- 107 -
Washington Lists were for rentals of lists that W&H or
Washington Lists had obtained at little or no cost by
exchanging petitioner names. Table 8.
6. Although the record does not show how much W&H or
Washington Lists profited from being able to use petitioner
names for mailing list exchanges on behalf of W&H’s other
clients, it does show that about 5 percent of petitioner’s
payments to Washington Lists were for rentals of lists that
W&H or Washington Lists had obtained at little or no cost by
exchanging W&H masterfile names. Table 8.
At trial, Watson testified that the mailing fee rates that
W&H charged to petitioner under the Contract were equal to the
highest rates that he understood professional fundraisers in the
Washington, D.C., area charged their nonprofit organization
clients in no-risk fundraising contracts. In his letter dated
June 1, 1987, to petitioner’s executive director, Watson proposed
that petitioner and W&H agree to an early renewal of the Contract
and enter into a new proposed contract that would replace and
supersede the Contract. Under the proposed contract Watson
enclosed, W&H’s mailing fees would be reduced from $.05 to $.03
per prospect letter and from $.10 to $.07 per housefile letter.
When W&H entered into contracts with AICR on a no-risk
basis, AICR’s mailing fees were 20 percent less than what
petitioner had to pay, and AICR did not also have to pay package
fees. Supra table 5. The second 1983 AICR contract and the 1984
Page: Previous 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011