( CNN ) -- Karen Handel , the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation vice presidentâ€ ” and lightning rod in the group 's public relations storm over Planned Parenthood funding -- stepped down from her position Tuesday . For many it was almost a satisfying ending to an eye-opening incident . None of it should have come as a shock . When the Komen foundation last week bowed to pressure from anti-abortion activists to stop most of its funding of Planned Parenthood , the furor was swift and forceful . Komen 's decision was frequently described in the media and in the online outcry as a `` betrayal '' â€ ” of its mission , of the millions of Americans who run in its Race for the Cure every year , and of the women whom Komen and Planned Parenthood serve . But to people familiar with the foundation , the decision was hardly a surprise . Under the perky pink ribbon at the center of Komen 's brand lies a distinctly conservative orientation shaped over three decades by the foundation 's political and corporate alliances . Despite its carefully cultivated nonpartisan image , the foundation 's connections to the Republican Party are deep and longstanding . Nancy Brinker , Komen 's founder , has raised thousands of dollars for the GOP over the years and was rewarded when President George W. Bush named her ambassador to Hungary in 2001 . Last year 's hiring of Handel , an anti-abortion Republican , to head Komen 's public policy efforts was not a sudden swing to the right , as some commentators have implied . Beyond this , even a cursory glance at the group 's corporate partners could help explain why so much of its funding goes to detection and treatment . In interviews , Komen executives have denied that their corporate funders exert any influence over their policy decisions . But an organization that takes money from the chemical and energy industries , fast food companies , and cosmetics manufacturers is unlikely to fund research on environmental toxins or pursue other prevention-oriented concerns . And , for the most part , Komen does n't . Instead , the foundation focuses on early detection through mammography -- an imperfect tool -- and fundraising for treatment-oriented research , which has produced little in the way of concrete results . People with breast cancer have essentially the same options as they did half a century ago : surgery , chemotherapy and radiation . While their chances of dying from the disease have improved very slightly in recent years , breast cancer incidence rose steeply over the course of the 20th century to one in eight today . Komen is hardly the only case of a foundation held sway by political and corporate interests . Philanthropy is political ; it always has been . Like public funds raised through taxation , decisions about how to spend money generated through charitable giving are controversial and subject to partisanship . We might prefer to think of charity rising above the political fray , but in reality it is an extension of it . Nor does charity escape the pressures of the market . It is common practice for large foundations to enter into partnerships with corporations , to spend large sums on marketing and public relations , and to tailor their brands to what consumers want rather than their official missions . Komen has been incredibly successful in promoting its brand of breast-cancer awareness , but not without setbacks . It has had a rough two years in this respect . Its 2010 `` Pink Buckets for the Cure '' partnership with KFC raised concern among nutritionists and other health advocates about promoting junk food in the name of breast health . A year later , a Wall Street Journal article reported that Komen devotes considerable time and money to suing small charities who use `` for the cure '' -- a Komen trademark -- in their fundraising . The small media storm had barely faded when critics began raising concerns about Komen 's Promise Me perfume , which was produced in partnership with a New York company that makes a sizable donation to the foundation . The breast cancer activist group Breast Cancer Action , said a chemical study it conducted revealed that the perfume contained toxic and hazardous ingredients . The Komen foundation said it is reformulating the perfume . Then came the news about Planned Parenthood . Last week , many of Komen 's most faithful supporters took the lessons they had learned from the foundation about self-empowerment and put them to work . The groundswell of concern about Komen 's funding policies is testament not only to the strength of pro-choice sentiment but to the success of the foundation in building a movement of women who are prepared to advocate for their own and others ' health . Herein lies the promise of this moment . By harnessing the considerable financial and social loyalty it has built over the years , the Komen Foundation has an opportunity to do much more than reverse one small , but significant funding decision ; they could take the lead in constructing a radically different approach to the breast cancer epidemic . This new approach would prioritize not political interests or corporate sponsors , but women 's health . Along the way , it might also bring us closer to realizing the Komen Foundation 's vision of a `` world without breast cancer . '' Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter . Join the conversation on Facebook . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Samantha King .
Samantha King says tumult over Komen funding not a surprise : We are political . She says Komen has long been rightward leaning , focused on treatment , not causes . She asks : Group takes money from chemical companies ; does that not focus on toxins ? King : We should use loyalty shown in supporters ' debates over funding to set priorities .