The controversy could not have come at a worse time for the charity: this Tuesday, it unveils a “celebrity cabinet” of personalities whose glamour will be exploited to attract money, volunteers and donations of blood.

Its critics are unhappy at what they call an inappropriate use of funds. “They’re hoping people will send them money on the basis of celebrity, as opposed to good works and effectiveness,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, which monitors charities’ finances.

The Red Cross was reported last week to have paid consultants more than $500,000 (£285,000) in three years to recruit stars, pitch its name in Hollywood and promote its chief executive as the face of the charity.

A New York publicist receives $5,000 a month to lure celebrities and polish the charity’s image in Hollywood, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

A company in California has been paid $114,000 to get the Red Cross included in story lines for film and television, and a Texas firm of image specialists won a contract for $127,000 to boost the profile of Marsha J Evans, the chief executive, a year before she left with a $780,000 severance package.

The Red Cross defends its spending, insisting monthly payments to the publicist Paul Freundlich have been cost-effective. “His efforts have made a huge impact on the American public in terms of increasing financial donations, volunteers and blood donations,” said Julie Thurmond Whitmer, head of the charity’s Washington office.

The row follows a censure by Congress for diverting contributions for the September 11 emergency to other uses and criticism last week from the Senate finance committee, which is investigating the charity’s slow response to Katrina.

Some of the media sniping seems disingenuous, however. How many news organisations would really have sent reporters to cover the Red Cross’s campaign to vaccinate 13m children in Kenya? They did when Jane Seymour, the actress, went along.