Limbaugh has pocketed almost $600K so far in his Adopt-a-Soldier gig

FightingIrish · Nov 30, 2005

Rush Limbaugh regarding his in-house promotion to support our troops, in which people can donate Rush 24/7 memberships to soldiers and sailors overseas by paying a reduced price of $49.95 each (down from $59.90):

"The Adopt-A-Soldier Program is just going great guns. We've got over 12,000 donors. I kid you not. I cannot thank you enough -- and I'm going to be matching all these myself so you can double that."

Which means he has taken in about $599,400 so far.

And he will match that by taking another $599,400 from his own pocket.

And putting it in another of his pockets.

While increasing his membership audience by 24,000.

So far.

These wars can be gold mines.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/quicktakes/cst-nws-qt30.html

<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

radio-outsider · Nov 30, 2005

> Rush Limbaugh regarding his in-house promotion to support
> our troops, in which people can donate Rush 24/7 memberships
> to soldiers and sailors overseas by paying a reduced price
> of $49.95 each (down from $59.90):
>
> "The Adopt-A-Soldier Program is just going great guns. We've
> got over 12,000 donors. I kid you not. I cannot thank you
> enough -- and I'm going to be matching all these myself so
> you can double that."
>
> Which means he has taken in about $599,400 so far.
>
> And he will match that by taking another $599,400 from his
> own pocket.
>
> And putting it in another of his pockets.
>
> While increasing his membership audience by 24,000.
>
> So far.
>
> These wars can be gold mines.
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/quicktakes/cst-nws-qt30.html
>

No, I don't like the guy, but I don't see how even his biggest supporters can't see what a calous and despicable ploy this is. It's not as if he couldn't give every soldier in America free access to his "24/7" and still have all the drug money he needs and enough left over to burn. Can anybody say PTL or TBN???? Disgusting.

SaltyDog · Dec 1, 2005

Limbaugh responds

Show transcript edited for length:

"And let me address something right off the top here.

I became aware of this last week. I was in Mexico… I took the computer and I used it a couple times and I have a little Blackberry and I'm getting e-mails and so forth.. But I was made aware, once again, of the fact that people have misrepresented what the Adopt-A-Soldier Program is all about and that some people took shots at me as attempting to profit on the backs of subscriptions to the US military and so forth and so on, and I'd just like to call your attention: It's right there on the website. You don't need to go to other websites to find out what I say. You just need to go to my own. You don't need to go to any other website or listen to anybody else tell you what I said. All you've got to do is go to my website. It's right there. Everything that I said about this is right there. So the idea here that somehow I am profiting, we are profiting, and exploiting members of the military is absurd. Very briefly, this whole idea came to us from a caller.

It was a brilliant idea. We instituted it…We set it all up. I also said, when I announced this last week, I said, "I do not ask people to do things that I don't do myself." I made the point that I was going to be participating in this as well. I refused to specify exactly what it was, and the reason for that was modesty. I'm not going to sit here and tell you how much money I'm donating to this or donating to that, particularly when it's my own enterprise -- and I also made the point that it's not going to be an accounting gimmick, that whatever I do is going to be money that I pay just like any other subscriber. So let me be specific about what I am going to do since there's always some question. The idea that we would profit from this or try to profit from this struck me as absurd. I've been around here for 18 years doing things the way we do them on the program.

So the bottom line is this, and I just want to get this out of the way once and for all. I am matching every donation that comes in for a complimentary subscription to the Adopt-A-Soldier Program. However many there are, however many we match up, however many members of the military get matched with donors, I am matching that myself. So there is no way I will personally profit from this. There was no intent to personally profit from this by any stretch of the imagination. And yet some people assumed that that's what was going on. They put it out there all over the place while I was absent last week. Then it got promoted throughout the fringe left-wing websites and some of our good friends on our very own radio stations saw fit to be critical as well, which I always appreciate. So the bottom line is: Whatever number of donations there are, I'm matching them. There will be no personal profit to me whatsoever. It was never intended as that. It was a caller idea. We thought it was a great idea and a great service to members of the US military and to do it this way. The Adopt-A-Soldier Program, we thought, was a cute hook to do it. It was a great idea. So there's the bottom line of that. "

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>

mobile-exradiodj · Dec 1, 2005

Limbaugh responds

I'm trying to understand this, so all the money he makes from Adopt-A-Soldier, he's buying more subscriptions at the going-rate.

Will not the subscriptions that Rush is buying from the Adopt-A-Soldier donations, in turn make a proftit? What is he doing with the profit from his personal donations? He would need to "turn it over" quite a few times to not make any profit.

SaltyDog · Dec 1, 2005

Re: Limbaugh responds

First, thank you. What I expected was to get slammed for being a Rush apologist. As you apparently figured out, I don't even understand his explanation either, I was just offering his side of the story.

It seems to me that for his explanation to make sense, either the subscription business would have to be outside his ownership and without profit-sharing for him (unlikely) or he is actually donating money that comes in to some other outside organization. I thought either I must be dense or he didn't explain it very well. Or his critics are right. If you didn't get it either, then maybe it's him.

<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com">
The Salty Dog</a>
</P>

radio-outsider · Dec 1, 2005

Re: Limbaugh responds

> First, thank you. What I expected was to get slammed for
> being a Rush apologist. As you apparently figured out, I
> don't even understand his explanation either, I was just
> offering his side of the story.
>
> It seems to me that for his explanation to make sense,
> either the subscription business would have to be outside
> his ownership and without profit-sharing for him (unlikely)
> or he is actually donating money that comes in to some other
> outside organization. I thought either I must be dense or he
> didn't explain it very well. Or his critics are right. If
> you didn't get it either, then maybe it's him.
>
>
> The Salty Dog
>

Here's what I read. Joe Citizen donates $49.95 to Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh matches that $49.95 and donates $49.95 to Rush Limbaugh. And Joe Citizen has donated $600,000 to this scam???? And the receipt soldier gets free access to a stupid website. Either I'm stupid, or there's 600,000-divided-by-49.95 extremely stupid people. If you want to support the troops, send some poor soldier's wife and child $49.95, not Rush Limbaugh!!!!!

Does ANYBODY see something I don't.

His response is typical of the logic he employees. I'm waiting for someone attempt to defend this offensive scam.

thebroker · Dec 1, 2005

Re: Limbaugh responds

Did anybody else's eyes glass over when you read that? I like to think I'm a pretty bright person, normally. Or, at least, I have pretty darn good reading comprehension. Still, this explanation makes me go...WHAT?

I see this much like radio-outsider does. Basically, the way I read Rush's explanation is this way: Rush has two pockets, we'll call them right and left. Joe Listener puts $600,000 in Rush's left pocket. Then, Rush takes $600,000 out of his own right pocket and puts it into his left. The net profit? The $600,000 contributed by Joe Listener.

I'm probably as conservative as a person can be. I'm certainly not a Rush flunky...but I do occasionally listen and enjoy his program. I'm not a left-wing blogger or liberal, and I've never voted Democrat in my life. However, this just looks plain wrong to me, even though Rush is a conservative.

If Rush really wants to do something to help the troops, why not say "Folks, I'm encouraging each of you to contribute $50 to a fund to support the wives and children of our troops serving in Iraq. And for each $50 you give, I'll give $50 myself". That way, every PENNY goes to support the troops, and there's no perception of impropriety. Whether he's making money of this or not (and it sure sounds to me like he is, even after his explanation), he should make a better effort to erase any question of intent here.

That even conservatives (and I'm not the only one) question this says to me that in fact there could be a problem. You have to call a spade a spade...no matter how the crook...er, spade...may vote.

Just my opinion.

I wonder how the FCC would feel about this if in fact Rush is profiting?

dampier · Dec 1, 2005

Re: The EthicsBurglar

> So the bottom line is this, and I just want to get this out
> of the way once and for all. I am matching every donation
> that comes in for a complimentary subscription to the
> Adopt-A-Soldier Program. However many there are, however
> many we match up, however many members of the military get
> matched with donors, I am matching that myself. So there is
> no way I will personally profit from this. There was no
> intent to personally profit from this by any stretch of the
> imagination. And yet some people assumed that that's what
> was going on.

I was reading this and thought I was reading Joe Scanlon's plea... or was it Abramoff... or Duke Cunningham... or was it DeLay.... They all say the same thing - they are not making one penny personally off anything, they are doing it for the 'good of it.' Because if you're an American soldier, there's nothing better than a subscription to Limbaugh's virtual website. That and a can of Sprite equals ... one can of Sprite, which will do a lot more over there than this "gift."

Limbaugh claims he is matching donations (so it's now twice as nice that twice as many people will now get subscriptions to the Limbaugh website). Will Limbaugh be writing off any of this as a charitable contribution and profit from his reduced tax liability?

Crooks never take the direct path to the door, ring the doorbell, and get admitted. They sneak around to the side, check those doors and windows, and clandestinely make entry, all with the courtesy to not wake you! What a favor.

Let's check the EthicsBurglar alarm:

The Ethical Approach: Do something great for the troops. I have 1,000 free subscriptions to the Limbaugh letter. You can register your son/daughter/friend who is serving overseas and I'll draw 1,000 names and they'll each get a free subscription!

The EthicsBurglar: I am SELLING subscriptions to the Limbaugh letter. For every paid subscription, one free subscription will be sent to a member of the armed forces overseas. The "matching" that I am doing is giving away the extra subscriptions to those who will then pay me if/when they renew next year, buy something on the site, or look at any paid advertising. Limbaugh has just reinveted the "free sample" concept, except he requires other people to pay for the right to get the free sample! Whataguy.

ajhenderson · Dec 2, 2005

Re: Limbaugh responds

> I'm trying to understand this, so all the money he makes
> from Adopt-A-Soldier, he's buying more subscriptions at the
> going-rate.
>
> Will not the subscriptions that Rush is buying from the
> Adopt-A-Soldier donations, in turn make a proftit? What is
> he doing with the profit from his personal donations? He
> would need to "turn it over" quite a few times to not make
> any profit.

Yeah, I don't think this whole subscription things costs $50/year. "Bandwidth costs..." blah blah blah. Actual cost is very minimal. Nothing wrong with it for the general public who doesn't mind paying for the novelty, but worthless for this purpose.

gumbo · Dec 2, 2005

Re: Limbaugh responds

I listened to Rush many years ago and realized that he's very persuasive until I turn the radio off and start to think about what he said. His explanation of this charitable process hasn't changed my opinion.