1) Raise funds for cancer research. A noble endeavor that will help solve one of the most troubling human issues.

2) Many non-skeptics believe that the irreligious/secular are completely indifferent to human suffering. It is my belief that the FBB chose the ACS because it is a well-known entity in the charity world and recognition from such an organization would help correct this misnomer.

The ACS not accepting the donation will prove to be far more affective though.

But a truely skeptical view of the world would naturally lead one towards progressive values, right? All the TRUE skeptics are progressive liberal feminists. Everybody else is faking it.

Nonetheless, when you think about the diminishing returns from something like races, where perhaps 7 dollars out of 100 go to “program” (though that would not affect the matching fund value it would apply to the local race funds), spending a half a mil to look like you’re giving good money to a good cause when you are really doing something less than brilliant counteracts that objective.

Which brings us back to my point.

Giving directly to research could certainly be a more effective use of funds, but there would be next to no meaninful public image equity doing that.

Likely, but not necessarily. The same organization(s) that can raise all this money because of their high visibility and stuff could let people know about it, if they did it right.

You ignore a main objective of the donation (the primary objective in my estimation). ACS has a high profile and the donation would get a lot of publicity. I suggest that a main goal is to seek recognition of atheist giving and to put in on equal footing with giving by religious organizations. The goal isn’t just to be charitable, it’s to get widespread recognition that good deeds aren’t the property of the pious.

Giving directly to research could certainly be a more effective use of funds, but there would be next to no meaninful public image equity doing that. And in a perverse way, the very rejection of the Freethought offer provides even greater PR benefits than ACS quietly accepting the donations. Perhaps these folks are smarter than you give them credit for. Many of us unorganized skeptics give quietly and get no credit. An organization of freethinkers had better consider the PR benefits of charity in this political environment.

“for every $1 spent on direct service, approximately $6.40 is spent on compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits are by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services.

Nationally, only 16 percent or less of all money raised is spent on direct services to cancer victims, like driving cancer patients from the hospital after chemotherapy and providing pain medication.

Most of the funds raised by the ACS go to pay overhead, salaries, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of its national executives in Atlanta. They also go to pay chief executive officers, who earn six-figure salaries in several states, and the hundreds of other employees who work out of some 3,000 regional offices nationwide. The typical ACS affiliate, which helps raise the money for the national office, spends more than 52 percent of its budget on salaries, pensions, fringe benefits, and overhead for its own employees. Salaries and overhead for most ACS affiliates also exceeded 50 percent, although most direct community services are handled by unpaid volunteers”

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

? you’re not really here. You’re using the interent. You’re there, I’m here.

Sponsors in that context are the people sponsoring the runners.

Hey, guess what. Tonight, they turned on a special lighting arrangement on the new span over the Mississippi here in Minneapolis … the bridge that replaced the one that fell down. It’s all pink. Probably cost thousands to do that. Do you know what they did it for?

Yes, you’ve guessed correctly. For the upcoming ACS race.

Meanwhile we are having a race Saturday AM in minneapolis called the Big Gay Race. 100% of the funds from that go to the cause the race is being run for. Details here:

http://thebiggayrace.com/raceinfo.html

Because when I go to the linked blog article the only relevant part I see says, “I do feel, however, that they put too much money into the event… I believe they mentioned that they got about $3o,000 from sponsors and that covered the overhead costs for running the event.”

That would seem to imply the opposite of what you said and that thanks to the support of sponsors covering the costs of the event, 100% of the money raised by the runners would go to the ACS.