Chicago ? The telemarketer’s pitch is familiar: Please give money to help a deserving charity.

But when all but 15 percent of the money goes to the telemarketer itself, is it really charitable?

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case Monday in which Illinois sued a telemarketer that kept 85 percent of the money it raised on behalf of a veterans organization.

“That’s fraud,” Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan said. “This has crossed the line.”

The problem is, the line has never been explicitly drawn.

The charity in the case the high court has agreed to hear, VietNow, had an agreement with Telemarketing Associates Inc. in which the charity got 15 percent of the money and the fund-raiser kept the rest.

Illinois sued the marketing company in 1991 on grounds of fraud, but the state Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on free-speech grounds.

Lawyers for Telemarketing Associates have argued that the company is protected by the First Amendment, and that states unhappy with such arrangements should go after the charities, not the fund-raisers.

Illinois contends that the Constitution does not protect telemarketers that fail to disclose they are keeping most of the money they raise in a charity’s name.

Telemarketing Associates’ argument, “if you stretch it to its logical conclusion, is that the First Amendment protects fraudulent speech,” Madigan said.

Forty-five states, the Better Business Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed briefs in support of Illinois’ case, but past U.S. Supreme Court rulings have favored companies that solicit money for charities. In 1988, the high court barred states from placing strict regulations on professional, for-profit organizations that solicit charitable contributions.

Although charities often use telemarketers that pay them considerably more than the 15 percent VietNow got, many such organizations believe a ruling in favor of the state could hurt their ability to raise money.

“That could be very detrimental for the vast majority of charitable organizations who are honest and ethical in their fund-raising practices,” said Peter Shiras, interim president of Independent Sector, a coalition of more than 700 charitable groups that filed a brief in support of Telemarketing Associates’ case.

Shiras says his coalition believes organizations should be held accountable, but that state prosecutors might be able to arbitrarily decide what is fraud if Illinois wins its case.

Lawyers for Telemarketing Associates did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The case is Lisa Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, 01-1806.