Singer stated that he "would sympathize with someone who thought that campaigning was more important than giving one-self, although he doubts whether preaching what one does not practice would be very effective" (Singer 240). I disagree with the second part of his statement.  Many people are not willing to donate money to charities or organization, whether they be privately owned or operated by the government. An argument that could be used to defend their reluctance to donate money is that it is often unknown how much of the money that is being donated is actually going towards charitable activities.  According to research done by Richard Dyson for "The Telegraph," an English newspaper, the organization "Cancer Research," spends 70% of its annual income on charitable activities 160 of their employees earn over 102,000 dollars a year.  The British Heart Foundation only gives 46% of their annual income to charitable activities.
It could be argued that giving money isn't necessarily the best use of the resources people have to offer.  By offering their time, whether it be by campaigning or by working directly with those in need, people know that what they are doing is making a direct impact.  That is not always the case with donating money. One can contest that giving your time is more morally important since the person donating their time can directly see their impact whereas someone donating money cannot.