHAPIN. Help Wounded Heroes, Congressman, is not a charity. We don’t profess to give a dime to charity. It is an advocacy

organization.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. It does not go to veterans, it goes to getting the word out?

Mr. CHAPIN. Precisely, and that——

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. You answered the question.

Mr. CHAPIN. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, I will say to you that I came having stronger

feelings about this issue than I do now, but I still believe that 25

percent to the veterans and 75 percent cost is too much. And I just

want to say that.

Mr. Viguerie, I consider you the beginning and the end as it

comes to fundraising. And you have reason to be proud of how you

have done it, though I will say to you that what it has meant is

that in the political side of the equation, we have more money to

spend and our opponents have more money to spend, they get more

money spent and we have more money spent, and that is the reality of the world.

But to your credit, I was raised, though, as a young person, that

when someone is asked a question but goes on the attack, it is usually a defensive method because they don’t want to answer your

questions. You have valid answers to questions, but your attack in

basically saying, we are going to investigate Congress, and, and,

and, makes me think that you have some things that you don’t

want discussed. I am just going to tell you that is the way I feel.

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, Congressman, in reply to that, let me say

first of all, first of all, you said earlier this morning that charities

are failing our veterans. No, Mr. Shays, the Congress, you Members of Congress are failing the veterans. Not compared to

charities——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, if you want to—no, I understand. I am not

going to disagree with you. I am not going to disagree with you.

Congress is failing the veterans. That is true. And each of us is up

for re-election and our constituency has to evaluate that. You and

I agree.

But it is irrelevant right now under this issue on charities. And

I wonder, in fact, are we failing because we are not doing a better

job on charities. But if you want to rail on Congress for all the

things we are doing wrong, so be it. You have a field day. You

could spend a day, a year, whatever.

I happen to have been the lead co-sponsor of the Congressional

Accountability Act. We passed it in 1995. It said whatever laws we

pass on the public, we should pass on Congress. And it passed. It

was part of the Contract with America.

I don’t disagree with you that what we impose on others, we

should have to abide by ourselves. So tell me in terms of our campaign fundraising what you think would be helpful. Because I also

think that I have had some interest in campaign fundraising.

But once we get beyond that, then I want to ask you a question

about what you do. So tell me, what do you suggest we do in campaign fundraising? Because usually, I find people, particularly conservative Republicans, are opposed to having stronger laws on campaign fundraising.

257

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, gosh, Congressman, you are right, I could

talk all day, because you are throwing out a number of very good,

interesting questions.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, let’s talk about campaign fundraising. What

would you do that is different?

Mr. VIGUERIE. I was just down at an organization that you and

I both have been at before a few weeks ago. And this issue came

up over and over, and I made the point over and over, the dirty

little secret of campaign finance reform is not about limiting

money, it is about protecting the incumbents. That is why 98 percent of the incumbents get re-elected. That is a dirty little secret

of campaign finance reform.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t understand that. What is illegal about our

raising money, just as what is illegal about your doing it? What is

your point?

Mr. VIGUERIE. No, just that the purpose of campaign finance reform is to make sure that the incumbents don’t have serious competition. And of course it has not had that effect.

Mr. SHAYS. No, the irony of this is that you are the expert on

raising small dollars. And the whole point of campaign finance reform was to get corporate money out, union dues money out, and

have the small contributor like you argue for be back in play. So

I don’t think that is a fair charge. I think actually what we are

doing is the kind of thing you want. The irony is you are accusing

Congress of something that you advocate.

Tell me what we require on you that we don’t require on us that

you think makes sense.

Mr. VIGUERIE. Well, first of all, we are going in great lengths

about the contracts that we have, what we are paid. Congress

doesn’t make their contracts with——

Mr. SHAYS. Would you support a law that says we should disclose

the contract?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, let me ask you this question, though. Would

you be opposed in all your fundraising solicitations to say to the

donor that 25 percent goes to the veteran and 75 percent goes to

the charity for administrative costs and to this fundraising solicitation? Would that be a wrong thing to do?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. What?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Absolutely that would be the wrong thing to do.

Mr. SHAYS. Why? The public shouldn’t have a right to know that

you are taking 75 percent out? Why would that be wrong?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Congressman, let me read you from the Supreme

Court——

Mr. SHAYS. No, I want to know why it would be wrong to disclose

to the public——

Mr. VIGUERIE. Because the Supreme Court has clearly established that charitable appeals for funds involve a variety of speech

interests. It is amazing that for 2 days——

Mr. SHAYS. Why doesn’t the public have a right to know the information?

Mr. VIGUERIE. It is amazing to me, this is the second day of hearings about charitable fundraising for veterans organizations, and

258

there has been zero conversation and discussion about the effectiveness of these organizations. It is all as if the effectiveness——

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Viguerie, I have endless respect for you. Endless

respect for your accomplishments, but you are not answering the

question. And proponents have argued disclosure and transparency

is the key. Why would you be opposed to disclosing to the people

you are raising money from that only 25 percent is going to the veteran and 75 percent is going to you and others?

Mr. VIGUERIE. That is your characterization, Congressman, that

you are making a false assumption, and the chairman has made

that false assumption. The assumption that the mail program is

designed just simply to be a conduit from the donor to pass it

through to the veterans, that is your assumption. The Supreme

Court has said over and over and everybody who is familiar with

this, the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National

Committee, they know that advertising mail serves multiple purposes. As I pointed out in my opening statement——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, then let’s do this. Why would you be opposed

to say that 25 percent goes to the veteran and 75 percent goes to

costs and alerting you to what is happening to veterans? Would you

be opposed to that?

Mr. VIGUERIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Why?

Mr. VIGUERIE. You are chilling speech rights. The Republican—

I wish Congressman Van Hollen was here and we could talk about

the millions and millions and millions of letters that he and the Republicans sent out that he signs these letters, knowing that zero

money, zero money is going to go to elect Democrat candidates, because they’re going to do prospect, what we call acquisition mailings. And for every dollar they spend, it is going to cost them 70,

80, 90 cents, because it is achieving other purposes. It is advertising. The Iraq war veterans are being treated significantly better

than the unpopular war in Vietnam. And part of it I think is because of the hundreds of millions of communications from veterans

organization to the public.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK, we have to move on. But Mr. Shays,

these organizations get a break on their postage. They get a special

rate, a lower rate on their postage. Perhaps we ought to consider

taking away that low rate unless they disclose this information.

Mr. VIGUERIE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shays did not attack me, but

he made a comment which I think entails a response. And I agree

with you, when somebody sometimes gets very intense, you wonder

what their true agenda is. And perhaps I am very intense today,

because I feel really outraged at the chairman here. We are going

to leave at some point here today and Members of Congress will

go to lunch with their lobbyists and raise contributions——

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Viguerie, I think we have to follow the

regular order. You have attacked me a couple of times, and I just

want to say for the record, I raise campaign funds and I think campaign funds are a lot different than funds for veterans. It is not a

charitable contribution, it is not a tax deductible contribution. But

I only use 20 percent to raise it, and 80 percent goes for the campaign cost. And I don’t think you are in a position——

Mr. VIGUERIE. Running the campaign.

259

Chairman WAXMAN. Running the campaign itself. So for you to

come in and fulminate about politicians this and Congress that and

everybody does it, you both have wonderful excuses. But when it

comes right down to it, I think you have to let the public decide

once we put this out there, whether this is the way we want charities to operate. I think disclosure is always a good idea.

Mr. Tierney——

Mr. CHAPIN. I will disclose if everybody else will.

Chairman WAXMAN. Good.

Ms. Norton hasn’t had her first time around. Ms. Norton, your

turn.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you can see by Mr. Shays’ questions and a number of questions that have been asked so far, what is it about disclosure? I

think you sometimes underestimate what Americans are willing to

do even if they understand that it costs a lot of money to raise

money. But whatever is on the record would absolve you of much

of the criticism you have heard today. Just before I ask my question, which has basically also in its own way to do with disclosure,

let me say, I understand that people get paid in ordinary life. For

example, baseball stars get paid after they retire. So nobody is trying to begrudge anybody anything. We are just trying to find out

what happened, what the public knows and does not know.

Mr. Chapin, you were interviewed by our committee staff. You

were specifically asked, do you or your employees in any of the organizations pay the veterans for their testimony. And you said no.

And yet when Mr. Tierney asked the question about $5,000 a

month for one general, $100,000 a month for another, you answered, yes, you indeed paid them. They are veterans, by the way.

So I mean, already on the record, we have a contradiction from

what you told the committee.

Mr. CHAPIN. I beg to differ with you. That is incorrect. When I

was first asked the question about whether these folks were getting

paid, I said this was a confidential arrangement, Susanne will remember. I said this was a confidential arrangement, and I asked,

do I have to answer that question. And I felt that I would be doing

a disservice to the gentleman that we had made the arrangement

with, because I had agreed that it was confidential. I——

Ms. NORTON. So you decided to answer falsely?

Mr. CHAPIN. No, I didn’t answer falsely. I said it was confidential

and I declined——

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. I don’t want to get hung up on this.

The fact is that you indeed indicated in your answer to Mr. Tierney

that the generals were paid, and your answer was blanket, when

asked if veterans were paid for their testimony. There is no way

to see that as anything but a contradiction to what you said. If the

reason was that it was confidential, that is not what you told the

committee.

Mr. CHAPIN. I didn’t deny they were getting paid.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t begrudge people money. It’s all about disclosure for me.

You have a former employee, John Clifford, who has told the

committee that you stated to him personally that he was to withhold assistance, grants, whatever it is you offer, to veterans who

260

would not provide testimonials. He indicated that he refused to do

so because that many veterans desire to keep private the fact that

they are receiving any assistance at all. I am going to give you the

opportunity to explain, deny or admit that is in fact the conversation you had with John Clifford, a former employee. Did in fact you

instruct him to withhold grants from veterans who did not provide

testimonials?

Mr. CHAPIN. Quite to the contrary. Clifford stole all kinds of documents from us, as a matter of fact. He was fired, he and his

brother. But apart from that, no, that is totally incorrect. I told him

that I thought that the veterans, whenever possible, had an obligation to help his buddies and to step up and speak out.

Ms. NORTON. All right, you deny that one. Let’s go on to a

present employee, Stephanie Lepore, who has given an affidavit to

the committee. Apparently it is not always easy to get veterans to

come forward with these testimonials. And you said to her, according to an affidavit, which I have here, ‘‘Not having these pictures

and stories is costing us hundreds and thousands of dollars.’’ And

she states that you authorized her to offer any service members a

check of anywhere between $250 and $500 to get their stories and

pictures told.

Now, understand I am not here saying the veterans shouldn’t

have been offered money. I am asking you whether or not you instructed this employee or any others to offer grants of the kind I

have just indicated in this affidavit in exchange for the use of their

stories.

Mr. CHAPIN. That is essentially correct. It is sometimes difficult,

the veterans very often don’t care to have their names disclosed

who get aid. And we ask them for their pictures and for their stories and testimonials. And they are very, very slow in many cases

providing——

Ms. NORTON. How do you decide whether you give $250 or if you

give $500?

Mr. CHAPIN. Rather than make them a charity case, I would

rather give somebody $250 or $500 to tell their story.

Ms. NORTON. How do you decide who gets $250 and who gets $500 and who gets $5,000 a month and who gets $100,000?

Mr. CHAPIN. It depends on what they are doing and the value of

the service.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am trying to find out how you decide on

how much a veteran should be paid, not that a veteran should not

be paid. Frankly, it is hard for me to sit up here and say that you

shouldn’t pay a veteran any amount of money. I am just trying to

find out what happens, and I don’t know why there isn’t something

that says a small stipend, if it is small, is offered to veterans who

willing come forward and give testimonials.

Mr. CHAPIN. Instead of treating these folks as charity cases, we

now have a program where we pay them and their spouses $15 an

hour to call our donors.

Ms. NORTON. Now, see, now you are on another subject.

Mr. CHAPIN. You are moving so fast. I have already asked and

answered——

Ms. NORTON. Do you have any objection, would you have any objection to noting in your literature that we pay veterans an amount

261

ranging between X and Y for their testimonials and pictures? Do

you have any problem with that? Or do you think the public would

be hostile to that?

Mr. CHAPIN. I am not sure we actually ever did that or not. Mr.

Lynch, did we ever—I am not sure if we ever did pay a veteran,

but I don’t deny the fact that we offered them. And I know it was

a good idea. And I stand by that idea.

Ms. NORTON. Well, anyway, there is the affidavit, Mr. Chapin.

All I am trying to know, and answer my question, please, would

you have any objection, or do you believe, do you really believe that

the public would be hostile in knowing that the people who have

risked their lives for us may be receiving an amount of money between X and Y? Why not disclose that? Particularly given the way

Americans feel about our veterans, why not disclose it? Would you

be willing to disclose it?

Mr. CHAPIN. I will disclose anything you would like me to disclose. Give me a list, and seriously, I will be glad to disclose it.

Ms. NORTON. You are under oath, Mr. Chapin. We are going to

look for that.

Mr. CHAPIN. Excuse me?

Ms. NORTON. You are under oath, and we are going to look for

that disclosure, and thank you very much.

Chairman WAXMAN. Your time has expired.

We have had all the Members have a first round, but a couple

of Members wish a second round. Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chapin, I am not sure that some of the things you do are

done by all the other organizations that you keep saying everybody

does it, we ought to do it. I don’t think other organizations pay

moneys for country club dues and I don’t think that they give loans

to entities to startup businesses when they can’t get commercial

loans elsewhere. I don’t think that they fund the CEO’s money, advance them money so they can settle some divorce buy-out of property. And I don’t think that necessarily all the other organizations

pay people to endorse or sign letters on fundraising things, not generals and not veterans or people comparable in their organizations.

But there is another thing that I think is probably out of the ordinary in your group, and that is an expense that you were reimbursed for that doesn’t seem to make much sense in the context of

charitable giving here. On April 14, 2005, there is a document that

you signed, perhaps the committee staff can put that up there. It

is a sales contract between you and the Renaissance condo complex

in Virginia. It looks like, you can explain otherwise, it looks like

you and your wife Elizabeth personally made a down payment of

$24,725 for that unit on April 14, 2005.

I have another document that I won’t put up, but it is a second

contract, nearly identical, dated the same day, signed by you to

also buy the unit right next door. For that one, you apparently paid

an $18,500 deposit. So if we understand this correctly, you entered

into two contracts on the same day for two condominium units

right next to each other, and you put down a total of $43,225.

Would that be correct?

Mr. CHAPIN. I believe so, yes. I am trying to think of the exact

amount, but off the top of my head, that sounds about right.

262

Mr. TIERNEY. So based on the documents that we have, it looks

like several months after that date, after the time that you entered

into those contracts personally, you went to the board of HHV, told

them you were buying a condo in Virginia. And if we show you the

minutes of that meeting up there, on June 24, 2005, it says this:

‘‘Chapin said that due to his requirement to be in the Washington,

D.C. area, he was purchasing a one bedroom condominium in the

area of Tysons Corner in Virginia. And the return on his investment for him personally is estimated to be very strong. Lynch,’’

that is HHV’s Executive Director, ‘‘recommended that the organization consider purchasing a separate property within the same complex.’’

So in April, you are buying one for yourself and 2 months later,

in June, HHV decides it wants to buy one as well. Ultimately, we

know that HHV did buy one. But you didn’t. It appears that you

pulled out of both contracts that you signed in April. And that is

where it gets to the crux of my question. You pulled out of your

contracts, you forfeited $43,000 in down payments, but you submitted that amount to HHV for reimbursement. So if we put up the

document, I think it is entitled Summary of Virginia Condo Deal,

and I think that is your handwriting, isn’t it, sir?

Mr. CHAPIN. I will accept that, yes.

Mr. TIERNEY. So you asked HHV to pay you $43,225 for, what

it says there is forfeited Chapin down payments. And the records

we reviewed show that they actually issued you a check in that

amount.

Why would anybody that donates to the charitable organization

expect money that was intended for veterans to pay your failed real

estate costs?

Mr. CHAPIN. Can I——

Mr. TIERNEY. That is the question, sir.

Mr. CHAPIN. The answer to that was, we had had some discussions, because of the amount of time that we were spending there,

and it would be much more cost effective to own a condominium

than to go out and stay in a motel or to rent an apartment. So as

a matter of convenience, I put down the original down payments,

because, to get the particular units that we thought were desirable,

they seemed to be selling quite rapidly at the time.

Mr. TIERNEY. So this was a discussion you had with your wife,

or who did you have this discussion where you decided it would be

better to buy?

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, I decided it with the board, the board was interested in——

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, if I can just back up, in April, there was no

discussion on the board and you reported to the board——

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, the discussion with the board, there hadn’t

been any decision made.

Mr. TIERNEY. Please, sir. You reported to the board, we just put

it up there for you, I am surprised that you contradict it now, but

it said that you were talking about the return on your investment

to you personally, to you personally. So it was 2 months later that

the board decided that they were going to purchase it, and you

were going to back out of your two agreements and then look for

reimbursement.

263

Mr. CHAPIN. I didn’t say that the board had decided. I said there

had been a discussion with the board about the possibility of acquiring a condominium. We investigated it, went ahead and put up

the down payments.

Mr. TIERNEY. For two?

Mr. CHAPIN. For two, that is correct. One for myself. I lived in

that building, incidentally, a number of years prior to that when

it was an apartment and they converted it to a condominium. In

any event, my accountant, when it came time to actually close the

deal, the accountant suggested that we only buy one, that HHV, I

should say, buy the one and that I not buy the other. He did not

think that was a good idea.

Mr. TIERNEY. Was that your personal accountant or the organization’s accountant?

Mr. CHAPIN. The organization’s accountant did not think that I

should be buying a condominium. My wife, we have a couple thousand square feet in San Diego. The one that HHV was buying was,

as I recall, about 1,200 square feet. The other one was a one bedroom, which was 800 square feet. We were going to put them together, which we did when we rented there many years before.

And in any event, the accountant suggested this was not something that I should do. So I didn’t do it. So what happened was,

we renegotiated with these people, we took a much less expensive

apartment on a lower floor, on the 3rd floor instead of the 10th or

11th floor. And HHV wound up spending less than they originally

committed to spend by buying a less expensive apartment. So I

said, hey, look, in that case, HHV, because they wouldn’t refund

your money, OK, so the original down payments were forfeited. So

I said in the event that HHV actually saved money on the whole

transaction, it is reasonable if I get reimbursed for what I put

down in the down payment and HHV gets reimbursed. Because we

still save money and the board thought that was fine, and the cotton-picking accountant went ahead and 1099’d me for $18,000 or

something.

Mr. TIERNEY. So your opinion was, you had personally put down

deposits on two condominiums, personally——

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes, but I had no intention of buying the two.

Mr. TIERNEY [continuing]. Indicating that your return on that investment, you said to the board, would benefit you personally. You

thought that was a very strong case it would benefit you. Then you

lost money because you forfeited both of those deposits. The corporation decided to buy a unit and in the end, you get the entity

to also reimburse you for your lost deposits. So you——

Mr. CHAPIN. Well, I was putting down a deposit in behalf of

HHV. Because the board, even though there wasn’t a formal vote,

the board had originally indicated yes, they would be favorably disposed to HHV acquiring an apartment.

Mr. TIERNEY. If that were the case, you would expect that the

board would go out and issue a check for the deposit on those two

condominiums, sir. It seems rather suspect that you went out personally, put it down, reported to the board that you personally expected to get a strong chance of return on your investment on that,

and then 2 months later, decide that you have lost money on those

264

two deposits, the board will come in and put down a check and buy

a unit, and then they will reimburse you for your lost deposits.

Mr. CHAPIN. How could I get a strong return on an investment

for an apartment that I never bought?

Mr. TIERNEY. I don’t know how you anticipated that you were

going to get one. But you said to the board——

Mr. CHAPIN. I didn’t anticipate any——

Mr. TIERNEY. Sir, just your own words: ‘‘Chapin said,’’ in your

own board minutes, that due to the requirement to be in Washington you were purchasing a one bedroom, ‘‘and the return on that

investment for him personally is estimated to be very strong.’’

Those are your board meeting minutes. Those are not my words.

Ms. Johns, would you have any issue, in your capacity of an entity, on a charitable basis, reimbursing somebody for a personal

down payment on a unit that goes bad?

Ms. JOHNS. It would potentially be a waste of charitable assets.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. You know, I am listening to all of this, and I am

quite disturbed. The purpose of your charity is to help veterans.

And when I hear that there are all kinds of business deals, such

as we have been able to note that there was a reimbursement for

three plane tickets to Hawaii, and these tickets were bought on

Christmas Eve 2004, then there is noted that there were gifts given

to Mr. and Mrs. Viguerie over a period of time, it just seems to me

that the purpose of raising these funds has been missed. And you

know, you might be able to explain and so on.

But the commitment that you said you have made to veterans

seems to be squandered in moneys lining the pockets of you and

your wife. And you know, I don’t go along either with the fact that

others are doing it, so why can’t I do it. You can turn and point

to us about campaign funds. This is not a campaign. This is your

organization, collects money to be able to give to veterans.

Now, what we do in our campaigns is completely separate from

the purpose of raising charitable funds. And it is my feeling that

if you raise money, you ought to be able to expose everything you

give and the reason you give it. We have a list of expenditures that

would benefit Mr. Viguerie. We also have copies of those tickets. I

wish that three handicapped veterans could have gone to Hawaii.

So I am just saying that your testimony here, Mr. Chapin, has

convinced me and Ms. Johns that we need to do a better job in the

State of California and probably across this country in monitoring

and bringing some light on what we do with charitable funds. We

know what we do with campaign funds, Mr. Viguerie. But we are

not talking about campaigns. We are talking about the lives and

the health of our veterans.

And certainly, this Congress ought to do a better job. Every time

there is a request, I am right there in supporting it. But I don’t

think that you as a charity, and I am not talking about you specifically, the charities that operate in the name of our veterans ought

to be using moneys for membership dues at country clubs, giving

gifts to the mail house owner, reimbursing for tickets to Hawaii.

I just think these are inappropriate expenses, and with that, Mr.

Chairman, I yield back my time.

265

Mr. CHAPIN. Can I reply? Thank you.

The 660 bucks, if that is the right number, for the trip to Hawaii, was out of $260,000 that I paid in expenses. That was an erroneous

charge picked up—incidentally, I fly Southwest practically everywhere I fly, sometimes make two and three plane changes in

order——

Ms. WATSON. Why did you submit it for reimbursement?

Mr. CHAPIN. That was submitted and it was incorrect, and I

apologized for it. Out of 260,000 charges, and I don’t know how

many hundreds of plane fares, and there was a trip that I missed

because I took the whole out of my CitiBank summary statement.

I took all the plane charges, because I never fly any place unless

it is for the cause. And my daughter had gone to Hawaii, and I had

not realized that it was charged to my card. And I struck it out and

paid them back plus 5 percent interest. So I take exception to that,

Madam.

Ms. WATSON. Well, what I want to say, my bottom line, since you

have given me time, is that I think we ought to shine a finer light

on charities, all of them, those that you have mentioned and those

that you are involved in. We appreciate the fact that you said you

were committed. But I think the actual expenditures that have

been documented really don’t meet the need and the purpose. I

think the overhead is too high, and if you can’t live, then you

should probably, on that amount that you get, you probably should

go——

Mr. CHAPIN. Our overhead is high. Our overhead is high.

Ms. WATSON. The overhead that you spend out of a dollar is too

much. Because that group who are the recipients are not getting

the benefit. And I think any charity ought to use the majority of

its funds to benefit the purpose of that charity. With that, I yield

back.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr.

Shays?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Free speech is protected under the Constitution as it should be. Congress is an institution protected under

the Constitution. The White House, the Judiciary, some people

don’t like Congress, some don’t like the Members, some don’t like

the White House or the executive branch, some don’t like the President, some don’t like the Judiciary, some don’t like the judges. But

the fact is, we are all part of this mix.

I have a responsibility under the Constitution to look at things

that I think are wrong. I think it is wrong for the public not to

know that only 25 percent goes to the actual veteran. That is an

opinion that I have, which I have a right to have. And I have that

opinion, and I am happy to go to my voters and tell them that is

my opinion.

Now, Mr. Viguerie, I have less problem with the fundraising aspect, so long as people know. And if we aren’t concerned with this,

what is to say that someone shouldn’t be able to raise 95 cents on

the dollar in order to give 5 cents to the veterans? The public has

a right to know.

Mr. Peters, you never answered the question that I asked of Mr.

Viguerie. Do you have any objection to, in your fundraising solicitation, say that 25 percent or 28 percent or 20 percent actually goes

266

to help the veterans directly, and the rest is fundraising costs and

getting out our message?

Mr. PETERS. I really appreciate your asking me the question, because I didn’t get a chance to respond. First of all, there is an impression that is being left that the charities do not disclose this information. That is an incorrect——

Mr. SHAYS. I am talking about when you solicit it.

Mr. PETERS. I understand. That is an incorrect assumption. First

of all, it is available, I will get to your answer, it is available to

everyone because the IRS requires, in order to keep your charitable

exemption, that you make it available to everyone. So it is available to everyone.

Mr. SHAYS. And yet it has been so hard for us to even get this

information out in a public hearing because we hear so much obfuscation. So with all due respect, I am going to let you answer it, the

chairman will be a little generous with my time, I hope. But the

bottom line is, I leave wondering what the hell is going on here.

Mr. PETERS. I don’t know why it is so hard for the committee to

get it, because I go can go online to GuideStar today and look up

any 501(c)(3) in the United States that reports to the IRS, which

are those who make more than $25,000 a year. And I can look up

the numbers.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, answer my question.

Mr. PETERS. The second answer to your question is, the vast majority of charities, and most of the people that I do fundraising for,

publish that number as part of the——

Mr. SHAYS. That is not what I asked you.

Mr. PETERS. You said do they disclose.

Mr. SHAYS. No, I didn’t. I said, do you have any objection to the

fact that when you solicit the dollars, on the phone or by letter,

that you disclose, for instance, in the case of Mr. Chapin’s two

groups, Help Hospital Veterans and Coalition to Salute American

Heroes Foundation, and we will leave Help Wounded Veteran Heroes out, because that is a C(4), and it is a different operation, but

those two. If you were raising money for them, do you have any

problem, you call me up or you send me a letter saying that 25 percent will go directly to the veteran and 75 percent will go to Mr.

Chapin’s group and the solicitation costs and so on? Do you have

an objection to making that public when you raise those dollars?

Mr. PETERS. We recommend to our clients that——

Mr. SHAYS. I want an answer to the question.

Mr. PETERS. I don’t know how to answer your question

without——

Mr. SHAYS. Because you don’t want to.

Mr. PETERS. No, that is not true, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you have an objection? OK, go ahead.

Mr. PETERS. I recommend to my clients that they put the pie

chart that shows what percentage of the funds are going to each

purpose, how much is for fundraising, how much is for administration and that they put that in the solicitation, so that the donor

does in fact receive that information. Because I am not a charity,

I can’t require that.

Mr. SHAYS. So the answer to the question I think is that you

think you would recommend that should happen?

267

Mr. PETERS. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. That is not a hard question to answer. What you

should have said, it seems to me is, that is what I recommend to

my clients. It is easy, you wouldn’t have wasted so much of my

time. And that is not a bad answer. How many of them do it?

Mr. PETERS. Most.

Mr. SHAYS. How many of the veterans groups do it, that you do?

Mr. PETERS. Most.

Mr. SHAYS. Name me who.

Mr. PETERS. Wounded Warrior Project.

Mr. SHAYS. And they say how much?

Mr. PETERS. There is a pie chart that——

Mr. SHAYS. And what does the pie chart say? How much goes to

the veteran in that pie chart?

Mr. PETERS. It doesn’t say to the veteran. What it says is how

much for programs, how much for fundraising, how much for administration. It shows all of the functional categories.

Mr. SHAYS. Do they describe what programs mean?

Mr. PETERS. Yes, they do.

Mr. SHAYS. What are programs? Going to the veteran?

Mr. PETERS. Many of their programs involve backpacks for veterans, they work at Walter Reed, if you have ever been over there,

you will see them with the tee-shirts and so forth.

Mr. SHAYS. Here is what I would like you to do. Please submit,

and this is, I am well in my right to ask you to submit this, please

submit to us the fundraising letters that you have done or any solicitation that you have done for veterans. I want all of them as

they relate to veterans. And because you are under oath, I want

to see those pie charts, and I want to know how many of those actually did that.

But I congratulate you for suggesting that be done.

Ms. Johns, do you think it makes sense for solicitations to actually describe how much goes to the veterans?

Ms. JOHNS. It would be a lot easier for donors to make decisions

about giving.

Mr. SHAYS. See, what I know is, when I know a group gives 90

percent to the call, like certain police associations, when they call

me up I say, you know, I would like to do it, but I don’t like 10

cents of my dollar going to the cause and 90 cents going to you all.

You have a right to raise money this way, but I know that information, I don’t want it to happen. But if 90 percent or 80 percent went

to the police, I would react differently.

I sincerely believe that most people who are giving money don’t

realize how little goes ultimately to the veteran. And I will just end

by saying to you, Mr. Viguerie, I believe that Congress needs to

have better oversight of fundraising, that we do. But I will say this

to you. We have pretty strong laws. We just have an incredibly

weak Federal Elections Commission that will investigate something months after an election has taken place, find someone a

year later, and in some cases, just have a blind eye and deaf ear

to this.

So believe it or not, you and I are on the same wave length. Let’s

have stronger laws governing how Congress raises money and campaigns. It would make good sense, I think.

268

Mr. VIGUERIE. Mr. Shays, my legal counsel, Mark Fitzgibbons,

has a solution about disclosure that deals with the Riley case. And

he would be glad to talk to your staff and help you address some

legislation.

Mr. CHAPIN. If we disclose, which I am more than happy to do,

we will all be out of business and you wouldn’t have gotten the 23

million arts and crafts kits.

Mr. SHAYS. Why would they be out of business?

Mr. CHAPIN. Excuse me?

Mr. SHAYS. Why would they be out of business?

Mr. CHAPIN. Nobody would donate. It would dry up.

Mr. SHAYS. Because they would then know that only 25 cents

goes to the veteran.

Mr. CHAPIN. That is right. And nobody would give to the American Cancer Society or the Boy Scouts or YMCA.

Mr. SHAYS. What a wonderful——

Mr. CHAPIN. And $50 billion worth of direct mail would evaporate. I would take my $300,000 retirement and walk off into the

sunset.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chapin. I think your words are a wonderful way

to end this hearing. Because you are basically saying if the public

knew they wouldn’t contribute.

Mr. CHAPIN. Yes. Hey, I am trying to be straight with you guys.

I am——

Chairman WAXMAN. You have been very straight with us. Ms.

Johns, I want to ask you a question. We have heard over and over

that high fundraising costs are not a problem. Do you think they

are a problem and why?

Ms. JOHNS. Our job is to make sure that charitable assets are

used for charitable purposes. We talk about it in terms of efficiency. There are reasons for high fundraising costs, and then there

are other times there are not good reasons.

The board of directors of each organization is required to assess

what is reasonable and where they can get the best deal in fundraising. It really falls to the board. It isn’t the only criteria we use

in deciding whether there are ways.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, I would say, in conclusion in this hearing, and I’ve been sitting listening to the responses to many of the

questions, Mr. Chapin, you said just now what you said to our

staff, nobody would give any money if they knew how much was

going to overhead. I think people understand that there are fundraising costs.

But if they knew that they were giving money to a country club membership for $17,000, a personal loan to your executive director

to settle his divorce at $135,000, reimbursement for your personal

forfeited condo deal of $43,000, loans to Mr. Viguerie because he

didn’t have the capital to execute his contracts, nearly a million

dollars, payments to you and your wife over the past 3 years of

$1.5 million, payments to Mr. Viguerie’s for-profit company since

2000 of $14 million, I don’t think they would give any donations

to you.

But I think people have a right to know where some of this

money is doing. It sounds to me that you have a real close-knit club

there, and you’re all self-dealing with each other and then you

269

don’t want it disclosed. You don’t want it disclosed because nobody

will give you any money. I think if you had to disclose there would

be things like market forces, there would be a lot of pressure on

you to lower your costs. There would be more pressure on you to

do more for veterans. People would say, I don’t want to give money

to that veterans group, I want to give money to another one that

is giving more to the veterans. I thought that is what conservatives

like, honesty, fairness and market forces. And I don’t think you

have any of those things in the operations that——

Mr. CHAPIN. I would totally disagree. I think I am the most honest person in this room based upon my performance. I have loaned

over half of my after-tax compensation back in order to enable the

charity. I did not take in a million and a half dollars. That is totally inaccurate. I took in $750,000, over the half of what you are

talking about, plus some bonuses.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, I accept that you are very sincere. And

you genuinely believe what you have told us. And I just have to

tell you, I don’t agree with you, and I don’t think the veterans are

getting the deal that they should have out of this whole operation.

Mr. Shays, did you have something else?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chapin, I want to explain why I laughed when

you spoke, because I do think you have been brutally honest.

Mr. CHAPIN. Sir?

Mr. SHAYS. I think you have been brutally honest, I think all of

you have, and that is to your credit, to be honest. But I listened

to what you said, and we have our disagreements.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, make a request. The organization Independent Sector has asked to submit a letter and booklet on charity

standards for the record. I ask that this be placed in the record.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, that will be the order.

[The information referred to follows:]

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

Chairman WAXMAN. I thank all of you for coming today. That

concludes our hearing. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

Æ