Fundraising Policies & Practices

All organizations and disciplines need to define the policies and practices by which they will operate, and nonprofits are no different. Development operations need to have a set of rules within which they will function.

They need to know what types of gifts they will accept from whom and with what conditions attached. They need to know who will ask and have guidelines for how that ask will be made. They need to have a uniform way of responding to and thanking donors.

An organization needs to know how it should organize and staff its development office and pay those who staff it. It needs to know where the legal lines are drawn and how to avoid crossing them.

In short, a nonprofit organization needs fundraising policies and practices so that it doesn’t have to make decisions on the fly or miss opportunities.

Articles about Fundraising Policies & Practices

How Long Should Donors Have to Fulfill Fundraising Pledges?

In my hands is a slick, well done brochure for a capital campaign. The nonprofit organization that has produced it wants to build a new $6.5 million facility. Dates are given for ground breaking, commencement of construction, building completion, and dedication of the new facility. It tells of several encouraging, pacesetting donations that have already been received. An impressive campaign leadership group is identified. Attractive naming opportunities are listed. Everything in the brochure speaks to a well thought out project. It’s a great brochure touting a well planned project and campaign. All looks good, except for one thing—one sentence: “Pledged donations may be paid over three years.” Eight words, such a small thing, but those eight words are the seeds for potential disappointment, even failure. Let’s suppose I’m a prospective donor, a supporter able and quite likely willing to make a gift of $100,000. But, for a variety of reasons I will want to pay my pledge over five years not three. I’ve got taxes, personal obligations, and commitments to other worthwhile organizations to think about and plan around. Think about how being put on notice that I cannot make my gift according to my timetable is likely to impact my receptivity to solicitation by the organization.  But the Money Is Needed Now Organizations raise money because they need it to meet expenses. Annual-fund campaigns designed to cover operational shortfalls are the best example of the need for explicit payment schedules. The money they raise is needed to cover anticipated expenses in the coming year. In many ways the same holds true for capital campaigns such as the building... read more

Should an Organization Have a
Formal Gift-Acceptance Policy?

I am often asked—and it is a recurring topic in fund-raising forums—about whether non-profits should have a formal gift-acceptance policy. My questioners aren’t just concerned about the rare donation that may come with a tinge of doubt about the donor or a level of concern that acceptance of a specific gift may shine a less than favorable light on the organization. Some seem to have a desire to delineate in writing what an organization will and will not accept as a donation. On one hand, it sounds like a good idea for an organization to know what type of gift, from what sources, with what strings attached it is not willing to accept. On the other, a rigid policy can get in the way of working with an unusual donor or gift, and nothing makes a policy more rigid its existence in the form of a formalized written statement. A gift-acceptance policy that is less than well thought out can be a strong negative communication to prospective donors, particularly if that policy is public—published on an organization’s website or included in an annual report or other printed documentation. No matter how you look at it, a gift-acceptance policy is a judgment by the organization of the worthiness of gift and giver. If prospective donors are aware of the content of the policy, they are likely to feel categorized and prejudged. They may feel that the things that make their situation or gift special and therefore an exception to the hard and fast rules will be ignored. They may very well turn away from the organization in order to avoid... read more

Supporting Organizations May Be the
Fundraising Answer If and Only If…

There are members of the boards of trustees of nonprofit organizations who would like to lessen, even eliminate, the fundraising responsibility that comes with their position. Doing so is not wise, but that has not stopped some boards from establishing other bodies that are then charged with all or some of the fundraising responsibilities that would normally fall to them. In general, this is bad practice, bad policy, and a failure of responsibility. However, there are exceptions. The responsibility for fundraising for a nonprofit organization lies primarily, if not wholly, with its board of trustees. The smaller the organization, the more the board needs to be actively involved with all aspects of fundraising, and large size alone doesn’t let a board off the hook when it comes to its fundraising responsibilities. Even if an organization has a substantial and highly professional development staff, the board at a minimum has to accept and carry out fundraising responsibilities in five areas: Oversee all fundraising policies, practices, and activities to assure that they meet legal requirements and follow accepted accounting principles. Oversee all fundraising policies, practices, and activities to assure that they are in alignment with the organization’s vision, values, and mission. Make gifts in keeping with their ability to give. Request gifts from peer-group prospective donors. Recruit additional volunteer leadership for fundraising campaigns. Not all members of a board are equally capable of delivering in an impactful way in all those areas, and no one realistically expects that to be the case. A board made up solely of rich and eager givers may seem like a dream come true to many... read more

Metrics Can Be a Grant Writer’s Nightmare

Let’s pretend you’re the person in a nonprofit organization charged with seeking grants and that your boss is going to hold you accountable to one or more of the following standards. You must get _____ proposals “out the door” every_____. You must get ___­_% of the grants for which you submit proposals approved. You must raise a minimum of $_____ as a result of your grant proposals. I don’t think there could be three more dismaying demands. Using any of these too common absolutist metrics to evaluate a grant seeker’s performance is more than formidable. Depending on how the fill-in-the-blank numbers are determined, it can be flat out damning. Such demands, more often than not, lack a footing in reality. They are unlikely to show even a rudimentary understanding of which grant-making organizations are awarding grants to what initiatives, projects, and organizations. Demands such as these are unlikely to be based on any true market research looking at the way in which grant-making organizations value the purpose to which the requested grant will be put. And this is research that has to be done for each grant-making organization taking into account the operating context of the nonprofit seeking the grant. That is not research which can be done in a half hour on the Internet. It takes time and effort—a lot of time and effort! Too often such demands come out of the poorly informed view that: Success or failure can be measured simply by looking at the “numbers.” Those numbers need to be tough. Grant-proposal writers need to be pushed to “stretch” their goals and increase their effort.... read more

In-Kind Gifts:
How to Acknowledge and Recognize Them

When you receive gifts of products, time and services, be aware that your organization can be held in even greater regard by donors of such In-Kind gifts, should you express your gratitude in a meaningful way—in a manner far and above how these contributions are usually acknowledged by non-profit organizations. This can be accomplished in strict keeping with the applicable IRS rules and regulations, which are especially explicit when it comes to In-Kind gifts and how non-profits handle them. By law, non-profit organizations cannot provide a donor with the dollar value of an In-kind gift. Such valuations when applicable, relative to “fair market value” of In-Kind gifts, need to be professionally assessed and certified elsewhere—if they can be—and that is the responsibility of the donor. This certification subsequently needs to be resolved with the professionals and others who prepare the donor’s tax forms—whose work in turn will need to be reconciled with IRS regulations. In instances where time and service are donated, no tax break whatsoever is allowed, as the IRS Publication 526 clearly states, “You cannot deduct the value of your time or services…” This unique aspect of In-Kind gifts often causes a non-profit organization to acknowledge them in understated, and almost offhanded ways, unlike the precisely stated amounts cited for gifts of cash and stocks. As well, the dollar value of gifts of cash and stocks can be directly related to specific programs and services made possible by such support, which is not usually the case with In-Kind gifts. Thus, appreciation of In-Kind gifts is not always expressed as effectively and graphically, but it can and should... read more

Finance vs. Development?

Mixing Oil and Water and Making it Work in a Non-Profit Organization The receiving and the handling of donations made to non-profit organizations are simple to do, but very often poorly done. When that happens, a vital block is taken out of the foundation we strive to build in an effort to ensure donor loyalty for future gifts. Lost or misplaced checks and other communications from donors, late and erroneous recording of gift/pledge dates and amounts, delayed and otherwise neglected acknowledgments, spelling errors of donors’ names, etc., all lead to lost or upset donors. We can all agree that this critically important process must be done right. And it starts with the very first check or pledge from a donor when it arrives in the mail room. But in many non-profit organizations, there is a sharply divided opinion regarding just where those checks, pledges, and other donor communications should go next in order to ensure that all goes right with the receiving, posting, acknowledging, reporting, and banking process of donations. Show Me the Money The Finance Department wants to be the receiver of the first resort. They are worried about possible theft, lost or misplaced funds, and failure, in general, to meet what they regard as standard accounting procedures. They are under the gun to provide up-to-date budgets and forecasts for the monthly meetings of the board of trustees and for all other such timely reports required in between. The Development Department wants to be the receiver of the first resort. They want to know the results of their fund-raising campaigns as quickly as possible, with no delay. They... read more

Pro Bono Services for Your Organization

Pro Bono: “Especially for the Public Good” (Merriam-Webster) The dictionary definition of pro bono fits well with non-profit organizations, which themselves are also for “the public good,” according to the IRS description of how they must be created and operated. And the good, in the case of pro bono work, is what countless non-profit organizations have received from generous businesses and firms as contributions of legal work, accounting, printing, and much more—all of which help to reduce operating and special expenses the organizations would ordinarily need to pay, even to help make funds available for things they would like to do, but could not otherwise afford. The result is to help relieve the strain on the requirements of their annual fund and other fund-raising campaigns. Much of the pro bono work donated to non-profits by businesses and firms is direct and uncomplicated. Such work can be evaluated in terms of making exacting legal decisions, having accredited year-end audits, producing workable long-range plans, executing successful searches to fill management staff positions, etc. Free But Maybe Not Acceptable However, it is another matter entirely when it comes to pro bono work requiring creativity, such as art, design and writing: when the pro bono work is for a non-profit organization’s annual report, mission-oriented institutional publications, marketing and PR publications, other media (such as radio and television, website development), and especially for the materials and communication resources which drive fund-raising campaigns. All of these pro bono services are the direct result of the creative and artistic minds of others from advertising and related agencies, whose creative personnel usually are not closely enough associated... read more

Wearing Those Development and Marketing “Hats” at the Same Time: A Bad Fit and a Headache

Wearing Those Development and Marketing “Hats” at the Same Time: A Bad Fit and a Headache Introduction For decades, I have heard about, observed, and have had personal relationships with scores of individuals who attempted to wear the Development and Marketing/Communications/PR “hats” at the same time and who for many years—mostly in vain—struggled to perform both those jobs within their non-profit organizations. Still, the reality is that this undesirable and mostly unworkable practice is currently widespread, and it will continue as long as the leadership of non-profit organizations are willing to attempt to squeeze two very different sets of duties from one person, and for those times when such professionals delude themselves into thinking they can work both activities equally well. Of course, there are exceptions, and some may very well wear the two hats with a good degree of comfort. However, from my long experience with just about all of the facets of non-profit fund-raising management, what I write and recommend must necessarily not deal with the exception. I have never believed that we can rely upon the exception for success, and that especially holds true in this instance. The Purpose Of This Article Is: To encourage professionals to think twice regarding the formidable and unique expectations, demands, and the pitfalls they surely will encounter when they are considering accepting such a position having those formidable dual responsibilities. To support professionals already in over their heads working to wear those two hats in their organizations as possibly a way for them to convince management to hire another professional as a colleague to fill one or the other positions.... read more

A Campaign Deferred Is a Campaign Defeated

Disasters and crises can occur anywhere, at any time. Hopefully they won’t have the impact of mega-disasters such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks or of 2005’s hurricane Katrina. However, even disasters of considerably less magnitude can impede the fund-raising efforts of non-profit organizations located in areas where they occur. Flood, drought, storm, and other natural disasters are obvious candidates to impact an organization. Major accidents, industrial or otherwise, can hit hard too. On top of these gloomy possibilities there is always the crisis that could result from change. A key supporting industry moves away or closes. The local economy enters into a general malaise. Add to all those, the results of bad publicity hitting a non-profit organization or the impact of what happens when a well-known national charity is embroiled in scandal. When problems of this magnitude arise in an area, officials of local non-profits can be tempted to question openly whether they should proceed with regular fund-raising, let alone dare to tackle new initiatives. But local events aren’t the only occurrences that can weaken a non-profit’s fund-raising resolve. Terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. and hurricanes striking the Gulf Coast can chill the fund-raising climate across the nation if officials of organizations allow themselves to believe calamitous events hundreds of miles away will seriously affect their community’s capability or willingness to give to local causes. No Excuse Is A Good Excuse A few months ago, a major institution in my state announced a huge deficit for its current fiscal year. A spokesperson for the institution placed a significant part of the blame for the... read more

Making The Development Office a
Fund-Raising “Clearinghouse”

(It Makes for a More Perfect Fund-raising World) Introduction The fund-raising “left hand” not knowing what the “right hand” is doing when it comes to who is asking whom for how much, for which purpose, and when, has always been a common dilemma for non-profit organizations. So it was with mine. As I began my twenty-year engagement as Director of Development of The Cleveland Orchestra, it became readily apparent to me that numerous solicitations of individuals, corporations and foundations were being made without anyone’s coordination by scores of volunteers acting independently on behalf of our Orchestra in general, but specifically to meet needs as determined by the Orchestra’s three women’s committees, the Chorus, and by staff from the artistic, marketing, education, and finance departments. Such well-intended, but errant fund-raising activities collided with my own development department’s ongoing and planned annual fund, capital, endowment, sponsorship, and underwriting campaigns. Something needed to be done—and it was, with great and satisfying cooperation by all parties. Simply put, I actively promoted the benefits of establishing a process to make the development department the total fund-raising “Clearinghouse” as an absolute necessity in order to establish funding priorities, maximize funding potential for each of the special needs, and make more efficient our overall fund-raising program. The following article will make the case for such a clearinghouse arrangement, and show you how to do it should “ad hoc” fund-raising be an issue at your organization. A “Perfect” Fund-Raising World It Is Not! In a perfect world all fund-raising initiatives would begin and end with the development department. There would never be a worry about one fund-raising... read more

When the Development Officer
Is Obliged to Raise Her or His Own Salary

Paying For Your Own Keep Too often, especially in smaller non-profit organizations, staff development officers are forced into a deplorable position that belittles them and damages the organization. They are charged with personally raising their own salaries. These salaries sit outside the normal budgeting process. They are not treated as a regular operating expense. Instead, they become an extraordinary item, an afterthought. There is no rational argument for this practice. I believe it comes from trustees who mistakenly view fund-raising as a necessary, but demeaning, evil. They try at all costs to avoid doing it themselves, even though fund-raising is universally acknowledged to be a primary responsibility of trustees. For these malfunctioning trustees, fund-raising is a repugnant task they hire someone else to do. An attitude such as this places fund-raising outside of an organization’s regular operational activities. From there it is a short step to not including it in the budget and making development staff responsible for finding the money for their salaries. Such a view is dangerously flawed. Trustees who think that the people they hire to raise funds are in fact “the” fund-raisers condemn their organization to a life of under funding and curtailed programming. It is the responsibility of the leadership of an organization to take the lead in raising the funds needed to sustain that organization. There is no stronger indicator of an organization in trouble than the refusal of its trustees to accept their fund-raising responsibility. Fund-Raising Expense: The Cost Of Doing the Organization’s “Business” Growing, successful organizations see development staff salaries in the same light as any other personnel expense. They understand... read more

The Executive Director and Development Director It Can Be a Relationship Made in Heaven or Hell

In a nonprofit organization, no single internal relationship is more important than that between the executive director and development director. One carries the responsibility of leading the organization to the efficient execution of its mission, and the other shoulders the burden of finding the money that makes it all possible. In many ways, these two individuals are joined at the hip. Why then do they seem at times to be pulling painfully in opposite directions? Far too often, I have received complaints from development directors that their organization’s executive director erects barriers that prevent them from raising money. On the other hand, executive directors have told me of working with development directors they felt hurt the organization because they failed to understand its true needs. Good development directors work hard to enhance relationships with donors capable of giving gifts of substantial size and scope. If they are to succeed, they need to represent those donors within the organization. They need to be the voice of those donors. They need to be the person driven to meet donor needs and committed to seeing donor desires addressed. Good executive directors work hard to see that the organization fulfills its mission effectively and efficiently. If they are to succeed, they need to represent each of the different parts of the organization at different times. They need to be the person driven to meet programming needs and committed to seeing that the organization stays in balance. Realizing that it is the executive director’s job to be organization centered, and the development director’s to be donor centered, it isn’t hard to see how the... read more

The Fallacy of Financial Ratios: Why Outcome Evaluation Is the Better Gauge of Grant Worthiness

Talk of developing a system to evaluate the sustainability of non-profit organizations has been on the rise. Centered around measuring outcomes in terms of percentages or ratios, the goal of such a system appears to be twofold: To create a filter that will allow grantmakers to quickly assess and compare the overall ability of non-profit organizations to manage funds and deliver results. To express those assessments as a numerical ratio that will rank the worthiness of non-profits as grant recipients. Calls for hard measurement of non-profit organizations’ efficiency have been made before, but I can’t remember a time when the voices doing so have been so loud. Attendees at a major conference heard the CEO of one of the United States’ largest foundations say that he is looking for a financial ratio to employ in the review of grant applications. The CEO of a major website serving non-profit organizations has publicly expressed his intent to create a numerical approval ranking system for the hundreds of non-profits listed on the site. A state association of non-profit organizations announced that the organization was planning to implement numerical “performance standards,” and that the association was going to “raise the bar” for non-profit organizations in order to judge “whether or not they were doing a good job.” From the statements I’ve heard and the comments I’ve read, it would appear that funders are in search of a litmus test for grant worthiness. An organization that fails to score high enough would be out of the box — automatically ineligible to be considered for a grant. One that fell within the box would then... read more

Should Your Organization
Sell Products & Services to Raise Money?

I am made increasingly aware of the conflict non-profit organizations experience when faced with choosing between: Raising the money they need using a traditional philanthropic process. Making a profit from selling and endorsing commercial products and services. The number and variety of selling opportunities presented to non-profit organizations, especially through the Internet, is growing rapidly. All too often, the advertisements for those products and services make outrageous and misleading promises of big and easy money to needy and vulnerable non-profits. There is nothing wrong with selling a commercial product or service to help support a non-profit organization if: The time expended can be justified by the profit gained. It neither restricts nor replaces the far more effective and time-proven philanthropic process—a process that has seen billions of dollars raised over decades of time. An organization institutes a product or sales program as additional and complimentary to their regular fund-raising, not as a replacement or alternative to it. “Girl Scouts Can’t Live on Cookies Alone” Raising contributed income for non-profit organizations requires much more than selling commercial products and services to make money. Such programs have their place, but most organizations simply cannot generate enough income from them to meet all their needs. A number of years ago the Girl Scouts proved that point with their highly visible campaign to let the public know that “Girl Scouts can’t live on cookies alone,” and that the organization required additional major support in the form of philanthropic contributions. Selling products and services to generate income seems an easy way to make money. Some commercial vendors of products and services even tell their... read more

How Much Endowment
Is “Right” for Our Organizaton

Is there a “standard” or “industry” percentage ratio of our endowment funds—funds working to provide annual income—which can relate that corpus/principal amount to  key financial statements such as the annual expense budget, operating deficit,  annual fund campaign results, etc.? I have been asked that question many times. My response is that I am certain there is no exacting standard. However, an endowment funds-to- operating-expense ratio is the one such “benchmark” at times sought by non-profit organizations—though there is no real justification or worthiness for such a number in any event. During the time I was at The Cleveland Orchestra, such a ratio was promoted—”suggested”—by the largest and most influential granting foundation in our area. The idea was that endowment funds, paid and working in the bank or otherwise invested, would total a three times the organization’s annual operating expense. This was an unofficial “suggested standard” which was not imposed on organizations in any way for them to receive grant consideration, nor was there any kind of measuring rationale made by the foundation regarding that ratio. Why did they tout it then? Because, everyone recognizes that that there is a need to somehow, someway measure the efficiency of non-profit organizations. This was yet another attempt. I believe that no ratio of any kind between working endowment funds and what an organization spends each year has any real meaning. The Foundation-inspired three-times rule/guideline/objective/standard—whatever one chooses to call it—could have others think that another percentage ratio might be arbitrarily determined just as well. It could be two times, four times, etc. of the annual operating expense amount. It seems obvious that any... read more

Making Your Endowment Funds
Work for Your Organization

Whether you already have some form or endowment or are about to embark on your first endowment campaign (see the article Endowment Funds Go on Forever But an Endowment Campaign Should Not ) you need to be ready, willing, and able to steward your endowment funds and maximize their impact.  And that raises two issues: Endowment fund investment, oversight and reporting. How, if, and when you spend endowment fund interest and dividends—and how, if, and when you might need to “invade” any of the principal. You can address the first of these by researching investment performance ratings and practices with your local banks and other companion firms with the guidance of your Board’s Finance Committee. Talking to the leadership and top staff of a few large organizations. Investment and finance committees will be a most useful exercise as well. This article addresses the second issue, and suggests the following guidelines. Endowment Funds and Income: To Spend or Not to Spend A non-profit organization currently holding endowment funds, or an organization which is planning to raise endowment funds for the first time, should give special attention to how the funds will be managed—not from an investment perspective as stated above, but rather how an organization will utilize the endowment income and principal in its operations. This endowment management policy should be instituted with the consensus of an organization’s leading officials and advisers. It should be cited in an organization’s bylaws, as well as entered and defined in its Financial Policy Manual. It’s that important because it represents an organization’s future. The first issue to address would be about how the... read more

Fitting Annual, Endowment, Capital, Sponsorship & Underwriting Campaigns
into Your Organization’s Plans and
then Making Them “Sing”

Remember those great old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland? The ones in which the “kids” had a money-raising dilemma that perplexed and perplexed them. All of a sudden Mickey would light up with youthful exuberance and optimism. He’d turn to Judy, and say, “I know, let’s put on a show! We can do it!” An hour and a half later, after a liberal dose of movie magic, they’ve put on a production worthy of Broadway, the problem is solved, everybody has had a good time, and Mickey and Judy are in love. There are non-profit organizations that operate in much the same way. Faced with the dilemma of growing financial need outstripping static resources, officials of those organizations will turn to one another and say, “I know, let’s put on a fund-raising campaign!” Unfortunately there is little movie magic in the nonprofit world. Too often the campaign fails, the problem is still there, nobody has a good time, and love isn’t exactly what the campaign managers are feeling for one another. It’s not that fund-raising campaigns aren’t the answer to financial need. In the end, where else is a nonprofit organization to turn than to generous givers? The problem is that, unlike Mickey’s and Judy’s show, the current campaign isn’t the first or the only one the organization will put on. It has to fit into the context of an overall development plan. Today’s campaign, follows yesterday’s, and precedes tomorrow’s. The trick is to make sure that each and every one of an organization’s campaigns is successful. That’s the job of a general development plan. A Fund-Raising... read more

The Argument Against Paying Development Professionals Based on Amount of Funds Raised

Few topics generate more heated discussion in non-profit organizations than whether development professionals (staff or consultants) should be paid a percentage of the money raised, receive commission-based compensation, or be paid a performance bonus. Perhaps because it is a practice of giving financial rewards to development professionals contingent upon the achievement of fixed money goals, we can simply refer to it as “contingent-pay.” Whatever you want to call it, two things are becoming more and more apparent. The practice is increasing. The practice is troubling the development profession. Thinking about why we have seen more contingent-pay in recent years, I found myself reflecting on a change I have witnessed in how we development professionals describe and perhaps even think about ourselves. There is a tendency these days to describe our work as fundraising and to call ourselves fundraisers. I have always thought of the volunteers as being the true fundraisers and we development professionals as the people who develop the atmosphere for that fundraising. To some this may seem like an exercise in semantics, but I think it is a great deal more. Many development professionals today enter into consulting agreements or are hired as staff to “raise funds.” Sometimes they even seek to be THE fundraiser for the organization they serve. The result is that these development professionals and their organizations have blurred the once clear difference between the fundraising role of development officers and that of trustees and other volunteer leaders. Many development professionals have become the “fundraisers” for organizations. As a result, contingent-pay methods of compensation have gained acceptance. The argument being, let’s reward people for... read more

Asking for the Money Is the Job of the Leadership and Friends of a Non-Profit Organization

Never Hire Someone To Do What Is Their Responsibility Fund-Raising Consultants Can Be A Godsend. They Can Also Be An Ethical, Financial And Donor Relations Disaster For organizations with an inexperienced, small, or nonexistent development staff, consultants can do everything from mentoring a budding development director to designing a campaign. Larger, more experienced organizations, even those with a fully professional development staff, can benefit from a consultant’s mastery of the process of initiating new types of fund-raising efforts and reorienting the development department. There is a valid place for consultants in the business of fund-raising, but there is also a place consultants should never go. It is one thing to engage a consultant to assist in the creation of a development effort, the design of a campaign, or an evaluation of organizational need and the resources available to meet that need. It is quite another to hire a consultant to ask prospects for money. What’s Wrong with Hiring Someone to Solicit a Prospect? Everything! Organizations ask for money to meet a current need and lay ground work for the future. The twin goals of every solicitation should be to get the largest gift possible and to strengthen the organization’s relationship with the donor. Use a “hired gun” to ask for money and you automatically reject those two goals. Every competent fund-raising professional knows that the best solicitation is made by someone the donor knows and respects. It is always easier to flat out turn down or, at the very least, give less to, someone you don’t know. When I want you to give to a campaign, the person I... read more