For those of us advocating for charitable reforms that address both the threat of plutocracy and encourage a greater contribution by ultra-rich donors and foundations to address society’s ongoing crises, April was a bad-news (four articles) month.
A few weeks ago I saw the revival of Lerner and Loewe’s Camelot–63 years after seeing the original–which, thanks to Jacqueline Kennedy quoting lyrics from the title song, has associated the Kennedy presidency with this idealized fantasy. The book (but not the songs) was rewritten by Aaron Sorkin, who replaced the magic (a sorcerer becomes a scientist) with a modern-day political sensibility. Arthur, as it turns out, was not pre-ordained to pull the sword out of the stone and become King, but rather as Queen Guinevere points out in this version, 9,999 people had tried to get the sword, loosened it, and it was only because of their efforts that Arthur was able to succeed. Brilliant, and relevant. We too easily lose sight of the fact that the ultra-rich got that way thanks to 9,999 other people, uncontrollable events, luck in timing, and many other factors, hardly a reason to make them or their foundations–or the foundations they’ve left behind–in control of everything.
Setting the stage, so to speak, for the other troublesome articles comes a report prepared by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI, What Americans Think About Philanthropy and Nonprofits. Among its disheartening findings:
“When we asked respondents whether they or anyone in their immediate family had received services from a charitable organization or nonprofit in the past year, only 5.4 percent indicated that they had. Given the many ways individuals engage with nonprofit organizations in everyday life (e.g., religious services, educational programming, beautification projects, museum programs, theatrical productions), it appears that many Americans do not recognize their own engagement with nonprofits or understand the nonprofit services they are unknowingly receiving.”
Charitable reform, without awareness of the role nonprofits play in our society, is difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, the public apparently is unaware of the value of nonprofits and essentially clueless about the way foundations, donor advised funds and individual donors hoard and underfund nonprofits (probably because not enough folks are reading my letters–please fix this by sharing with your colleagues and friends).
Earlier in the month, one of my favorite Inside Philanthropy writers, Philip Rojc, wrote In Defense of the Forever-Foundation: Why Perpetuity Will Always Have a Place in Philanthropy. It reminded me of an Oxford Union debate four years ago in which Peter Singer, the Princeton Professor, moral philosopher, and chairman of the board of The Life You Can Save, argued that it is not immoral to be a billionaire. In both cases of casting against type, the gentlemen tried hard to defend the indefensible.
Rojc argues that long-term foundations outperform spend-down foundations? How can anyone come to that conclusion?! Couldn’t we have significantly averted the climate crisis if we had invested in solutions thirty or forty years ago? Isn’t the Affordable Care Act a result of the $26 million investment by a spend-out foundation (Atlantic Philanthropies) in nonprofit advocacy groups such as Health Care for America Now (HCAN)? Didn’t we avert the end of civilization as we know it by philanthropic investments in community and grasstops organizations that enabled voters to have a say in elections these last few years?
Rojc also threw in other arguments that get folks like me worked up, such as: “[T]there’s only so much money in philanthropy, both in terms of what’s already committed to foundation endowments, DAFs and the like, and what the very rich are reasonably likely to commit going forward.” Foundations are almost certainly going to end up with even more money down the road as the 0.1% of ultra-rich American households, currently hoarding in excess of $15 trillion, create their legacies. Even today don’t we see the old guard foundations being outspent by a newer crop of donors?
Speaking of the old guard, the Chronicle of Philanthropy (“CoP”) published Ford’s Darren Walker Urges Philanthropy to Do More to Fight Injustices, an interview to promote his new book Generosity to Justice: A New Gospel of Wealth. I haven’t read the book, and it is really hard to be critical of a man who urges philanthropy to do more to fight injustice, but this interview, in combination with his signing onto the “Disagree” letter (below) points to his Achilles heel: he’s a plutocrat (or maybe it’s just the Ford trustees).
Witness: “…regardless of what one might think about the origins of her (Alice Walton) capital, she is using it to address issues of inequality{providing access to art for disadvantaged communities}.” Do I have this right: you can make unheard of sums of money by putting others out of business, avoiding taxes, and using harsh employment practices, but as long as you give a little bit back, in a good way, you’re A-Okay?
And yet he says, “Our privilege often buys us the right to not look in the mirror and ask hard questions. And sometimes we need to ask ourselves not just what are we willing to give back but what might we need to give up to ensure that more people have justice and fairness and opportunity.” We’re waiting….what is Ford, under your leadership, giving up?
He calls for all the good grantmaking practices that progressive philanthropists have talked about for years: multi-year funding, less reporting, less onerous grant applications, general support. Except for not hoarding. Philip Rojc has pointed out that the Ford Foundation was funded with $4 billion in today’s dollars, and now has $16 billion. Quadrupling one’s endowment (and we’re not asking how that money is invested) with tax-free income (i.e., taxpayer money) and minimal distributions gives new meaning to perpetuity. Here’s an idea: forget the multi-year funding and take the $11 billion you’ve hoarded, give $11 million to 1000 (!) organizations and let them manage their own endowments (or spend-down endowments).
Have you ever noticed that it is the people with all the power that always say to those without, “Why can’t we all get along?” I wasn’t looking forward to criticizing this opinion piece, We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism, that appeared in the CoP. Six foundation and philanthropy-serving organization heads at the Council on Foundations, the Ford Foundation, the rightwing Philanthropy Roundtable, the Charles Koch-founded Stand Together, and two multibillion dollar foundations call for things such as “don’t question our legitimacy.” Really? Luckily for me, the smart and entertaining Vu Le (if you are interested in philanthropy you should definitely follow his blog) had already channeled my thoughts: “Philanthropy’s equivalent of ‘All Lives Matter’.” His conclusion: “…in order for philanthropy to exist in perpetuity, inequity and injustice must also exist in perpetuity.”
I’m looking forward to the lusty month of May…and better news.