This Donation Form - Family Resource Network: Fill & Download for Free

I would say the USA is a weak oligarchy, and by “weak” I mean there are still well-defined limits to the powers of the powerful. Some may also call this a “democratic oligarchy” due to the fact that most American adults can still vote in elections and exercise constitutional rights to free speech etc.Unlike some countries, rich, powerful, & well-connected Americans can and do go to jail for various crimes. (although clearly their money gives them an advantage as far as representation is concerned)Police & judges are extremely unlikely to accept bribes, and embezzlement of public funds at the federal level isn't really something that people can get away with. Nobody in America can be appointed to some high-ranking military post just because their dad knows a guy. Even Barron Trump couldn't withdraw 400k from the state coffers to fund the purchase of a brand-new Ferrari for his Sweet 16.In strongly oligarchical or aristocratic countries… your success in life is 98% dependent on who your parents are. In America, your upbringing and familial resources clearly still play a major role, but I would put the number at much less than 98% importance. There are many success stories of people who start with nothing and end up millionaires. There are plenty of countries where this is basically impossible due to the nature of state-owned enterprises, extreme inequality, and associated corruption.That said, I still believe that the USA has a very small yet very powerful ruling class that does indeed wield direct influence over the decisions of our policy makers and legislators. Which brings us to the meat of the question, just how much influence do the rich and powerful have on our political system?Well first we must define “rich and powerful”. I think most Americans would agree that somebody who makes a steady $500k a year falls into the category of “rich person”. With a regular income of 500k+ a year, you can live extremely well no matter where you are. However, it takes much more money than this to be at the level of wealthy where name-brand politicians will return your calls or call you themselves to solicit funding in the form of campaign donations. I am talking about billionaire political financiers like Sheldon Adelson, Bob Mercer, Soros, Koch brothers etc. All billionaires fall in this category by default, I'm just mentioning some names that are known for active political involvement. If we wanna get really specific I'd say that any individual or family in the 9-figure wealth range (basically the 0.01%) commands instant attention from political parties and candidates.These people wield truly massive power with their ability to throw meaningfully large sums of money at candidates they want to win, as well as causes & policies that they want to see advanced e.g. climate change, oil industry, for-profit education etc. Super-wealthy can also donate to think tanks that “research” various policy issues, often publishing biased studies or other poorly-disguised attempts at achieving some political outcome.Ever notice those election season commercials and ads produced & paid for by [Insert PAC]? Those PACs (political action committees) are usually funded by 1 or more billionaires or other 0.01%ers … at least if they're able to afford primetime advertising on a major TV network.So indeed, many politicians are kinda at the whim of these major donors if they want to keep getting elected. But at the end of the day, it is still illegal if said donors gave direct bribes to the politicians themselves for favors such as a yes/no vote on a specific piece of legislation. Plus, they can ignore their donors and still get reelected by the will of the people.I actually think Donald Trumps victory is a prime example of why our country is not a total oligarchy. Regardless of the fact that he has filled his cabinet with wealthy businesspeople, anyone who follows the media could tell that 99% of this 0.01% ruling class was totally opposed to Trump at least initially. In the GOP primaries, all the big donors initially gave to Jeb Bush. Then it was Marco Rubio, then Ted Cruz. Only once he won the nomination (with overwhelming support from working-class voters) did Trump receive substantial funding from some of the traditional power brokers. Even then, many conservative political financiers including the Koch brothers gave him nothing. Republican elites like Mitt Romney and the Bushes made it abundantly and publicly clear they didn't want Trump to be president. Hillary received over 2x as much campaign funding as Trump and received numerous A-list endorsements. None of this mattered in the end.Therefore, the US can be reasonably considered an oligarchy. But relative to other countries, it's not that bad. A Princeton Study sheds more light on this whole issue, but concludes that: Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.In conclusion, these Uber-wealthy oligarchs tend to pick our policies or at least play a strong role in their formation. But the people still pick the candidates and vote the winners to office.Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

Thanks to the fine investigative work by the Tampa Bay Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting we now have a view into America's Worst Charities.The Scam: For-profit professional solicitation organizations that siphon off $.80 and more of every $1.00 donated to the specific charity.Example: Kids Wish NetworkEvery year, Kids Wish Network raises millions of dollars in donations in the name of dying children and their families. Every year, it squanders almost every penny.​The money gets diverted to enrich the charity’s operators and the for-profit companies Kids Wish hires to drum up donations. Sick children wind up with less than3 cents of every dollar raised. That has been the formula for 16 years, ever since Kids Wish mimicked the respected Make-A-Wish Foundation and launched its relentless drive for money. In the past decade alone, Kids Wish has channeled nearly $110 million donated for sick children to its corporate fundraisers. That makes it the worst charity in the nation, according to a Times/CIR review of charities that have steered the most money to professional solicitation companies over time.In addition to the money paid to for-profit fundraisers, Kids Wish has paid its founder and his own companies at least $4.8 million in salary and fees over the years. While founder Mark Breiner was still president of Kids Wish, earning $130,000 a year, he joined a former employee as a partner in a fundraising company called Dream Giveaway.In 2008 and 2009, Kids Wish paid Dream Giveaway nearly $1.7 million in consulting fees to run automobile give-aways that raised money for the charity.Breiner continued making money after he retired from Kids Wish in mid-2010 and left his mother-in-law on the charity board. In 2010 and 2011, the charity paid two of Breiner’s companies $2.1 million for licensing, consulting and brokerage fees.Kids Wish violated IRS rules by waiting four years to disclose the money it paid Breiner. The charity blamed the delay on a mistake by its accountants.Breiner declined to answer questions about his fundraising and consulting businesses, which received an additional $1.26 million from Kids Wish for a car giveaway in 2012.<end of excerpt - see full article>Edit on April 7, 2014 - I am asserting the people's rights in bringing these two separate class action lawsuits against certain professional fundraisers:Daniel Pepper v. Charitable Resource Foundation, Inc. et al Filed: April 4, 2014 as 2:2014cv02573Daniel Pepper v. Associated Community Services Inc et al*Filed: December 30, 2013 as 2:2013cv09539Edit on May 7, 2014 - We have filed a stay on the above action with Associated Community Services due to this development: Michigan-based telemarketer files for bankruptcyEdit on May 26, 2015 - FTC, All 50 States and D.C. Charge Four Cancer Charities With Bilking Over $187 Million from Consumers

Yes.Osama bin Laden had personal and familial resources of hundreds of millions of dollars. Donations from like-minded Wahabis came to millions more, and the covert support of members of the House of Saud brought the total of his financial base to easily half a billion US dollars.There were no restrictions on Osama bin Laden’s financial dealings or transfers until 1993, by which time his assets were well concealed in bank accounts in East Asia, Pakistan, The Emirates and various other confidential networks.Us control and influence within the world banking system eventually hampered Al Qaeda finances, but not until years after the organization was functioning.