Invisible Children, Invisible Finances? Kony 2012 Creators Stonewall Critics


Joseph Kony, LRA Uganda

Last night, Invisible Children (IC) released a new video to address criticisms of their widely seen Kony 2012, a documentary about Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony. In this video, IC's CEO Ben Keesey adamantly insists IC is not a "slacktivist" organization. He also addresses some criticisms of their financial record, like travel expenses. In addition, since IC claims to be "fully transparent from top to bottom," you can even tweet questions to IC. Keesey promises he'll answer some of them in a future video.

But despite this new video, IC still has not addressed serious criticisms of the organization. First, IC has refused to disclose information to the Better Business Bureau (BBB). In a press statement, the BBB declared:

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance has tried for six years to get Invisible Children to cooperate in a charity review. Since 2006, BBB has sent 18 letters (12 via Certified Mail) to the non-profit behind the Internet phenomenon Kony 2012 video, but has received no response.

H. Art Taylor, President and CEO of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, seem befuddled by IC's intransigence:

I don't understand their reluctance to provide basic information. The whole point of the effort is to shine the light of truth on a terrible atrocity, and yet they seem to be reluctant to turn that light on themselves. It's really unfortunate, because their campaign has the potential to inspire and galvanize millions of young activists and future philanthropists."

We don't assume that nondisclosure is proof of bad faith, but the vast majority of national charities we contact (70%) demonstrate their commitment to transparency by providing the Alliance with requested information so that we can produce reports for public inquirers.

Furthermore, the new IC video did not comment on the nonprofit's new source of windfall. One of the first blogs to call attention to IC's finances, Visible Children, notes that IC has sold over 500,000 action kits over the past week. At $30 a piece that equals roughly $15 million in revenue. The action kits include posters, stickers, a Kony bracelet, etc. According to IC, if you buy an action kit, "people will think you're an advocate of awesome."

But not a humanitarian.

In an interview with GOOD magazine, Jedidah Jenkins, IC's director of ideology (yes, that's his real title), explained IC's finances and mission:

Thirty-seven percent of our budget goes directly to central African-related programs, about 20 percent goes to salaries and overhead, and the remaining 43 percent goes to our awareness programs. Those include things like flying Ugandans to America to go on cross-country awareness tours we pay for. And our staff in America has to go to Uganda, too. We got criticized for spending $1 million on travel expenses, but getting 130 people around the country and around the world is expensive. But aside from that, the truth about Invisible Children is that we are not an aid organization, and we don't intend to be. I think people think we're over there delivering shoes or food. But we are an advocacy and awareness organization. [Emphasis added.]

How many people who bought these action kits know they're funding hipsters uploading videos to Vimeo? Unless IC radically overhauled it financial structure, only 37 percent of the money raised from these action kits will directly help people in eastern Africa. At best. Everything else will fund overhead, salaries and raising awareness. But with over 75 million views on YouTube, Kony 2012 is already the most viral video ever. How much more awareness does this organization need?

Invisible Children I Heart the LRA T-Shirt, 2009

Indeed, now that Kony is world famous, there will be more calls to take action to "stop Kony." But once again, IC's new video didn't elaborate on what actions the U.S. and the rest of the international community should take. President Obama has already deployed 100 "combat equipped" miltary advisers to not just Uganda, but the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan.  However, IC has said it will outline the "next steps" in a future video (I'm sensing a trend here.)

In a previous post, I elaborated on the human rights abuses committed by the nations that pursue Kony and raised questions about sending these advisors:

Placing ground forces on eastern African soil has already escalated the fight against the L.R.A. The movie shies away from Operation Lightning Thunder as well as the policy implications for Obama's deployment decision: if these 100 advisors fail to stop Kony, what's the next step for the United States? More advisors? Drone strikes? Selling weapons to Uganda et al.? And what happens if Kony is arrested, but the L.R.A. continues to fight on?

While these questions have yet to be answered by IC, the organization does link to a February 2012 white paper, "Peace Can Be: President Obama's chance to help end LRA atrocities in 2012," drafted by Paul Ronan for Resolve, a research organization dedicated to "ending the LRA's reign of terror." IC calls this "the best researched paper supporting the policy position of the Kony 2012 campaign"

Yet according to the very white paper IC links to, stopping Kony won't stop the L.R.A.:

…even if Kony and the two other ICC-indicted LRA commanders, Ongwen and Okot Odhiambo, are apprehended, remaining LRA commanders could still pose a significant threat to civilian populations. (13)

Currently, there are around 60-70 L.R.A. commanders (9) and anywhere from 200 to 400 L.R.A. fighters in total. So while arresting and/or killing Kony would be a poignant symbol, it would not do much to stabilize the region. Some other commander would merely take Kony's place.

Tellingly, Uganda, which suffered the most from L.R.A. attacks, has reduced its commitment to stopping Kony. Currently, Uganda has only 1,500 soldiers pursuing the L.R.A. That's "one-third of its original force." Instead, Uganda has been redeploying its forces to join the African Union's mission to combat al-Shabab (AMISOM) in Somalia. Right now, Uganda has deployed 6,000 soldiers to AMISOM and has even promised to send an additional 2,000. According to the Resolve paper,

Al-Shabab poses a far more dangerous threat to Ugandan and U.S. national security interests than the LRA, especially following the July 2010 bombings in Kampala, Uganda, that killed 74 people, including one American. (18)

So even the Ugandan government deprioritizes the L.R.A. Yet Resolve wants the U.S. to "encourage more troops and more helicopters to counter-LRA operations," while the United States should fund these helicopters and communications equipment. (20)

In addition, the U.S. hasn't had that much success with the other nations who fight the L.R.A. One of Resolve's policy recommendations is to:

Directly engage with senior Congolese officials to immediately allow Ugandan forces to resume operations against LRA commanders and groups in Congolese territory (5)

That's easier said than done. In an interview with a Resolve reporter, it's revealed that

Congolese President Joseph Kabila claimed that he was not consulted about the deployment and found out about it while surfing the internet. (13)

Either there was a severe lack of oversight in the Obama administration or the administration has little confidence in the Congolese military. If the latter, this would have been quite prescient. These U.S. advisers haven't had much luck training the local forces:

In Congo, the U.S. advocated for the U.S.-trained 391st battalion of the national military to deploy to northern Congo in April 2011 to protect civilians from LRA raids, and contracts two advisers to counsel the battalion. Though initially welcomed by local communities appreciative of the battalion's professionalism compared to other Congolese forces, the battalion has yet to prove it can actively protect civilians from LRA raids. (15)

Ronan's report even mentioned some of criticisms about sending soldiers into Uganda, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan:

At the hearing, some Members of Congress expressed reservations about sending advisers to help defeat a rebel group that poses no direct national security threat to the U.S. at a time of mounting concern over budget deficits and ongoing military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya…

The President's decision to invoke the War Powers Resolution without clarifying whether it intends to follow reporting requirements rekindled frustration from some Members of Congress over his refusal to request permission for the use of military force in Libya. (12)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Here's my original post on Kony 2012. Buzzfeed on Kony 2012 racism.

NEXT: "I'm looking for a leader who's not going to play into a war-weary public."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Faust!

  2. So Kony is a real guy? I thought it was just some Chad/Tony thing gone oddly viral.

    1. “Chony” is so close to “Kony” that it probably wouldn’t take much effort to get “#stopchony” to start “trending.”

      1. “Ch-” is pronounced “K-” in a number of languages I think.

  3. if you buy an action kit, “people will think you’re an advocate of awesome.”

    These guys are *sooo* Generation Y/Millenial…. The final triumph of Appearances over Substance! Narcissism as organizing philosophy!

    When asked, “Do you guys *actually DO anything* about this issue?”… they get all like, “Hey man, like, that’s not cool…we never said we were going to like…like, actually do anything specific…. raisin’ awareness bro! Get with it…!”

    1. wasn’t someone holding a dance?

    2. if you buy an action kit, “people will think you’re an advocate of awesome.”

      all I could think was, “there’s another getrichquick scheme someone thought of before me”

    3. “Here, have a bracelet to show your awareness.”

    4. Now, if the “action kit” was an AK-47, some ammo, and an RPG to be delivered to a village in Kony’s area of operation, that would be one thing.

      Probably about the only thing that wuld make a difference, really.

  4. I think we just might be looking at the new “Che” T-shirt for clueless dumbasses.

  5. It’s amazing how many people just love advocating for using military force at the drop of a hat. TEAM RED, TEAM BLUE…it doesn’t matter. TEAM FORCE includes all of them.

    1. But…but…but…TEH CHIRRUN.

      1. So basically, Tonio, you’re saying you don’t want to be an advocate for awesome. How totally uncool of you, man.

        1. [hides face, runs from room]

    2. Say, I’ve made an interesting discovery. An anagram of “Red Blue” is “Be Ruled.”

      1. So you’re the brains for the operation

      2. Also, an anagram of “team” is “meat”. Did I just blow your mind or what?

        1. Or “tame.”

          1. I think “Meat Be Ruled” is closer to what Team RedBlue’s motto would be.

            1. That’s probably their unofficial joint motto.

            2. The world suddenly makes sense to me now.

      3. As is “Bud Leer”! This means something!

        1. I think “Team Be Ruled” should be used in reference to situations where the teams can’t be distinguished. Which is most of the time.

          1. But Team Red is far worse.

            1. Well, naturally. Because they’re so much worser in all of their evil doings. So much so that I can tell the difference between the two if I squint my eyes in a certain way and hit my head with a 2X4.

              1. I’ll hit you with that 2×4 if you want, ProL. You know, as a favor.

                1. Thanks, dude. Just in time for election season.

              2. cum november, teh womenz will show team red teh door. that is all

            2. But Team Red is far worse faster.

          2. When it’s comes to war, I think we’re in a bad melee rut.

            1. personal shields. EOM.

          3. Take a trip down the emerald tube with me. Our lemur debate team is waiting for us. At the end we’ll have our resident adult beer me and you.

            1. This post rated: Lube ’em!

    1. The BBB is an extortion racket. Pay them regularly and follow their rules (read follow the letter of the law, not the spirit) and they will protect your BBB grade, even if you’re a scam artist.

      If you don’t pay them, well then. You can guess where that goes.

      1. Hamas knows this better than Starbucks

    2. I’m sort of skimming past the whole ‘transparency’ thing. It seems a petty thing right now. Almost like, “I know those Kony people are a bunch of leftard progressives (which, they probably are) and so let’s discredit their message”

      Caveat emptor.

      If you give some strangers $30 for a box of bumper stickers and a poster, you just gave $30 to some guys you’ve never met before for some bumper stickers and a poster. It is what it is.

      I’m much more bugged by the monumental slickness– the Madison Avenue-level skill in the presentation, combined with the lack of details as to how the international community should get this guy… exactly how.

      1. Bracelets lead to awareness. Awareness leads to smug. Smug leads to tweeting about bracelets.

        1. I thought lapel rippons led to awareness. How does one keep up with the awareness industry?

          Awareness Industry. I’m keepin’ that.

        2. And SMUGSTORMS!

  6. We don’t assume that nondisclosure is proof of bad faith

    No, but I do.

  7. be “fully transparent from top to bottom,” you can even tweet questions to IC. Keesey promises he’ll answer some of them in a future video
    However, IC has said it will outline the “next steps” in a future video (I’m sensing a trend here.)

    I don’t know if it’s my ever-hardening cynicism, but any group which communicates strictly through slick, cleverly made videos makes me suspicious.

    There’s nothing wrong with creating a slick, well made video to get yourself on the map, but these guys are advocating for a specific set of international policies. That’s serious business. They’re not selling the longer lasting lightbulb or jeans that will make your booty pop… they’re talking about sending troops into a country and killing people they’ve deemed as “bad”.

    When do the foreign entanglements stop?

    1. Have you seen military recruitment ads?

      1. A Global Force for Good!

      2. Yes. Now imagine say, an army sergeant going apeshit and killing a bunch of civilians in afghanistan, then imagine the press asking questions about it, and the army responds, “we’ll answer your questions in our next video!”

        1. My point here is, advertising is perfectly well and good. But it can’t be your only method of communication. Once the press corps starts asking you about the nuts and bolts of your vision, you need to get out the dry erase markers and start drawing boxes on the whiteboard.

          1. you need to get out the dry erase markers and start drawing boxes on the whiteboard

            jeez, why not just scrawl on some paper, or smear pigments on a cave wall.

            fucking savage.

    2. Uh…never?

      1. This is incorrect. They end when (1) we can’t afford it anymore, or (2) we go full imperial and conquer the world, making all further wars internal insurrections rather than foreign conflicts.

        1. Think of how many jobs can be created and saved with this idea?

          1. ALL of them.

            1. You mock, but you’re actually on to something the Dems can sink their teeth into.

  8. Reality skews team blue

  9. Kony 2012 = CIA grey flag op to garner support for the eventual escalation of our role in Uganda.

    Jus’ sayin’

  10. Joseph Kony and the Invisible Children sounds like an awesome name for an indie band. I call dibbs.

    1. Kill Your Parents is a cool album title.

      1. I think this might be the best Band Name / Album Title combo ever devised on HnR.

    2. First Album:

      Noddin’ Heads

  11. Jose Canseco is tweeting about stopping the aging process.

  12. The BBB gives people poor ratings if the business refuses not pay the BB’s $425 dollar fees. According to ABC news, the BBB gave a fake group called “Hamas” an A+ simply because they paid a $425 fee. Maybe that is IC doesn’t want to join the BBB. Here is the link to the ABC news article: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=12123843

    1. And this:

      We don’t assume that nondisclosure is proof of bad faith, but the vast majority of national charities we contact (70%) demonstrate their commitment to transparency by providing the Alliance with requested information so that we can produce reports for public inquirers.

      Only 70%. So that sounds like while yes, the majority provide information, a full 30% don’t. It’s not like IC is some kind of outlier.

      1. So if they don’t disclose fiancials (be it to BBB or anyone) I’m still free to refuse to donate.

        1. For $30, you can get a box with some bumper stickers and a poster… sent from guys you’ve never met before.

          1. If they throw in an awareness bracelet, I’m in!

  13. Kony 2012. He’s better than Mitt Romney and blacker than Gary Johnson.

  14. A college student has taken it upon himself to go farther than the average person and has contacted major corporations like walmart to help donate to the kony cause. The agreement they made was that for every lead he generated, they would donate a small amount of money to the kony cause. I would like to give this kid the benefit of the doubt. He doesn’t ask anyone for any money, he doesn’t even have a donate button on his blog. All he asks is that people take 2 minutes out of their day to fill out a simple form. Out of sheer optimism I am pulling for this kid. He states on his post “If people actually spent as much time as they did on facebook and twitter reading about kony, and actually took action to help support the cause, we may have already caught kony.” http://supportkony2012.wordpress.com/

  15. If this was the MDA telethon or relief to Haiti not only would we know exactly how much was donated…they would be proud to tell us. The 1st thing they should want everyone to know is what a success the fundraising effort has been. Are they making a dumb mistake or avoiding it? Hmmm?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.