You can't go wrong with the Red Cross. I know it's boring. But they're there, and they are ready.

245

They spend an awful lot of money to raise their money, which usually is something that's not necessary when you have the star power and public relations rating of an organization like that.

185

There are a lot of bad people willing to prey on people with good intentions.

152

At this point, you should go with the majors. Now is the time to stick with your large, name-brand charities. Someone who did a good job with the tsunami effort is probably prepared to do a good job in New Orleans and Mississippi.

133

How much of the proceeds actually reach the charities? A portion? After profits? A percentage? Many companies leave that deliberately vague.

127

If any organization is going to get 75% of the funds in a disaster, the Red Cross is as good a destination as any. In an ideal world, the money would have been distributed a little more evenly perhaps. But that's not the way it works.

126

If they're soliciting to people saying they're not receiving any federal reimbursement . . . that seems like we may have an issue with them being deceptive with donors. But I don't want to criticize them for being successful in figuring out how the system works.

63

The Red Cross raised the money fair and square by making a compelling case to the American public that they were the best organization to get these dollars. To come in after the fact and ask them to share the money ? I can't think of anything more pie-in-the-sky and naive.

44