In February 2019, Tekashi 6ix9ine was sentenced to two years in prison as part of a deal he worked out on racketeering, weapons, and drugs charges. At the time, he was still on probation stemming from a 2015 charge of (what amounted to) sexual assault of a 13-year-old. Part of 69’s 2019 deal involved 69 testifying against gang members, and he happily snitched on everybody he had ever met or heard of. He only had to serve about 14 months in prison before being released last month because of the pandemic. That’s when he posted the Instagram above, flaunting his stacks of cash and his apparent distrust of banks. So… he decided to give some of that money away. Only one charity rejected his donation:
Tekashi 6ix9ine looks to be doing well financially since his release from prison and apparently wants to share the wealth. The rapper, whose legal name is Daniel Hernandez, reportedly attempted to make a $200,000 donation to the No Kid Hungry organization. But the charity rejected it.
“We are grateful for Mr. Hernandez’s generous offer to donate to No Kid Hungry but we have informed his representatives that we have declined this donation,” the organization said in a statement sent to CNN. “As a child-focused campaign, it is our policy to decline funding from donors whose activities do not align with our mission and values.”
I understand why a political campaign, political figure or humanitarian figure might refuse a donation from someone like 69 – they truly don’t want the optics of it, they don’t want the association at all. But a charity? I don’t know. There was a backlash against No Kid Hungry for this (which is also stupid). And now an LA-based charity is stepping up to accept 69’s donation:
One group’s $200,000 trash is another’s treasure … Tekashi 6ix9ine’s rejected funds are exactly what an L.A. nonprofit — that also helps kids — needs to survive. We broke the story … the “GOOBA” rapper was set to donate $200k this week to No Kid Hungry, which helps feed families that can’t afford to feed themselves. However, the charity turned down 6ix9ine’s donation.
Enter Keith Johnson, Executive Director of Kooking 4 Kids, who tells TMZ … if the rapper’s looking to do a good deed and help eliminate hunger, his past deeds shouldn’t matter. The Kooking 4 Kids boss says … “If there is an individual that wants to help address hunger in Los Angeles, we welcome it. How that person wants to live their life is for them to decide.”
Keith says his nonprofit often holds BBQ fundraisers, and he doesn’t go digging into the personal lives of people who are there to support the cause. He does add that every organization has the right to determine from whom it will accept funds — but donations are vital to his organization to survive, so he’s not picky. Johnson says K4K travels to 4 different parts of L.A. weekly and serves about 1,600-1,800 free meals to children and parents every day … and they always run out. He tells us, even before the pandemic, the org was stretched thin because L.A. County has some of the highest child hunger numbers … and it can always use more funding.
What do you think? I’m having a bunch of arguments with myself over this. For one, 69 is a predator and a felon and I completely understand why charities would be wary, especially if the charity involves KIDS. But I also think… charitable donations are charitable donations, and if the money feeds thousands of kids, all the better. Turn those felonious lemons into charitable lemonade. I don’t know. I understand both sides here.
Photos courtesy of Getty, Instagram.
Yeah, I don’t know. That is a tough one. For Kooking for Kids (yikes, that K in cooking is like nails on a chalkboard to me) to just shrug off his crimes as “how someone wants to live their life” is a bit disingenuous. But it’s true that someone might as well get the money (the nonprofit where I work would be ecstatic to get that sum).
I thought “kooking” was a dance, and that’s why they took a rapper’s $$. Like breakdancing. I’m old. sigh
It is a tough decision. On the one hand, the money wasn’t made off of his crime, so it would be understandable for a charity to accept it. On the other hand, it is a charity specifically for kids. In the long run I think No Kid Hungry made the best decision in this situation, and that people and charities shouldn’t be attacked for feeling uncomfortable with aligning themselves with someone abusing the same group of people they’re trying to help. I don’t know if charities should be expected to make that decision every time though.
Sigh, I see both sides, too.
Same. It’s a tough decision.
I raise money for a living and I 100% would have done what No Child Hungry did. They are a kid focused charity and he has a history of crime(s) against children. Would you feel like they should also have taken a donation from Jeffrey Epstein? This issue has been more and more on point in recent years in the philanthropy world, largely due to massive gifts from the Sackler family. Ethics exist in every occupation (or the issue of ethics does) and charities shouldn’t have to take money from just any source. As for Kooking for Kids (bleh…that name), “how someone wants to live their life” is a pretty gross way to sum up an assault on a 13 year old.
I agree.
And this donation could be used as pr.
Like Epstein donating or Weinstein donating to a charity for assaluted women.
NO.
That’s also a great point! How would people feel about the women’s shelter taking donations from Weinstein? Madness that this charity is getting pushback 🤦♀️
This is exactly what I was going to say – would people be reacting the same way if it had been Weinstein or Epstein? I doubt it. A charity’s core values are too important.
Eleanor, That was my first thought.
I was the Executive Director for a number of NPO’s. I would really have dissuaded any of my boards from accepting a donation like this. You risk losing other, bigger, donors. It’s really not difficult to donate anonymously, if your motives are sincere.
Coming here to say this. I would want zero part of helping someone better their image in this case.
Agree with all of this.
Thank you Jess! It would be madness for a charity that serves children to accept money from a felon convicted of assaulting children. This is called holding integrity to your core values of your charity. People put money over values all of the time and I applaud them. They’ll get more donations for doing the right thing.
I was about to comment the same way. I am fundraiser too and I would have rejected the donation.
Charity and NGO must be true to the principles they defend and fight for. They also are brands and they have to protect this brand: you can not compromise your reputation for any kind of donation. You could lose your donors, supporters, corporate partners and prospective donors.
This donation is clearly part of a social washing operation.
I specialize in Corporate Partnership and it’s actually one of the most difficult part of the job; keeping the balance between fundraising and ethics.
I volunteered with a well-established German NGO until last year and the project I was on started a partnership with the German branch of a large US law firm. I side-eyed that hard and about 2 months after I stopped volunteering with them, they became embroiled in scandal (concerning money). Nothing to do with the law firm but it wasn’t a good sign to me, it made me question their judgment.
Agree 10000000%. A children’s charity accepting funds from a child predator would be a strong no, for me. Not to mention, a predator who did not serve his time and who has shown no remorse for his crimes? Yes charities need the money right now, but now is not the time to start allowing rich predators to buy their way into respectability. What happens when KwK has to explain their defence of this man the next time he assaults a child?
If he had donated anonymously, perhaps. But I agree the charity was right to refuse. Hopefully they can make up the shortfall elsewhere.
He is a predator. He wants good PR, otherwise he would have donated anonymously. And I’m glad this charity wants no parts of that.
Agree with you here. This person is a bad person and I would want no connection to him
I would support repentance if I was running a broke charity.
Yes, yes, yes
Agree 100% thank you. Principles aren’t principles if they are situation-dependent.
I am the co-founder of a non profit and I absolutely would have done the same the thing. Nope. He assaulted a kid. Principles matter. Kids matter.
I completely agree with you. Raping a 13-year-old? F* off with your money, dude.
Not just a history of crimes against children, let’s say it like it is-he was involved in raping (and filming it) a 13 or 14 year old girl. I would never, ever, ever donate to a charity that took his mone. wise decision.
I don’t know, a children’s charity taking money from someone who sexually assaulted a child is like a medical charity taking money from Harold Shipman.
Hahahaha
Savage yet accurate comparison.
A+ for Shipman reference ahaha
He sexually assaulted a child, why would a children’s charity want his money?
Right, this is a no-brainer. Plus when celebs give money to charities, it’s all about PR and putting out a certain public image. So the charity that accepts money, in a way, becomes part of the PR campaign. Or, as in this case, not!
I totally agree.
He was more than likely making the donation to get some good PR, and to flaunt how much money he supposedly has. The charity most likely doesn’t want his trash name associated with what they do, and I doubt they want the money of a sex offender anyway.
The United States: where money absolves you of guilt.
Except that person is a PEDOPHILE.
I don’t blame No Kid Hungry for not taking his PR stunt money, and I’m willing to bet their announcement probably netted them more in donations anyway.
I could have excused Kooking for Kidsif the director had just left it at “look we are in desperate need of money so we’re not in a position to be choosy about who donates”, but to get all preachy about how they don’t judge about what their donors do is a really bad look. Like, you’ve just self righteously excused behavior that victimizes the very children you’re serving.
It’s so tricky. I don’t blame No Kid Hungry AT ALL. I think they made the right call. But I bet it sucked having to turn that money away, and I don’t envy the person who had to make that decision.
But you’re right. If it was just like “Look, we needed the money really badly, and this is going to help a lot of people. We do not condone his past actions, but we are not in the position to turn away help” would have been a better move. There was no need to get self righteous, though at the same time, I do wonder if some of it is to keep the money flowing in. I think it was stupid personally, but I could see how this might encourage other questionable/shady/criminal celebrities to put some money out there. Not sure that it will, though, and it could have been a big detriment. Time will tell, I guess.
I think taking his money sends the wrong message. Look at it this way: if a children’s charity is taking money from a pedophile which is public news, it is knowingly engaging in promotion of a pedophile.
it’s just…..to me, it doesn’t send the message they’re thinking about kids. it sends the message that everything is relative, including morals. and that even a charity can be bought. blergh.
i would also reject the funds without hesitation. umm sorry, source of funds?
He dropped a song Friday night that has received more than 116 million hits. Inexplicable though it may be, he is a successful at his craft.
nope. you need to consider both how the donor acquired his money and the criminal record of the donor. donating some of the money he earned legally does not erase the fact that his original source was heroin, filming crimes, gang related activities etc. Principles matter.
As someone who formerly worked in development at a large children-focused non-profit and had to wrestle with whether to take donations from alleged insider traders or heirs from opioid dynasties, they did the right thing.
You don’t want to be MIT when everyone learned they took money from Epstein in exchange for listening to his batshit eugenics ideas.
I absolutely see where they’re coming from and this isn’t unprecedented. Years ago, MSF declined a donation from the then-candidate for chancellor of Germany. He had been criticized for giving a paid speech and then made an announcement that he would donate the six-figure payment to MSF. They declined, explaining that they never take donations from political parties or figures as they can only do their work around the world if they are seen as 100% apolitical and not affiliated with any religion etc. It made perfect sense.
Money isn’t everything, even for a charity. It’s hard to find a charity that has no scandals, no questionable figures attached etc. Many many people might have side-eyed No Kind Hungry if they had taken money from a child molestor and might not have donated in the future. They have to take that into consideration.
Also, rich people love to donate as a method of glossing over their ethically questionable behavior and business practices.
Exactly. And MSF also refuses any money from the US government as well.
Totally stand behind No Kid Hungry on this one
I have to agree with rejecting his donation. With his background it does not represent what they stand for. I personally believe they did the right thing.
Also, I feel he’s wanting to donate money for all the wrong reasons. He’s not doing it for the good of the children. I wouldn’t take his money.
Charities have a legal responsibility to understand the source of funds and not accept monies attributable to criminal conduct. I would certainly be wary of accepting a donation in these circumstances. They did the right thing.
Yeah, I see only one side here. Others have said it all.
Also, what IS that thing? I want to bleach it.
“Kook“ is an actual word with a different pronunciation and meaning than cook, so that’s a terrible name for a charity. It makes it seem like it’s a charity full of Addams Family members who walk around being kooky and gothic and strange as a way to raise money for children. I did not immediately think “oh, it’s cooking for kids, it must be a food charity,” I was seriously trying to figure out how one would be kooky for kids…. maybe some type of weird circus show or a creepy puppet show that entertains kids of raises funds? What a stupid name. The charity seems kind of shady with its name and it’s horrible statement about “what you do in your private life isn’t our business.”
Didn’t we all just read about how Epstein used donations to schools and nonprofits in order to gain more connections and legitimacy? I think it’s very good that the org didn’t take the money, and I find KwK’s excuse for accepting it to be troubling and minimizing of child sexual assault.
Great, great comment.
I applaud the charity for not accepting his money. It’s called having morals. That’s like a shelter for abused & battered women taking a donation from Chris Brown! I’m not understanding the “both sides” part of this at all. He sexually assaulted a child. He’s a predator, among other things. And let’s be real…he only did this for good pr cause ppl have been referring to him as a rat and a rapist. If he really cared, he would have donated anonymously.
Nope, you definitely can’t take the money from this predator.
Other than the plain ethics everyone mentioned, it also IS a bad business decision to accept the donation. Here’s why: it’s very important for charities to build trust and stewardship in donors, so that your donors can trust you spend their donations effectively and ethically. By publicly refusing these finds, you’re building long term trust in your existing donor base and hopefully attracting new donors who have a new found respect for your organization’s ability to stick to its mandate and stay principled.
Finally, imagine someone was giving away Nazi money, made off concentration camps. Would people think: hey, it’s just money, and it helps people! NO, you’d say it’s money made off of harming and killing others. Same with this guy, he made money and harmed people in the process. So not cool to take his donation .
“You’re so right,” says every single non-profit employee, both present and former. The whole, “But if the money is green, it works for me!” thing specifically doesn’t work to establish long term philanthropic investors in non-profit for *children’s chairities*. For especially large donations, people are invited to events like galas, openings, and board meetings, as well as events with the stakeholders — in this case, children — just to court the donation. This isn’t a case of classism or racism — they didn’t turn down the offer because of his “image” as a rapper, or because he’s a PoC, or because of his facE tattoos. They’re highly aware of not only the current charges, but the implications of the earlier charges of sexual molestation and assault of a minor. They don’t want to court that kind of investment or that kind of attention, and are sending a strong message about their ethics by turning down the donation.
Exactly, you explained it so well! And you guessed it, I also work in the nonprofit sector 🙂
High-five, Yasmine! I left my main gig a year ago, but I’m still non-profit adjacent. Thank you for the work that you do, whatever that might be!
Yes indeed. Here is the problem: he is using these donations to rehabilitate his image. The charity shouldn’t be involved with that, as it would definitley go against the core values if the charity, esp one specifically for kids. He could have given the money anonymously if all he wanted to do was help the charity.
If he really cared, he would have given the money anonymously, as someone else stated above. He did it for PR, and yes, he’s a pedophile.
I work for an animal non-profit. This would be the equivalent of us taking money from Michael Vick. Not gonna happen. Just because you abuse something/someone doesn’t mean you can throw money at them and it goes away. And that’s what 69 was doing. “I know I’m a child abuser, but look how much money I gave kids”. He wanted publicity, nothing more and the charity in question refused to be used. Good for them.
Cosigning what others have said – I’m a fundraiser for a nonprofit, we turn down gifts all the time. Good example: a Vietnam veterans nonprofit I worked for rejected any gifts associated with Michelin rubber. Reason? Michelin rubber plantations in South Vietnam harbored NVA/VC and charged the US for damage to TREES.
You don’t take money from people who have committed crimes against your core constituency. All it does is prove that money can make people forget, and that money matters more than principle. Non-profits are mission driven.
He’s a pedophile.
Good for them.
I’m on the side of the charity (not that I would oppose if they did decide to take the money). If he just committed drugs/ weapons offenses, ok, but sexual assault on a 13 year old?
If you shuffle companies and business entities around for perspective, I completely understand. Perhaps a private broker? But then it defeats the PR-seeker. So unfortunately, a need goes unfulfilled.
There is only one answer to this. No way you can take this money if you are No Kid Hungry. The Sackler and Epstein scandals have shown that.
The point made by the KwK charity that they don’t vet other donors is also bogus. THEY KNOW HE IS A PREDATOR! Simply not ok.
Imagine Harvey Weinstein donating to RAINN. There are no two sides about it. The charity made absolutely the right decision.
The No Child Hungry charity made the correct call for themselves. You can’t serve children and take money from someone who sexually assaulted a 13 yo. It doesn’t even seem like he is remorseful or committed to changing, but I don’t follow him so who knows. Can you imagine if an anti-violance charity took money from an arms dealer? He is using them to wash his image, the reputational equivalent of money laundering or green washing. If another charity wants to take the money, that’s their issue. These organizations are under scrutiny and have a reputation to protect as well. It’s not necessarily the fact that he committed a crime, but the type of crime, and the type of organization. It’s a mismatch.
There’s only one side here. Ethics matter. The Sackler family did the same thing to rehabilitate their image. I am generally not a ‘means justify the ends’ person. Where the money comes from, and who gives it, that matters. So often, people donate to things for their own purposes, not because they really care about the cause. Charities shouldn’t be used as some form of money laundering, or reputation-laundering. If he had really wanted to help children (which he does not!) he would have donated anonymously. But this is so obviously an attempt for him to clean up his image. He is a reprehensible person.
It is a tricky situation. Same with Harvey Weinstein funding women’s shelters and support groups! I thi nk we should respect the business/charity’s decision
Change his name to R. Kelly, Bill Cosby, or Woody Allen (or any of the like) and see if you’d feel the same.
Sexual predation against children should be an obvious no-no when it comes to acceptable traits for children charity donors. You don’t get to make yourself look better by donating to kids after harming them.
I always think people can change. And I think its great that he wants to give so much money to charity. Look at how many celebs aren’t! And here he is fresh out of jail giving away his money. That charity should have taken it. I agree with what the LA charity said.
Absolutely not a “tricky situation.” I admire the organization for sticking to their core values/principles. Just donated money to them – hopefully it’ll play its part in making up for the would-be $200,000 donation.