So next time you see one of those ASPCA commercials on TV, you know where any donations you make will be going.

Great point, Isab.

The sad thing is there are more than enough instances of animal cruelty and neglect that these "animal activists" could be fighting.

These frivolous and false attacks make it that much harder for those fighting against animal cruelty to receive support.

The tactics of the activist groups failed only because Feld had the money to defend themselves. A less wealthy organization might have folded. This would put a legitimate company out of business, depriving employees of their livelihoods and consumers of their product. It would give the public the impression that the activists' claims were accurate. And it would embolden the activists by letting them get away with (figuratively) murder.

$25 million dollars won't be going to help animals in need...

You know, I'm starting to think these groups don't actually care about animals at all!

The HSUS is a scam charity-- next to none of the money it receives actually goes to its stated purpose.

I heard a great story of an animal activist who was upset by the treatment she saw at a Civil War event, of one of the cavalry horses. Apparently his light skin showed pinkish around the stirrups.
A local judge was watching, and he called court into session, on the spot. Witnesses were called, the defendant questioned "What's your horse's name?" He said "His name's Cupcake; he's my daughter's horse."
The judge tossed the case out, along with the activist.

I look at the ASPCA and HSUS like I do at the National Red Cross anymore. They are money grubbing thieves.

Once an organization gets to the point that they don't want in kind donations but strictly cash for support I look at them with suspicion. If you call up the ASPCA or HSUS and say I want to donate a pallet of dog food and a pallet cat food they would reject that idea and say send us cash instead.

You hear the same thing with the Red Cross after any disaster. Don't send us cases of food, send us cash. We'll decide.

Don't send us cases of food, send us cash. We'll decide.

A good charity org is set up to buy food for much cheaper than what you pay for a can of food. $1 cash donation can get $20 of food.

So donating cash can be more efficient.

So donating cash can be more efficient. -- Jason S. at May 17, 2014 10:07 PM

Yes it can, which means that $30 cash that you donate only the $21 dollar is used to buy food and the other $9 is sucked up by the administrative costs.

As written up here:

While nine cents may seem small, it adds up the more you give -- if you donate $3,000, nearly $300 of that money goes to administrative costs, and that amount jumps to a whopping $90,000 for a donation of $1 million.

Yes it can, which means that $30 cash that you donate only the $21 dollar is used to buy food and the other $9 is sucked up by the administrative costs.

If you donate to Red Cross, only $3 of the $30 goes to admin and salary costs. Maybe with another org it's as high as $9.

You're right, though, there are scammy charity orgs. Charity Navigator is a good resource.

I keep thinking a lot of the charity funds should go to me, but that's probably wrong.

"A good charity org is set up to buy food for much cheaper than what you pay for a can of food."

But what if you already have it, for whatever reason, and don't have a use for it? When my first cat died, I had several bags of food and some material: a timed feeder, a litter box, food and water bowls, and a cat bed. I bundled them all up and took them to the local ASPCA. They didn't want them. I wound up giving the food away to another cat owner, just so it would go for some purpose. That wasn't bad, but the person I gave it to could certainly afford to buy their own food; I would rather have seen it go to a shelter to feed cats in need.