For CCC’s Philanthropist of the Year award it would be appropriate to give it to the 57 signers of the Crisis Charitable Commitment, a hearty group of individuals and foundations who have shown leadership in digging deep in this time of crisis. But after thinking long and hard, I’m compelled to name MacKenzie Scott, the gamechanging Philanthropist of the Year.
Move aside Bill and Melinda. Ms. Scott has reportedly given a total of approximately $6 billion to 500 organizations this year, the largest amount for any individual or foundation. There has been so much written about Scott’s philanthropy that I will simply curate three links. The first is Nicholas Kulish’s New York Times piece that I think pretty much tells the story of her $6 billion philanthropy. The second is Ms. Scott’s own explanation for how and what she did. The third is the most important–it is the op-ed I wish I had written, but luckily it was done by a better writer, Edgar Villanueva–MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropy is admirable. But why is it possible?
Most observers will focus on the “how” and “what” of Scott’s gifts How was she able to select hundreds of nonprofits so quickly and without any significant staff (often contrasted with big philanthropy’s ponderous process and large overhead, such as the Gates Foundation’s 1600 employees)? Will philanthropy learn from her funding of organizations dealing with racial justice and led by affected communities, and why have these organizations always been underfunded?
Equally important but too often assiduously ignored is the question of “how much” the richest 0.1 percent give away, the precise question raised by the Crisis Charitable Commitment. In presenting Scott with our prestigious Philanthropist of the Year award, we focus a spotlight on the percentage of her wealth that she has given away this year: 10%, more than double the CCC’s Charitable Standard for individuals! (If you go to the CCC’s commitment calculator and enter $60 billion, you’ll see she needed to give away $2,738,250,000 to meet the charitable standard.)
The sheer magnitude of Scott’s gift in nominal dollars will grab headlines, as do many other mega-gifts. However, public recognition of generosity should be measured by the percentage of assets given (ability to contribute), not the dollar amount. For example, the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s annual Philanthropy50 list should be ranked by percentage of assets, not gross amount. It’s bad enough that only 23 of the nation’s 650 billionaires made the list in 2019 (the 2020 list is due in February), but just half of these billionaires gave 2% or more of their enormous wealth. Honestly, does this even qualify as philanthropy, “a donation of money to good causes that is more than is strictly necessary or expected?”
We would welcome MacKenzie Scott as a Crisis Charitable Commitment signer. Her charity sets an example for every rich person and foundation in America and demonstrates that the Charitable Standard is eminently reasonable and responsible. As Villanueva wrote, “To donate so much, so quickly, when everything in our society supports the hoarding of wealth, is countercultural.” We desperately need more counterculture and the CCC will be a contributor to that change.
Our message is getting out – from Mississippi! (Thank you Jerry Mitchell.) and to the Los Angeles Times (“The Wealthiest Americans are Putting Scrooge to Shame”). LA County is home to 50 billionaires(!), none of whom have yet signed the CCC. Why not? I can only think of two reasons: 1) they would rather hoard money than help alleviate the suffering people are experiencing; or 2) …. I can’t think of a second reason. If you can, please email me.
