Change.org takes a 1% fee for donations, not including the transaction fees which are impossible to avoid. GlobalGiving, a site which is TOTALLY based on the premise of donations that don’t go to overhead, takes 10-14%. GlobalGiving most certainly doesn’t going around advertising this. But hey, I guess they’re nonprofit so that puts them in the clear.

The reality is that change and donation protals need sustainability that goes beyond foundation donations. Especially in an arena like Web technology when the going salaries for top developers are far beyond what nonprofits have access to. This is emblematic of a dangerous resistance on the part of ANYONE to fund infrastructure, overhead, and leadership development in nonprofits. 9% of nonprofit leaders leave the nonprofit sector each year, creating a 100% turn around in nonprofit leadership every 5 years.

THIS is what’s alarming. Until we get comfortable with the idea that earned income strategies are legitimate and in fact, used judiciously and correctly, can add scale to good ideas that would otherwise get no where, we’re going to continue to have nonprofits so obsessed with living check to check and grant to grant that they forget what they were created to do in the first place.

Nathaniel
Founder of the Northwestern University Center for Global Engagement

PS GlobalGiving is a great organization and the fee they charge is certainly worth it for what they offer, I was simply using them as a point of reference.

If only politics were that simple. The problem that we’re addressing is that regardless of who is elected, special interests are able to buy influence to stifle debate on certain issues or get preferred legislation introduced on others. This is why, for example, genuine patent reform has been so evasive, net neutrality may not persist, and gun control won’t be touched by anyone with a ten foot poll – even if a congressman lives in a district that wholeheartedly supports gun control (hint: the NRA will spend $100k in attack ads against them in the next election if they do).

So although your vote may have as much influence as any other in getting someone elected, your influence over the way that representative acts while in office is not the same as those who fund their campaign or threaten to fund the campaigns of their opponents. That’s the problem that we’re trying to overcome. And, as I mentioned above (comment #5), giving a $25 donation directly to a campaign without a “filter” is not going to solve the problem or influence anyone. On the other hand, giving $25 along with 1000 other people in a coordinated way will certainly get a politician’s attention and, if properly targeted, can directly undercut the undue influence that any special interest might wield over that representative’s actions.

- Ben (founder, Change.org)

You are right that they don’t explicitly state their for-profit status anywhere on the front page, but their FAQ does refer to the fact that they’re incorporated. I also don’t know why you think that information needs to be broadcasted as some sort of warning? It hardly seems like they’re hiding this fact. When I heard Ben speak at a recent conference, he spoke directly about how they can’t legally process donations to politicians as a nonprofit. Makes sense to me. Maybe they could explain that better on the site. Either way, I don’t think you should be so quick to judge – the site could do a lot of good.

PS – Wilson, their FAQ is pretty explicit about tax deductions and processing fees.

– becuase its an orginization –

– it just makes sense; some people buying .com ‘ because .com …..

Gal – good question. The reason you would want to give up some amount of control over exactly where your money goes is that it gives you influence over a much larger amount of money. It also enables you to be a part of community that, when bound together, can have much more impact than the sum of its parts.

For example, 1000 people giving $25 to a candidate in an uncoordinated fashion will get each person little more than a junk mail response. But you take those same 1000 people and have them give $25 each in a bundled donation along with a letter stating why the group gave the money, and the candidate will eagerly hear what you have to say. Heck, he’ll even come to your house to hear it. (Whether you want a politician to come to your house is another question…)

The point is, in politics concentrated and organized interests always win over disperse groups of people, and our platform allows people who were previously disconnected and powerless to coordinate political action for the purpose of gaining real political power.

GJ
http://www.60in3.com

If others create a similar model, then the overall effect gets somewhat diluted because the amount of money donated would be spread out among several candidates and would have less impact.