The origin of the expression and even its meaning have remained elusive, but here I mean “holding people or organizations accountable.”
—
I hope I’m not offending anyone when I say there are good Popes and bad Popes. We lost a good one last week, Pope Francis. But unlike Popes, there are no good billionaires, or the billion-dollar foundations they’ve created.
Pope Francis had a lot to say about wealth inequality. Less than a year ago, at a World Meeting of Popular Movements in Rome, the Pope said, “It is often the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology out of sheer greed.” Later in his talk he noted, “some of the richest men in the world recognize that the system that allowed them to amass extraordinary fortunes….is immoral and must be modified” and then said, “that there should be more taxes on billionaires.”
The Crisis Charitable Commitment was formed in 2000 to encourage the ultra-rich donor class and foundations to respond to what was then considered THE crisis, COVID. Sadly, we haven’t been able to drop the word “Crisis” from this effort because we now have a problem even greater than COVID, Authoritarianism. If this word seems too elitist, substitute oligarchy or plutocracy, or let me just mention that this government-without-guardrails is unleashing systemic harm to children, families, vulnerable people, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. And that’s just the beginning. After more than four years of prodding to address the crises at hand, the donor class should have been prepared to respond to this. Not only did they not respond, but they also flaunted their lack of response (as though taking a page out of the Trump playbook).
I had planned to spend this month’s letter talking about the crisis response published by the MacArthur Foundation eight weeks ago, an insult to anyone who believes that the ultra-rich have an obligation to do more. Gratefully, Stupski Foundation CEO Glen Galaich posted a blog that pretty much nails the critique and rather than repeat it, I urge you to read “Who Gives?”
The MacArthur Foundation has assets in excess of $8 billion as of the end of 2023 (2024 numbers are not yet available) and plans to raise their payout for (just) two years from 5%, or $400 million, to 6%, or $480 million. Of course that sounds like a lot of money to give away, but not when you are holding back twenty times that much just to hoard more money. In 2024, the S&P rose 25%, so conservatively (because the ultra-wealthy usually outperform the S&P) one could estimate MacArthur made at least 20%, or $1.6 billion! Let me emphasize this: they made (and not through their hard work) $1.6 billion and are giving away an additional $80 million of it, just 5% of their profit!!
Adding insult to injury, MacArthur said they hope they are setting an example for other foundations. OMG. CCC foundation signers–with considerably less excessive endowments–are already setting an example by giving 10% or more to charitable efforts.
If you sense some anger in this month’s letter, you’re right. Perhaps it comes from me being a product of the 60s, or reflecting on the Pope’s words, but this is not a time to take baby steps, it is a time to march. It is time for us to kick ass and take names. Let’s stop pretending otherwise: there is no such thing as a good billionaire or a good billion-dollar foundation.
Please read Glen’s excellent piece. Speaking of reading, Inside Philanthropy has upped its game with David Callahan’s “Toplines, calling on funders to wake up and forcefully address the “new reality.” For anyone interested in philanthropic issues, I’d put this subscription on the must-read list.