Times up found to have spent less than 10% of their funding on actually trying to help people

[Dwarvenhobble]

So I say this coming in as some-one who was very much for #timesup and having he legal system handle things and having things go through courts rather than the court of public opinion so it is rather depressing to see that turns out the time up movement was more focussed on enriching already very rich people than actually helping people prosecute their alleged abusers.

Exclusive | Star-studded Time’s Up charities spent big on salaries, little on helping victims

Hollywood's “Times's Up” organization, set up to fight sexual harassment, spent the bulk of its donations on executive salaries and only a fraction on legal costs to help vict…

nypost.com

Reese Witherspoon, Amy Schumer, Brie Larson and other luminaries on its board — spent the bulk of its donations on executive salaries and only a fraction on legal costs to help victims, public records show.

The organization, which is comprised of the Time’s Up Foundation and Time’s Up Now Inc., raised $3,670,219 in 2018, its founding year, but spent $1,407,032 on salaries and only $312,001 on the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund for people who have experienced sexual harassment.

 

[Iron]

I learned this when I was a teen after I checked out the results of the Haiti earthquake in 2012

Remind yourself that the Sarkeesian kickstater still hadn't delivered what it promised.

 

[Schadrach]

So I say this coming in as some-one who was very much for #timesup and having he legal system handle things and having things go through courts rather than the court of public opinion so it is rather depressing to see that turns out the time up movement was more focussed on enriching already very rich people than actually helping people prosecute their alleged abusers.

Exclusive | Star-studded Time’s Up charities spent big on salaries, little on helping victims

Hollywood's “Times's Up” organization, set up to fight sexual harassment, spent the bulk of its donations on executive salaries and only a fraction on legal costs to help vict…

nypost.com

Unsurprised. Willing to bet you the same applies to Black Lives Matter Global Network (aka where the money goes when people/companies "donate to Black Lives Matter"), whose finances seem to be intentionally opaque.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pick a charity at random, you're not unlikely to see this. Hell, look at Autism Speaks, though they were particularly egregious in that and other ways.

 

[Agema]

So I say this coming in as some-one who was very much for #timesup and having he legal system handle things and having things go through courts rather than the court of public opinion so it is rather depressing to see that turns out the time up movement was more focussed on enriching already very rich people than actually helping people prosecute their alleged abusers.

Read that article very carefully: it's actually nothing like as bad as it seems.

There are two organisations as part of the Time's Up charity with distinct missions. One is basically a lobbying unit ("Time's Up Now"), the other a more general one ("Time's Up Foundation"). To add to that, there's a specific fund ("The Time's Up Legal Defence Fund") for legal cases. So we actually have three distinct entities.

The report shows that in 2018, over $3 million was donated to the lobbying unit (Time's Up Now), so therefore was not really earmarked to assist with legal defence. >$300k went to the Foundation, where the legal defence fund is explicitly part of its remit. Obviously, if a lobbying group receives 90% of the money, naturally a huge proportion is going to go into costs associated with lobbying: legal and so on. So already, things don't look that bad: the money was in fact spent largely as the donors directed it: to the lobbying group.

The big question is therefore, what's the state of our third entity, the legal fund? Here we need to look at other sources, and it turns out that the legal fund actually raised $22 million by the end of 2018, clearly because it had funding independent of the Time's Up Foundation and Time's Up Now.

So, in reality, this is a maliciously misleading article. In total, it seems over 80% of the money the group gained in total in 2018 was for legal support.

And of course, that's why the usual suspect right-wing rags reported it that way: because they've always hated #MeToo etc. and they're deliberately intending to turn public attitudes against it.

 

[Trunkage]

Read that article very carefully: it's actually nothing like as bad as it seems.

There are two organisations as part of the Time's Up charity with distinct missions. One is basically a lobbying unit ("Time's Up Now"), the other a more general one ("Time's Up Foundation"). To add to that, there's a specific fund ("The Time's Up Legal Defence Fund") for legal cases. So we actually have three distinct entities.

The report shows that in 2018, over $3 million was donated to the lobbying unit (Time's Up Now), so therefore was not really earmarked to assist with legal defence. >$300k went to the Foundation, where the legal defence fund is explicitly part of its remit. Obviously, if a lobbying group receives 90% of the money, naturally a huge proportion is going to go into costs associated with lobbying: legal and so on. So already, things don't look that bad: the money was in fact spent largely as the donors directed it: to the lobbying group.

The big question is therefore, what's the state of our third entity, the legal fund? Here we need to look at other sources, and it turns out that the legal fund actually raised $22 million by the end of 2018, clearly because it had funding independent of the Time's Up Foundation and Time's Up Now.

So, in reality, this is a maliciously misleading article. In total, it seems over 80% of the money the group gained in total in 2018 was for legal support.

And of course, that's why the usual suspect right-wing rags reported it that way: because they've always hated #MeToo etc. and they're deliberately intending to turn public attitudes against it.

Wasnt Time's Up a charity to help with legal battles?

 

[Agema]

Wasnt Time's Up a charity to help with legal battles?

Yes. And evidently, it does - amongst other things.

Let's face it, a bunch of Hollywood stars are more than a little likely to divert attention to stuff they're more interested in, which is PR and hob-nobbing with the rich and powerful rather than the boring nuts and bolts of legal cases for the plebs, so they deserve plenty of scrutiny.

Nevertheless, to act like Time's Up contributed ~$300k to people's legal defence when the legal defence fund actually got $22 million is, to say the least, pretty despicable.

 

[Shadyside]

This is why I don't trust or give to charities.

 

[stroopwafel]

This is why I don't trust or give to charities.

For real. I'd rather flush my money through the toilet than give it to these fake Hollywood people.

edit: some of the smaller initiatives are honest with the donations though. I personally donate to a children's village in Africa(ie 'adoption') and animals in need; another small time charity. Both provide monthly newsletters about what they did with the money and such. There are no exorbitant 'management costs' or salaries paid with these donations.

 

[Iron]

Unsurprised. Willing to bet you the same applies to Black Lives Matter Global Network (aka where the money goes when people/companies "donate to Black Lives Matter"), whose finances seem to be intentionally opaque.

This?

 

[Agema]

This is why I don't trust or give to charities.

Charities, like any organisation, can be analysed for transparency and effectiveness.

As a general rule larger, older charities tend to be more reliable - they have better developed processes, face more scrutiny, and often got to that size because they have been able to deliver results. New starts are always a risk, and I would have particular concerns about any that are over-reliant on or excessively tied to certain powerful individuals.

To give an example, look no further than the obvious example of the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

 

[stroopwafel]

As a general rule larger, older charities tend to be more reliable - they have better developed processes, face more scrutiny, and often got to that size because they have been able to deliver results. New starts are always a risk, and I would have particular concerns about any that are over-reliant on or excessively tied to certain powerful individuals.

I agree with the latter but large charities also tend to enter NGO levels of overhead costs and management fees, where I feel with smaller it are really just idealists. You're never going to solve corruption or accomplish structural changes anyway. The only difference you can make is for the individual or something small scale. Maybe it's pissing against the wind but you do what you can. Animal abuse in particular I feel like no one even really cares about that. The way animals are treated defies belief.

 

[tstorm823]

And of course, that's why the usual suspect right-wing rags reported it that way: because they've always hated #MeToo etc. and they're deliberately intending to turn public attitudes against it.

I'm grateful for you digging in and finding the catch in this, but you lost me at the very end. Right-wing rags have not always hated #MeToo. Right wing rags LOVED #MeToo at it's inception, because it was all about "Hollywood, liberal elites" being absolute scumbags. That movement didn't get much right-wing backlash until Kavanaugh happened.

 

[Agema]

I'm grateful for you digging in and finding the catch in this, but you lost me at the very end. Right-wing rags have not always hated #MeToo. Right wing rags LOVED #MeToo at it's inception, because it was all about "Hollywood, liberal elites" being absolute scumbags. That movement didn't get much right-wing backlash until Kavanaugh happened.

Firstly, bear in mind we have a country difference. It's hard for me to access US press as it tends to be heavily restricted access or paywalled (the LA Times is probably the only major paper I can easily read), but the usual suspects in the British press were undermining #MeToo pretty much from the get-go.

They have always hated the underlying premise of #MeToo, even if it temporarily suited them to attack targets they disliked. They were also not willing to attack it head on immediately because they were not willing to be seen to side with sexual harrassers. So it starts as a sideline of mild contempt, doubts, dismissals, and trivialisations. But they were always just biding their time for an opportunity to savage it.

 

[tstorm823]

Firstly, bear in mind we have a country difference. It's hard for me to access US press as it tends to be heavily restricted access or paywalled (the LA Times is probably the only major paper I can easily read), but the usual suspects in the British press were undermining #MeToo pretty much from the get-go.

Alright, fair. I don't know the British experience of it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Read that article very carefully: it's actually nothing like as bad as it seems.

There are two organisations as part of the Time's Up charity with distinct missions. One is basically a lobbying unit ("Time's Up Now"), the other a more general one ("Time's Up Foundation"). To add to that, there's a specific fund ("The Time's Up Legal Defence Fund") for legal cases. So we actually have three distinct entities.

The report shows that in 2018, over $3 million was donated to the lobbying unit (Time's Up Now), so therefore was not really earmarked to assist with legal defence. >$300k went to the Foundation, where the legal defence fund is explicitly part of its remit. Obviously, if a lobbying group receives 90% of the money, naturally a huge proportion is going to go into costs associated with lobbying: legal and so on. So already, things don't look that bad: the money was in fact spent largely as the donors directed it: to the lobbying group.

The big question is therefore, what's the state of our third entity, the legal fund? Here we need to look at other sources, and it turns out that the legal fund actually raised $22 million by the end of 2018, clearly because it had funding independent of the Time's Up Foundation and Time's Up Now.

So, in reality, this is a maliciously misleading article. In total, it seems over 80% of the money the group gained in total in 2018 was for legal support.

And of course, that's why the usual suspect right-wing rags reported it that way: because they've always hated #MeToo etc. and they're deliberately intending to turn public attitudes against it.

Except as mentioned in the article most of the legal defence fund spending was from external grants not fundraising or donations.

Also only one of the two is tax deductible

 

[stroopwafel]

Firstly, bear in mind we have a country difference. It's hard for me to access US press as it tends to be heavily restricted access or paywalled (the LA Times is probably the only major paper I can easily read), but the usual suspects in the British press were undermining #MeToo pretty much from the get-go.

They have always hated the underlying premise of #MeToo, even if it temporarily suited them to attack targets they disliked. They were also not willing to attack it head on immediately because they were not willing to be seen to side with sexual harrassers. So it starts as a sideline of mild contempt, doubts, dismissals, and trivialisations. But they were always just biding their time for an opportunity to savage it.

To be honest there was always a disingenuous element to it. The sleazy casting director who used his position for sexual services just as primadonnas used him for roles in Hollywood productions. I mean, just look at Weinstein's ex-wife. Yeah, that is some 'true love' right there. On top of that one of the women who started MeToo was a child molester.

 

[Agema]

Except as mentioned in the article most of the legal defence fund spending was from external grants not fundraising or donations.

So?

The simple fact is that article, whilst accurate in the technical details presented, is basically bullshit to undermine the charity (and thus wider movement). As this thread indicates, it worked.

To be honest there was always a disingenuous element to it. The sleazy casting director who used his position for sexual services just as primadonnas used him for roles in Hollywood productions. I mean, just look at Weinstein's ex-wife. Yeah, that is some 'true love' right there. On top of that one of the women who started MeToo was a child molester.

The willingness of some people to fuck their boss for advancement in no way excuses a boss coercing unwilling people into sex. Sorry, but that shit just doesn't have any merit.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So?

The simple fact is that article, whilst accurate in the technical details presented, is basically bullshit to undermine the charity (and thus wider movement). As this thread indicates, it worked.

The technical detail that the legal fund likely got grants etc from other organisations not TimeUp to fund the TimeUp legal cases........... yeh not good there really.

The willingness of some people to fuck their boss for advancement in no way excuses a boss coercing unwilling people into sex. Sorry, but that shit just doesn't have any merit.

You know this is how we end up with the sex monitoring chips from Futurama right?

There likely was some awful shit an abuse and exploitation that went on in Hollywood. There were also likely a fair few people who jumped on this train just to harm people or get some additional leverage for things by being able to leverage PR.

 

[Agema]

The technical detail that the legal fund likely got grants etc from other organisations not TimeUp to fund the TimeUp legal cases........... yeh not good there really.

Okay. Where you're at here appears to be someone who doesn't really know what's going on, and is slapping out arguments on what they don't really know for the relatively futile purpose of trying to avoid admitting you made a misjudgement earlier.

The Time's Up Legal Fund is a separate entity, but still part of the same group. If ultimately the group has met its funding aim for the legal defence fund (exceeding target, and ~85% of total income for the whole group 2018), then it doesn't really matter, does it?

You know this is how we end up with the sex monitoring chips from Futurama right?

You know what? All you're doing with that sort of comment is telling everyone here just how little respect you actually have for victims of sexual harassment and abuse beneath the boilerplate virtue signalling.