Wounded Warrior Project a Scam?

I don't mind advertising, I Just don't like the percentage that they spend on things other than service members. 57% on actual charity work is too low for me. Advertising at over 30% is too high of a percentage.

Do your homework.. Sgt Butler drives home the very fact of MOST charities, to include Red Cross. Before you donate, look it up on the internet. Don't listen to others...

Sgt. Buckner, I stand corrected... Screw spell-check....Auto Correct, ....

Spending 30% on advertising drives more revenue streams into WW. I would rather get 57% of 10,000,000 than 95% of 100,000...

I retract all such statements about Wounded Warrior Project, including the salary of its CEO.

It's pretty obvious that retraction was written by an attorney. Kind of reeks of yet another lawsuit. Just saying.

Just to elaborate on WWP - I am an alumni and yes they have called me just to see how I am doing, yes I have been very lucky to go on a Soldier Ride and it was an amazing experience.

I think they are like any big organization that has good and bad sides. I think their hiring practices are where I have the biggest gripe.

I went through an over 12 month process to try and get a position with them and in the end it went to someone who was not a veteran and had much less experience. This was for a position that in the Jacksonville area pays in the $60-$70K a year range and they were only offering $35K but I was willing to work for less to help my fellow veterans. 

I am not bitter about not getting the position, I believe everything happens for a reason and I am happy where I am. 

I just think they have went from helping veterans as a main objective to where awareness is their main objective. 

MAJ Dallas Dunn - No need to retract. The author of the article on this debate (Tim Mak) is not the same that retracted any statements (Gordon Alex Graham).

Why not 100%

SCPO Larry Knight Sr., thanks for your comment. My simple answer is the old adage: it costs money to make money. The paper that we use to print our materials to tell others about our organization costs money. The dental insurance plan covered by my organization costs money. The money dedicated for payroll outside our programming costs money. It even costs money to spend the time and resources to tell our donors that we spend their contributions properly. Any organization that claims 100% goes directly to their constituents either has all-volunteer "employees" or has an extremely generous wealthy donor that offsets those expenses or has set their financial structure to direct funding through an endowment or other holding entity to ensure their financials are not affected.
This is not to say there aren't some tremendous organizations that ensure nearly 100% of donations go directly to services. Fisher House is a tremendous example of this.

Thanks for your response, I talk with Business exec's daily who offer their support with this program. I question their allegiance and loyalty in the handling of proceeds from all sectors ? When many of the returning wounded here in our area complain that, none of this (moneys' ) seems to be filtering into the program as stated by so many.
It seems' in some respects like the Medicare system, which has been defunct by the medical professionals to the point of plain outright fraud ! Just hoping this doesn't become an issue with WWP, and you'd think with all the billionaires out there funding would be of no issue so that 100 % would be viable ? Bravo Zulu to you for your service and your part in the program.

LTC Jason Strickland You are correct, ANY organization that purports to directly use 100% of donations for the mission is misleading at a minimum. The few out there that have substantial endowments and are capable of 100% direct support are not foolish enough to deplete their entire endowment for the sake of that 100%.
I work alongside a few in my area who strive to come close to the 100%, but I am not aware of any organization who actually can attain it without winning the lottery on a yearly basis .....