Monetizing or exploiting tragedies

seeker

Wed, Dec 15 2021, 9:42 am

Tangential - A couple of other fundraisers I contributed to in the past that went over their goal sent out a follow up saying that extra funds and/or what was reimbursed by insurance were being used to further the same cause (e.g. if it was for a specific person's specific disease treatment, the excess went to a fund that helps others with the same disease treatment.)

One specifically I recall sent out an email to all the contributors saying that at the last minute, insurance came through with covering the treatment, and if you want your donation back then they will happily refund it but if not then the money will go to a foundation that researches and treats that condition. I'm assuming most people, like me, were more than happy with that outcome.

I think if people's hearts are stirred to do something good in response to the situation, then they should have that outlet and hopefully the fund administrator will distribute it responsibly. As long as the campaign itself isn't fraudulent, I'm cool with that. As a prospective contributor, though, if I see a campaign has reached its goal then I would probably just move on.

amother

↑ Bluebell ↓

Wed, Dec 15 2021, 9:53 am

amother [ Cinnamon ] wrote:

No I'm serious.
I'm saying this story is getting good marketing so there's a lot of money coming in.
They can choose to close the campaign at any time. If they don't then they will use the money. After bills they can invest or hold it for the family or whatever.
I'm saying: There is never excess of need.
And if I donated to this cause and they took my $5 and gave it to a different orphan instead, that's stealing and misappropriation.

Well ok, you paskened a couple interesting shaylos.

1. You say that there is never an access of need. So in theory it's ok to collect more than is needed.

2. You also say that it's ok to collect for cause A and use the funds for cause B.

There are volumes of sefarim regarding the halachos of tzedaka. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us.

amother

↑ Cinnamon

Wed, Dec 15 2021, 10:02 am

amother [ Bluebell ] wrote:

Lol what?

1. I'm saying let them determine what is **excess** of need
2. You misunderstood. I said you cannot collect for A and give to B. Which you suggested.

amother

↑ Bluebell

Wed, Dec 15 2021, 10:17 am

amother [ Cinnamon ] wrote:

Lol what?

1. I'm saying let them determine what is **excess** of need
2. You misunderstood. I said you cannot collect for A and give to B. Which you suggested.

Ok, got it. You're saying that under no circumstances can they use extra money for another worthy cause. Another poster said she receives emails that this is precisely what's done.

Look, there are halochos about the most far fetched and never before heard of scenarios. All I'm wondering is what happens in a case where there's extra money. Is that really a strange question?

amother

Natural ↓

Wed, Dec 15 2021, 11:50 am

amother [ Black ] wrote:

How about the famous Instagram accounts that just ignored the tragedy completely and continued selling her product. I can’t handle someone bringing us along to her trip to Auschwitz and then not mentioning one word about a fellow Jews tragedy. Monsey is not that removed from the five towns and a short mention would have been tasteful.

I think not saying anything is best, especially because there is nothing to say in the face of such a tragedy. There literally are no words.
Mentioning the tragedy and then in the next slide talking about your favourite mascara is worse, in my humble opinion.