Skip to main content

Charity Caveat Emptor

On Friday, a Federal judge in Minnesota sentenced Cameron Lewis, age 36, and his father Tyron Lewis, both of Monticello, Utah, to 17 and five years respectively for defrauding hundreds of school districts of nearly $40 million using a now-defunct charity called the National School Fitness Foundation (NSFF).

The fraud amounted to money laundering; a Ponzi scheme.

I know Cameron. Met him the first time over lunch at a Chinese restaurant along with several of his board members. I met with him subsequently several times. He has a certain charisma.

I mention this because a charity I once worked for came within a hair’s breadth of partnering with the NSFF.

That charity wasn’t defrauded by Lewis. But we did actually partner with Aaron Tonken, the Hollywood event planner and now convicted felon, who went to prison in 2003 for defrauding charities (as I recall) of $1.9 million. The charity I worked for lost $100,000 due to Tonken’s machinations, but later recovered the money in full.

I also met once with Tonken, who unlike Lewis had no discernable charisma and a very distinctive speech impediment.

What both men share in common is that they are accomplished fabulists. When Cameron explained how the NSFF was paying for the fitness equipment, it seemed plausible.

When Tonken told you that he could get Cher, or the Backstreet Boys, or Diana Ross to your event, you believed him, in no small measure because there was that tape of the Clinton’s toasting him at a star-studded 2000 Hollywood fundraiser, which Tonken produced.

The fact that Tonken told you what celebrities he could deliver for your charity event while George Hamilton sat next to him nodding agreeably only helped. Likewise, the Lewises hired competent and honorable people, who themselves had no part in the fraud, but who talked persuasively about the NSFF’s mission.

There are people out there who by dint of personality or sociopathic immorality are capable of defrauding well-meaning and otherwise prudent charities.

So how do you keep your charity’s nose clean?
  • The test of time. Like all Ponzi schemes, the earliest participants do just fine. The NSFF was able to make equipment payments for the initial school districts with the earnest money paid by the ensuing school districts. But the whole NSFF enterprise rose and collapsed within the space of five years. If as a school district you said no to the NSFF the first time around, by the second time they came around it was all over but the shouting.
  • Don’t be seduced by celebrity flash. Two of Tonken’s more common techniques for securing celebrity support was the use of expensive gifts (watches, jewelry and the like), and by making large pledges or actual donations to the celebrity’s own charity. Both were paid for with someone else’s money. For his part Lewis successfully wooed a number of prominent politicians, who publicly hailed the work of the Foundation. If you looked no deeper than the celebrity involvement or implied political endorsement, you were likely sunk.
  • Don’t dismiss niggling doubts out of hand. The fitness equipment cost for each school in Cameron Lewis’s scheme was something like $50,000, which the NSFF pledged to repay in full. But there was no legitimate revenue stream to cover that expense. My mind reeled when Cameron first laid out those numbers. There’s about 90,000 public schools in the United States and 90,000 multiplied by $50,000 is $4.5 billion! There’s not too many $4.5 billion charities in the United States. But I said to myself, “they seem like capable people. Surely they’ve figured out something that isn’t apparent to me.”
  • Curb your desperation. The schools got sucked in because of the epidemic of obesity in American children these days. The school districts desperately needed something that worked, and the NSFF had compelling evidence that their program was effective. Likewise, the charity I worked for desperately needed a splashy event that announced its arrival. What better way to do that than with a bunch of A-list celebrities in attendance?
This is hardly an exhaustive list. And I’ve left out obvious things like having a competent accountant or lawyer look over agreements or books. That’s probably prudent, but one of Lewis’s own financial people, a very sophisticated and principled CPA, didn’t smell a rat until he’d been there nearly a year; but when he smelled the stench of fraud, he immediately resigned. And in the case of Aaron Tonken, he wouldn’t have shown you his books if you’d have asked and didn’t have to because he was organized as a for-profit.

It probably wouldn’t have been that helpful to check references either. The first schools in the NSFF program were delighted. Until Tonken's tell-all book came out, so was every celebrity he dealt with.

If a charity you’ve worked with/for has been defrauded, or had a close call, feel free to share your experience.

Comments

Unknown said…
Hi,

I wanted to let you know about the Nonprofit December Giving Carnival. Deadline to submit your post is Dec. 20th.

Here is the link,
http://christopherscottblog.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/december-giving.html

Let me know if you have any questions.

Christopher S.
www.ChristopherScottblog.com

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor