I have less objections, veganism just gives me a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, since it's not for the faint of heart. I'll leave it to others to debate the topic of vegetarianism since it gets into more specifics (i.e. are the people lactose-intolerant) and I honestly don't know what side I would lean towards if that were the case.but even if the language said "vegetarian," I suspect you would still disagree on principle.
Vegan, vegetarian, hand jobs... Each misses the point. The point is that it is exploitative to say "I have tons of money. Take on my cause, and I'll make your problems disappear." Opportunism, war profiteering, etc., are always offensive, because they can be seen as taking advantage of the less fortunate to advance yourself. In this case the fact that they ostensibly want to advance the cause of animal suffering muddies the waters, because some people think their cause is a just one. Some people think that converting people to Christianity is a just cause. Would it have been appropriate for the Vatican to step up and say, "We'll make your water bill disappear every month that you come to church at least 6 times"? Could Sheldon Adelson say he'll pay the water bill of anyone who votes republican? We come from a nation of charitable people, and I think we should be proud of that. Most people who can afford to give some amount of charity do so, and those that do rarely ask for anything in return. It's part of our being to help the needy, so to dangle the carrot that's only available for a quid pro quo is inherently offensive, not offensive on the merit of the cause.
Wrote a long reply explaining why I disagreed with you, then decided I agreed with you anyways. I'm suddenly and strangely reminded of the dentistry programs targeting the subsidized poor, who over treat then over bill under the guise of helping those in need. Without them there would be a gap in aid, but you still wish they wouldn't be predatory in the process of being charitable...