Free Speech or Subsidized Speech?

Five different people sent me the YouTube video featured above which seems to set out to answer the question:

What is the HSUS really?

HSUS?

Most Americans have no idea what that acronym stands for, so just to be be clear, it stands for the Humane Society of the United States.

HSUS is a very polarizing organization.

On the one side are the people who give to it -- mostly very young people and very old people who have no idea what the organization really does, but instinctively reach for their wallets whenever they see or hear a heart-rending story about an animal in trouble.

On the other side are the folks who demonize HSUS partly for political reasons (it's deemed to be "liberal") and in part because it gives them something to get self-righteous about ("did you see what those idiots are saying?") and in part because creating fear of HSUS (or PeTA or the SPCA) is how dog-breeders and hunters maintain group cohesion and group identification.

I am not exactly neutral on HSUS, but neither do I set out demonize them.

My chief complaint with the organization is that it's a direct mail mill with more than 75 cents on the dollar of every contribution going out to pay for more direct mail.

Do prospective donors know that? No.

My second criticism is that HSUS does not tell people the truth -- in fact they are complicit in a long-running lie.

Here's the truth:  HSUS does NOTHING to financially support your local shelter or humane society.

Nothing. Not. a. thing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nyet. Empty set. Zed. Walloo.

So what does HSUS do? A lot of other things, some of them good, but all of them wildly out of sync with their massive budget, which is in excess of $100 million a year. For example:

HSUS does publicize puppy mill problems. But, to be clear, after swooping in to take all the credit when a horrific puppy farm is busted, they almost never do anything long-term to care for the dogs from these very same puppy mills. Instead, the dogs are dumped on local shelters and volunteer workers who have to come up with the cash and people to feed, house, move and find homes for the dogs. In fact, by taking attention away from the people actually doing the work, and turning the klieg lights on themselves, HSUS actually harms the fundraising opportunities of the local shelters at their greatest time of need and just when they might get a little media attention to defray their day-to-day expenses.

HSUS does oppose dog fighting. But really, who doesn't? Dog fighting is illegal in every state, and the world hardly needs HSUS to explain the evil. To be be fair, HSUS has done a limited amount of investigative work to bust dog fighting rings, but the goal here seems to be less focused on helping the dogs than it is in boosting their direct mail fundraising revenues. Indeed, in case after case, HSUS has sent out direct mail letters claiming credit for work they did not do and did not fund in this arena. And again, once the dogs are picked up, HSUS walks away from the dogs.  There's no cash-for-care coming from HSUS. This is not a one-time problem with HSUS, but the kind of repeated problem that is common to direct mail mills where the staff is weak and where direct mai lmanagers and vendors  actually run the show.

So what else does HSUS do?

Well, they work in opposition to many common milk-egg-and-meat production practices, and never mind if those practices help keep food prices low so that milk, egg, chicken and hamburger can show up on the plates of low-income Americans.  HSUS will not admit that it is organizationally opposed to folks eating meat, drinking milk, or eating eggs, but if the price of these commodities rises to the point where poor people can no longer eat them, well that's not really a concern of theirs. The poor? Let them eat Tofu!

HSUS also opposes all hunting, and never mind if that little idea would mean more people killed in deer-vehicle impacts and increased tax outlays to fence off more roads and pay for more state-sponsored professional exterminators to reduce problem wildlife numbers. In the world of HSUS, all wildlife is supposed to be "self-limiting" and never mind if that phrase is simply a euphemism for starvation, disease, predation and vehicle impact.

HSUS also opposes using animals for entertainment purposes, and that includes all public aquariums and zoos, as well as rodeos, circuses, dog racing, and horse racing.  

Now, I am not opposed to people who are opposed to hunting... or circuses... or rodeos... or eating meat... or "factory farms."  I am a big believer in free speech.

But free speech is FREE speech, not subsidized speech. And what HSUS lives off of it not free speech, but subsidized speech.

It is subsidized in the form of cheaper postage rates, tax-free purchase of goods, and the tax write-off extended to donors.

Now, to be clear, HSUS is not alone in this regard. There are all kinds of direct mail outfits in this country claiming to be "charities" which are actually not helping people or animals at all.

These organizations may be for or against guns, abortion, family values, immigration, environmental protection, vivisection, home schooling, factory farms, hunting, Social Security, or Medicare.

There's nothing wrong with these debates, but these are political debates and to be clear the organizations that are engaged in these debates are not using their non-profit tax-subsidized status to do charitable work that helps poor people or animals at risk.

What is being subsidized here, in the form of lower postage-rates and tax write-offs for donations, is the most naked kind of issues-based political advocacy. Again, nothing wrong with that, but is that something taxpayers should be subsidizing?

That's the question that has been raised in Canada.

Our neighbors to the North (most of whom are living within 100 miles of the U.S. border) have decided that for an "animal welfare" organization to continue to qualify as a charity, it must actually help animals.

Of course some folks are freaking out about that!

But  wait, there's more.  You see, it cannot just help animals a little -- it has to help animal a lot, and it has to help animals in a way where animal interests are seat-raced against humans interests.

The new Canadian regulations, put forward by the Canada Revenue Agency, state:

28. Some activities may promote the welfare of animals but also cause, or have the potential to cause, harm to humans. The harm could take many forms, including physical or economic harm, or direct or indirect harm.

29. Any benefit or potential benefit to the welfare of animals must be balanced against any harm or potential harm to humans when deciding whether an organization or activity that promotes the welfare of animals is charitable. The public benefit resulting from promoting the welfare of animals must clearly outweigh any harm or potential harm to humans.

Whoa!

You mean that to qualify as an animal charity in Canada, there would be a balancing test, and all of evidence would have to be put on the scale?

Whoa!

You mean if you wanted the public to subsidize your advocacy to end the animal-testing of products, you would be required to seat-race that greater good against the greater good of NOT having animal testing and having more fetal deformities, more mascara-blinded blondes, more chemical-caused cancers, and fewer effective drugs and medicines?

Whoa!

You mean if you wanted the public to subsidize your advocacy to end "factory farms," you would be required to seat-race that greater good against the economic and health costs of increased food costs for low-income humans (and higher dog food costs too, it should be said)?

One Canadian blogger observed that:

Overall, there’s very little outside of caring for animals at shelters that would still be considered charitable.

Read that again. The tone here is wonderful. Caring for animals at shelters? Why would anyone want to limit taxpayer subsidy to THAT?!

Now to be clear, there is NOTHING in this Canadian rule that prevents free speech or the free flow of donations to organizations in Canada that speak out (in the words of the Canadian blogger) "against factory farming, puppy mills, hunting, the slaughter of baby seals, vivisection and cruel sports."

This proposed Canadian regulation simply says that the subsidy of political advocacy in the name of "animal charity" is now going to have a balancing test, and that human concerns will now get a pan on the scale.

Could such a law find purchase here in the U.S.? Maybe.

The simple truth is that the fundraising antics of the Humane Society of the U.S. have become so egregious and so infamous, that corrective regulatory action is probably needed, and it would certainly find traction in a lot of offices on Capitol Hill.

Consider yesterday's press release from Congressman Don Young of Alaska, for example.

Congressman Young chairs the House Resources Committee and is a key supporter of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's "Wildlife Without Borders" program which funds wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain species diversity around the world.  

This is a terrific program and Congressman Young is a  powerful supporter.

And yet Congressman Young was NOT willing to get an award from the Humane Society of the U.S. for his advocacy for endangered species. Not from the Humane Society of the U.S., no sir!

Instead of quietly turning down this HSUS award, Congressman Young decided to let this be a teaching moment to educate folks about what HSUS actually does -- and does NOT do.  As his office noted in a press release:  

While capitalizing on the good work of local humane societies that shelter, spay, and neuter animals, the HSUS does not own, operate, or directly control a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of well over $100 million.

“HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award,” said Rep. Young. “Local animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals. They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.”

How's that for a slap in the face?

Notice that while Congressman Young decries the work of the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the U.S. he SALUTES the local shelters that have nothing to do with the Humane Society of the U.S. even though they too may have "humane" in their name.  These are the folks that deserve your money, but unlike HSUS they are actually in the business of helping animals and are not direct mail mills, and so you are not likely to get a slick four-page letter from them.... or a free bag, shirt, or calendar for your donations.

So is it time to stop subsidizing advocacy with our tax dollars? 

Should we embrace the kind of law and charity regulation they are now considering in Canada?   

Is it time for FREE SPEECH to be well-and truly free and not subsidized?

.

.