HSUS Fraud story today

Groups allege HSUS fraud

HSUS leader defends group's lobbying efforts, tax-deductible status

By Wes Sander

Capital Press

An animal-owners organization is hoping to persuade the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether political lobbying by the Humane Society of the United States is illegal.

HSUS's lobbying on national and state levels likely surpasses the boundaries set by its nonprofit status under the IRS code, said Susan Wolf, spokeswoman for the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance.

"Many of us who oppose HSUS legislation have felt for a long time that HSUS flaunts the privilege of being a nonprofit by manipulating funds into affiliated umbrella organizations," Wolf said.

The alliance also claims a conflict of interest by Michael Markarian, who serves as HSUS's chief operating officer as well as president of an affiliated lobbying charity, the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

Markarian said funds are not shared between the two organizations. Furthermore, when HSUS staff members perform work for the fund, those hours are billed to the fund separately, he said.

Markarian said HSUS's spending on lobbying is roughly 4 percent of its budget, keeping the organization within its limits. In 2008, HSUS reported that it spent about $4.2 million on lobbying, out of a total budget of nearly $100 million.

According to HSUS's 2008 tax return, the organization's efforts included a $2.25 million grant to Californians for Humane Farms, a committee that campaigned in favor of Proposition 2. That ballot measure, which passed in 2008, imposes restrictions on the confinement of farm animals.

Under IRS rules, a nonprofit can either register its lobbying expenditures, or it can meet an "insubstantial activities" test. While the IRS does not specify the limits of the term, HSUS believes its lobbying qualifies as insubstantial, Markarian said.

"We believe 4.3 percent by any definition is a small percentage of anyone's work," Markarian said.

The legislative fund is not bound by the same rules. That entity, termed a "social welfare" organization under IRS code section 501(c)(4), can spend all its money on lobbying. Donations are not tax-deductible.

Several charity watchdog groups monitor HSUS. One of them, Charity Navigator, has awarded the organization four stars, its highest rating, for the past four years.

"We feel this is an anemic campaign, and they're barking up the wrong tree," Markarian said. "We very carefully document our lobbying expenditures, and they're publicly available on our Web site."

But the Animal Owners' Voting Alliance calls attention to HSUS's claims of having pushed through hundreds of animal-rights laws, arguing that the charity must be surpassing its limits to sustain such activity.

"It hardly seems possible that HSUS can pay 26 or 28 state directors to constantly lobby legislatures, file numerous ballot initiatives yearly, some 50 pieces of state legislation, federal bills, pay federal lobbyists, and file three dozen or so lawsuits against USDA and federal agencies -- and still remain under allotted lobbying regulations," Wolf said.

An IRS spokesman declined to comment on the case.

You will never see them lose that Non-profit status..cause then the IRS would be shutting down a group the saves puppy's, and kittens or so the comericals say any way..

Great! Finally people are beggining to realize what a (insert another word for poop here) organization they are.

This is a campaign by US!! I hope that you are wrong about it going no where because of who they say they are. They need to be investigated for their practices. They are a right wing, special interest group just one short rung down the ladder from the crazy folks over at P.E.T.A.

The nice thing about this publicity is that even if the IRS says HSUS is within its tax-exempt lobbying bounds, more people are going to be second-guessing their opinions about and contributions to HSUS.

Fewer contributions = less lobbying money!

I find it hard to believe that only 4.3% of their monies goes to lobbying. What happens to the other 95.7%? It certainly doesn't get to the local shelters....that has even been admitted by them.

it goes to euthenizing animals....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPelizabeth

I find it hard to believe that only 4.3% of their monies goes to lobbying. What happens to the other 95.7%? It certainly doesn't get to the local shelters....that has even been admitted by them.

---

Well about $37 million went to wages.
4.3 % went to lobbying for each of their 30 companies so another $20 million there.
$30 million went to advertising to get the next $100 million.

In the year 2008 (from their tax form), they had ~$86M in revenue.

~$38M went to salaries, employee benefits, bonuses, etc.
~$28M was spent on fundraising fees and expenses.
~$53M was classified as "other" expenses, including lobbying, legal, management, investment fees, office expenses, IT, royalties, travel, etc.

So...44% of their revenue went to employee salaries, bonuses, etc., and another 33% went to fundraising. Which means that 23% went to other sources, which includes animal welfare programs/support, lobbying, legal fees, royalties, travel, advertising, etc.

This means that the absolute maximum they spent on actual animal welfare was 23%. I say maximum because animal welfare was only part of the total "other" expenses. This is giving them the benefit of the doubt, which is still a pretty crappy percentage.

How much did they actually spend on grants, money to help animal welfare in the U.S. and other countries, etc.? $5M. 6%.

Yeah, you're doing a really good job there, HSUS. Way to help out those animals!

Oh, wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

This means that the absolute maximum they spent on actual animal welfare was 23%. I say maximum because animal welfare was only part of the total "other" expenses. This is giving them the benefit of the doubt, which is still a pretty crappy percentage.

How much did they actually spend on grants, money to help animal welfare in the U.S. and other countries, etc.? $5M. 6%.

Yeah, you're doing a really good job there, HSUS. Way to help out those animals!

Oh, wait.

---

I totally agree with you. It makes me so angry how they do things....not for profit my butt!! This is why I will only support my local no kill shelter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singingtothewheat

They are a right wing, special interest group

---

???
the opposite of right wing actually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Vestrand

???
the opposite of right wing actually...

---

Actually I don't think they have any wings. Animal rights is neither a left or right issue, they'll give money to whomever will support them regardless of political ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Actually I don't think they have any wings. Animal rights is neither a left or right issue, they'll give money to whomever will support them regardless of political ideology.

---

i'll agree with that for sure... i guess i was just thinking of all the groups that they have major clashes with that would be considered right wing...

The sad part is how misguided these folks are, overall. There is not, in my opinion, anything wrong with giving some rights to animals. The problem is with trying to force animals to be wild and free the way you want them to be, without regard to what's actually in their best interests.
Our snakes are a bundle of instinct and primitive emotion, with little thought going on--but these people presume that, if given a rational choice, they would choose to be wild.
Let's see--harsh temperature changes, uncertainty of food and water availability, predation, parasitism, etc....versus a perfect climate, clean water, food handed to you often, and good health.
Maybe captivity isn't so bad after all? There have been many occasions in which wild animals, raised in captivity, have opted to stick around after being released.

The other side of the issue is sentience. I can't say I disagree with the Great Ape Trust's efforts to get governments to afford special rights to our closest relatives. Once we are forced to acknowledge that great apes have all of our cognitive abilities--just in a slightly different arrangement--and are in fact as bright as the lower rung of the human normal range--I think we would be ethically amiss not to act on that knowledge.
They aren't human, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent beings. They aren't as creative as we are, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of being creative, or solving problems, and sometimes the extent of that capability is shocking. They don't have to be like us in order for us to acknowledge that they're sentient, do they? Their impulse control is too low for them to be trusted among us as if they were human--but they can whip our butts when it comes to short term spatial memory. We're not the best at everything either--they can beat us at some mental tasks, too. Now that we have reluctantly but definitively discovered that chimps are homonids like us, and don't come from a different evolutionary branch after all, shouldn't we revise our treatment of them accordingly?

An orang at the local zoo here once disassembled a light in his cage and removed the wires. He fashioned them into a lock pick, picked the lock to his cage and let himself and his friends out. He hid the pick in his cheek, so he managed to keep doing this over and over again while the puzzled keepers tried to figure out who was leaving the door open....
How many people do you know who would have thought of that?

That all of these issues are lumped into the category of one thing--'animal rights'--is a shame. The extremism of that category may sadly prevent more moderate and sane efforts at making some changes that really should happen.

We've already acknowledged that animals have a right to humane treatment--these groups distract from our struggle to determine what 'humane' really means, and instead want animals to fit into some 'wild and free' ideal that they have for them. It's completely outside the boundaries of reality, because the truth is, from an evolutionary perspective, being our pets is a really good thing for most species. If we know how to care for and breed them, then we do--and their survival is assured. The most successful species on the planet, apart from us, are our pets or pests. Living with us appears to be good for the species that do it.

The above is all way too long and too rambly, I realize, but these are the things I think about. The reptile industry has some areas that it needs prodding to shape up in--and these attempts to ban everything outright are likely to create such a strong reaction that those areas won't be changed. That's a shame for us, and for the animals.