Money from Adrian Peterson's charity foundation used for sex party

[DG3]

Can this automatically replace whatever bkf posts?

 

[Wakelaw2006]

Call it like I see it. I seriously doubt he is much involved in his own charity, as about 99% of these guys aren't savvy enough to do that, much less mix that with playing professional sports. $70k apparently didn't show up where it was supposed to. It showed up somewhere, so where was it? Probably in the pockets of the guy running the charity, and I'm going to go out on a limb (or switch in this case) and say AD isn't the guy doing that.

The credit card thing isn't a big deal. They may have been on charity business, or it may have been misused. Or they may have used it and paid it back. Hard to tell. People do dumb things with credit cards. Government employees with government credit cards are the worst.

The biggest thing out of this story that I see is what was known already-- that AD is a serious poon hound who needs to get his pecker in check.

For private foundations, credit cards are actually quite a big deal. You can't just use a foundation CC (whether accidentally or not) and pay back the charity. It's an automatic act of self-dealing, potentially subjecting the violator with up to a 200% excise tax. Multiple violations will get your tax exempt status revoked.

If you are in the public eye, you have to run your foundation squeaky clean - we tell our clients to think about what the above the fold headline will look like before doing anything other than making a grant to a public charity. And then even if they don't think it is bad, we tell them to call us and check and make sure.

All that said, it probably isn't AP actually doing anything bad here, like ELC said, it's likely someone he put in charge of the foundation, but as a board member, he's responsible for reviewing the things his appointed person is doing.

 

[Wrangor]

For private foundations, credit cards are actually quite a big deal. You can't just use a foundation CC (whether accidentally or not) and pay back the charity. It's an automatic act of self-dealing, potentially subjecting the violator with up to a 200% excise tax. Multiple violations will get your tax exempt status revoked.

If you are in the public eye, you have to run your foundation squeaky clean - we tell our clients to think about what the above the fold headline will look like before doing anything other than making a grant to a public charity. And then even if they don't think it is bad, we tell them to call us and check and make sure.

All that said, it probably isn't AP actually doing anything bad here, like ELC said, it's likely someone he put in charge of the foundation, but as a board member, he's responsible for reviewing the things his appointed person is doing.

I think this charity deal is probably just more evidence for the kind of person AP is. He doesn't have any real responsibility for the things in his life he should give the most importance. Here is an idea: if you are going to have a charity with your name on it, make sure that the charity is being run in a manner that represents your name. I think a lot of athletes/celebrities get a charity for the tax and PR benefits without a whole lot of thought to why they are setting up the charity in the first place. 95% of the time that isn't going to come back and bite you, but occasionally it will. If AP had been a more attentive parent to his charity, misuse of funds may not have occurred.

 

[94Deac]

I think this charity deal is probably just more evidence for the kind of person AP is. He doesn't have any real responsibility for the things in his life he should give the most importance. Here is an idea: if you are going to have a charity with your name on it, make sure that the charity is being run in a manner that represents your name. I think a lot of athletes/celebrities get a charity for the tax and PR benefits without a whole lot of thought to why they are setting up the charity in the first place. 95% of the time that isn't going to come back and bite you, but occasionally it will. If AP had been a more attentive parent to his charity, misuse of funds may not have occurred.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I think this charity deal is probably just more evidence for the kind of person AP is. He doesn't have any real responsibility for the things in his life he should give the most importance. Here is an idea: if you are going to have a charity with your name on it, make sure that the charity is being run in a manner that represents your name. I think a lot of athletes/celebrities get a charity for the tax and PR benefits without a whole lot of thought to why they are setting up the charity in the first place. 95% of the time that isn't going to come back and bite you, but occasionally it will. If AP had been a more attentive parent to his charity, misuse of funds may not have occurred.

I think the desire to give back is typically genuine for a lot of athletes, specifically those that grew up in challenging circumstances. That doesn't mean they are equipped to actually run or hire someone to run a multi million dollar foundation.

 

[DeacWatcher]

Has Peterson or any pro athlete ever heard of a condom? Peterson is no different than Shawn Kemp.

 

[Wrangor]

I think the desire to give back is typically genuine for a lot of athletes, specifically those that grew up in challenging circumstances. That doesn't mean they are equipped to actually run or hire someone to run a multi million dollar foundation.

U don't have to run it to be involved. He has plenty of people that he trusts to run his own finances. Wouldn't be that hard to audit his own charity on a regular bias is to insure there is no funny business occurring.

 

[PhDeac]

I think the desire to give back is typically genuine for a lot of athletes, specifically those that grew up in challenging circumstances. That doesn't mean they are equipped to actually run or hire someone to run a multi million dollar foundation.

This. Regardless, I think a lot of well-established charities have similar problems with respect to mismanagement and high percentages of donations going to overhead instead of the intended cause.

 

[Deacfreak07]

U don't have to run it to be involved. He has plenty of people that he trusts to run his own finances. Wouldn't be that hard to audit his own charity on a regular bias is to insure there is no funny business occurring.

Funny business being orgies that he is present for, sure? Funny business in general? Maybe not. Foundations can be pretty quirky with regards to regulations, and it's not as simple as looking over an expense account.

 

[Deacfreak07]

This. Regardless, I think a lot of well-established charities have similar problems with respect to mismanagement and high percentages of donations going to overhead instead of the intended cause.

Take a little google trip with The United Way. You'll find some stories that aren't too far off from this one with Executive leadership jet setting down to the Caribbean with mistresses.

 

[94Deac]

Has Peterson or any pro athlete ever heard of a condom? Peterson is no different than Shawn Kemp.

Sincerely,
Evander Holyfield

 

[TownieDeac]

Nonprofit regulation is a joke.

In case anyone is interested. Old editorial, but things haven't changed.