Here are my thoughts.
Any money you take can support hardwork being done by causes you care about who are willing to share their money with you. These are gifts that can be used wisely and you can track and be transparent about what is given, who is giving it, what was done with the money, and what good impact it has had.
No money can be taken from those who may create an adverse relationship because they will later be asking for favors that you might not agree with and you will feel pressure not to lose your funding.
If you look into nonprofit agencies, some of the biggest offenders who cause the issues the nonprofit is trying to mitigate, are also some of their biggest donors. I don't think this is a coincidence.
There's a difference between donating because you care, and donating because you have a guilty conscience about what your company/service is really doing that you know about, and you want the power to be able to pull the funding on any nonprofit agency that dares to squeal/focus on what your doing that may affect your corporation. Whether that is the reason or not that these relationships exist, who knows, but if it "looks like sh*t" it "may be sh*t" and it's better to have people not have to question at all whether there is a power transfer going on that is to the significant advantage of one party and the disadvantage of another party.

Exchanges to me should be pretty balanced or fair, and when they aren't you should question why they aren't....

But that's just my view...

You yourselves should be willing to support the causes you care about by working for them.
If you aren't willing to work for the causes that you personally care about, then your not really committed to those causes and causes need commitment.

"Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule, of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance. Some years ago people went about the country saying that property has duties. They said it so often and so tediously that, at last, the Church has begun to say it. One hears it now from every pulpit. It is perfectly true. Property not merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to any large extent is a bore. It involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it. The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance."

- Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

hang tight til Chicago.....getting moolah from wealthies is a traditional model. There are other models that have not been discovered. Time and increasing gov/corp actions moving toward fascism will fuel the fire. A slight uptick in the economy will not kill the movement. The gaps continue to widen. There will most likely be several Tunisian street vendors in Chicago who will kick it off. Time always tells.

You Tube ... Even the Troops are Waking Up