“It’s past time,” Vance said, to end allowing “these deals to escape tax liability.” Whitehouse said we should “get our government out of the business of subsidizing” them.
According to an Ipsos poll commissioned by Inequality.org in cooperation with The Giving Review, most Americans are unaware of details about philanthropy. When presented with specific statements describing policy concepts and ideas, though, many reform ideas are supported by a solid majority, both on the left and right.
Eleven colleges with a combined total of $270 billion; six foundations totaling $163 billion.
Conversation reviews year in philanthropy.
The College Endowment Accountability Act, according to Sen. J. D. Vance, responds to “a problem, borne of unfairness and of mass subsidy from the American taxpayer, that has now metastasized into one of the most-corrupt and one of the most politically active and politically hostile organizations in the United States of America, and that is elite colleges.”
Subcommittee on Oversight members and hearing witnesses mull some potential reforms.
Subcommittee on Oversight to hear from legal experts and researchers.
Anonymous donations to controversial anti-Israel groups shine a spotlight on the urgent need for donor-advised fund reform. Will this finally motivate Congress to pass much-needed legislation?
Rep. David Schweikert: there are continuing Congressional “conversations on charitable giving … and how we make sure it’s doing good in the world and not ultimately financing evil.”
And argues for charity reform.
And what it is.
Newly including philanthropic support for activities leading up to and in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
“[A]cross the political divide.”
“Reshaping the Conversation: How to Rebuild Public Trust in Philanthropy.”
On September 26, “Reshaping the Conversation: How to Rebuild Public Trust in Philanthropy.”
“The expansion of politics into almost all aspects of life means that activities that were previously considered nonpartisan have been made partisan—legislation and regulation have not kept up,” concludes open letter co-signed by its chairman.
“Philanthropy’s expanding footprint has spurred ongoing debates about how the nonprofit world is managed and regulated—a discussion I hope to contribute to in this column,” Kennedy writes.
“American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize investments that benefit the Chinese Communist Party,” according to U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin. “[I]nstitutions that want preferential tax treatment must choose ….”
Manhattan Institute distinguished fellow harshly critiques Kenneth Griffin’s $300 million contribution to Harvard.
Matt K. Lewis’ new book highlights partisan politicians benefiting greatly—politically and even personally—from a tax-exempt, nonprofit, charitable organization.
Part of American Confidence in Elections Act.
Learning again from a still-relevant event a decade ago at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.
“Such an examination by a respected Congressional agency could reassure both critics and defenders of the IRS generally and the Exempt Organizations division in particular,” according to Ellen P. Aprill and Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer.
Jurisdiction includes nonprofit tax law and its oversight.
Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he issued a “civil investigative demand” to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) as part of an investigation into whether the nonprofit charity solicited donations under the pretext of protecting voters from Covid-19, while actually using raised money for partisan electioneering or election… Continue reading Ken Paxton’s questions of Mark Zuckerberg-funded CTCL show investigative power of state attorneys general
Active, outward, consistent conservatives getting top score in Forbes Philanthropy Score 2022: zero.
The spotlight on the Newman’s Own Foundation invites scrutiny of its overall business model, one based on virtue-signaling intended to influence consumer behavior.
Criticisms of Barre Seid’s historic $1.6 billion to the Marble Freedom Trust are ignorant of both details and context.
At three foundations in the “FoundationMark 15,” 100% of contributions made by employees went to Democrats. At 12, contributions to Democrats exceeded 96%.
Overall, 81% oppose such tax incentivization, according to new survey from Institute for Policy Studies and conducted by Ipsos. Ninety percent of conservatives oppose it; 80% of liberals do.
As excerpts of a Watergate hearing show, concerns about the political activity of tax-incentivized charity are not new—having arisen soon after the 1969 Tax Reform Act that still provides the legal structure of nonprofitdom.
Don’t miss influential author, in new book, floating idea “in order to avoid an excessive concentration of power within a small number of entities and to enable less wealthy entities to develop.”
And look at how to rebuild it.
Editor David Callahan notes that philanthropic and nonprofit trade groups might “be out of touch with their own communities.”
High trust in nonprofits and philanthropy correlates with high socioeconomic status. Democrats trust philanthropy appreciably more than the general population.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s promise that any efforts to “clean up” the politicization of nonprofits will be pursued regardless of various practical effects on those engaging in it may present an opportunity.
As tracked by Candid, of top 200 givers, 121 are left-of-center and 21 are right-of-center. All but two of top 20 are left-leaning.
Congressional interest in sector’s activities seems to be increasing.
There’s a lot to talk about.
This article, republished with permission, originally appeared on the great Rockefeller Archive Center’s (RAC’s) RE:source website on February 20, 2019. It is based on the keynote address of a conference RAC organized on the 50th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1969. (Footnotes omitted.) Fifty years ago, on December 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon… Continue reading From populist crusade to comprehensive regulation: the Tax Reform Act of 1969
The lazy failure to burn down much of this progressivist cladding has hampered conservatives at every turn. And yet they still do nothing to react against the laws, groups and funding sources that they control and suffer from.
Including potential witnesses.
Given the growing number of harsh progressive, populist, and just plain rule-of-law critiques about so much of unelected, unaccountable, and tax-favored establishment philanthropy, there may be a desire on the part of policymakers to aggressively examine some or all of it again.
“[P]rivate foundations had become increasingly active in political and legislative activities,” according to Congressional staff. “[F]unds were spent in a ways clearly designed to favor certain candidates. In some cases, this was done by financing registration campaigns in certain areas.”
“Patman had much to allege with respect to his Committee’s accumulated evidence of … foundation abuse of the sanctuary of income tax exemption,” according to the Midland, Mich., tax attorney’s 1964 law-review article.
Adding a new entry—but still counting on one hand, maybe two.
“Political activity,” according to the Reece Committee general counsel’s 1958 book, “endangers the future of the foundation as an institution.”
What might she think of The New York Times’ in-depth investigation of nonprofits and politics?
2022 Edelman Trust Barometer finds trust in business remains higher than that in NGOs.
“I could hear them as if it were yesterday. I can hear the voices.”
On the newest “Givers, Doers, & Thinkers” podcast, Philanthropy Daily publisher Jeremy Beer talks to Giving Review co-editor and Capital Research Center senior fellow Michael E. Hartmann about the biggest challenges facing philanthropy today.
Tax likely to remain at current level, at least for now. “The Harvard faculty club should lay in extra scotch for members to drown their sorrows,” according to a tax-policy expert.
Considering the proper distance between charity and politics.
Foundations’ collective effort presented as exemplary isn’t, or at least not for the reasons the consultants think.
On the newest InfluenceWatch podcast, Capital Research Center (CRC) research director Michael Watson talks to CRC senior fellow and Giving Review co-editor Michael E. Hartmann for 26 minutes about establishment philanthropy in America and some recent harsh reactions to and critiques of it.
Leslie Lenkowsky: “obvious solution” to “money not really being used for charitable purposes” is to end “tax deduction for all contributions.”
In the latest installment of an ongoing interview series, First Things contributing editor Mark Bauerlein talks to Giving Review co-editor and Capital Research Center senior fellow Michael E. Hartmann for just more than half an hour about philanthropy in America today.
An outline of options.
Wealthy elite gravitate toward elitism, however well-endowed already.
Ivy League degree, military service, tough Midwesterner who could throw a punch when necessary.
Some of biggest pillars of America’s liberal philanthropic establishment to not just financially support, but actually participate in project.
Online Murdock Trust conversation features lively exchanges.
In the wake of madness or even just in the midst of mere distraction, look elsewhere, and deeper.
Scott Rasmussen national survey finds substantial support for ending tax exemption for wealthy institutions with nonprofit status.
Technological tracking to trump trust—and risk trampling on it.
ICYMI.
Including about the charitable and the political.
An insular and distinctive cartel, pretty much ignoring everyone else, fueling woke capitalism.
Professors make strong case for high-status grantmaking to be taken more seriously within management and organizational research. Such increased attention would be well-warranted, including from much-wider circles.
New poll from Vox and Data for Progress is consistent with previous ones throughout history: people are quite willing to tax, but unwilling to crush the very wealthy.
The Gathering’s Fred Smith calls a thought-provoking, almost-jarring question—for us all, but perhaps for conservatism and conservative philanthropy in particular.
She probably should have known better, and sure seemed to have known so once.
The Center for American Restoration, the American Cornerstone Institute, and the Center for the American Way of Life provide additional options for ideas-driven, policy-oriented conservative givers to consider.
Of the top 50 overall, colleges and universities are more than half. Very few, if any, of either type of the huge funds are clearly controlled by conservatives.
Molly Ball confirms it, fails at trying to creatively mischaracterize it, and raises more questions about it.
Before an almost-century-old social club, retired Bradley Foundation vice president remembers a famous cinematic bank run and overviews conservative-grantmaking history, then talks about philanthropic hubris, grantmaking in Russia, the Bradley brothers’ affinity for Milwaukee, and an increasing preference for localism on the part of donors.
Johns Hopkins case study explores challenges, and opportunities, facing philanthropic supporters of respected think tank as it faced bankruptcy 35 years ago.
The Bradley Foundation’s librarian has been doing it very well, and with a smile, for a quarter of a century.
And he wants more of it to flow, and from more people.
Highest-income individuals use deduction the most and get biggest benefit from it, according to Joint Committee on Taxation.
Regularly updated section will overview, and try to broaden a normally narrow, public discourse about grantmaking.
More evidence from Give.org, which also notes some trends worth attention.
Lots of “expertise” from left-of-center grantmakers.
Suggesting some sunlight.
“Unlike others who simply demonize conservatives, Gara sought to understand what we believe and how we went about supporting it,” Bill Schambra notes.
A significant, and widening, flow of funding through legally permissible public-charity lobbying is influenced by non-charitable interests, new study finds.
Pitt Law’s Philip Hackney suggests denying tax-exempt status to 501(c)(3) groups that aren’t public charities.
Names at the top of the list, math on the “back of the envelope:” outnumbered, outspent.
An explanation and defense of his once-uncontroversial efforts to support America’s history and heritage would be well-warranted.
Assessing the adverse implications of intellectual intransigence.
If conservative donors hope to effect real change on college campuses, they need to be very careful about the ways they offer funding.
And the need for it in philanthropy.
Philanthropy can learn from Ike—who said at Normandy in 1964 of those who preceded us, “these people gave us a chance ….”
As Lawrence Lessig wrote, “code is law.”
Why did Candid so suddenly shrink in horror from one of the central premises of Big Philanthropy?
Briefly overviewing some potential grantmaking options.
From D.C.-centricity, to an emphasis on the local, humble, and practical.
Including for those progressive foundations that supported and promoted it.
In the wake of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York’s disavowal of Margaret Sanger.
In charity and corporate governance, there can be mixed motives, proper or improper purposes, and influenced independence. All should be subject to scrutiny, and maybe cause for concern.
Conservative philanthropy should be constantly on the lookout for young people deep within the heart of progressivism who are beginning to realize that, however noble its ends, its means always turn out to be illiberal and oppressive.
Exploring ways to, if inclined, support that which ultimately undergirds Western civilization itself.
Courteousness, controversy, the culture, and courage.
“[T]he need is not so much for the Government to design new programs as it is for the Nation to generate new will.”
And the meaning behind the money to build and maintain them.
Philanthropy tied for third.
For conservative givers, a sober assessment, with high stakes.
ActBlue’s clues.
The big, bold bonds bet of the Ford Foundation and its allies in establishment liberal philanthropy.
Giving Pledge letters contain an internal contradiction, an analysis notes. If genuine, it could be a healthy one.
As shown in and by Sanford, Mich., it’s often when massive devastation is visited on a population that it discovers its true character.
A seemingly automatic, and unfortunate, link.
Populist wave of resentment not likely to be turned back by an abstruse discussion of the finer points of tax law.
While trust in all institutions has increased during coronavirus crisis, trust in government has increased more—and in U.S., Republicans’ trust in NGOs has actually declined slightly.
Peter J. Hasson’s new book reminds us that Google’s YouTube and Amazon’s charitable program rely on the discredited group, too.
“For the souls that are within us, no one can degrade.”
One in particular.
An exhortation—and legislation?—about charitable endowments.
Revisiting how to better bolster our shared allegiance to America and its principles. Of potential interest to donors, of course—but maybe also to parents who’ve become involuntary headmasters of their own home “academies” because of the coronavirus crisis.
William E. Simon Foundation president and Manhattan Institute senior fellow James Piereson responds to arguments that foundations should join together in doing more to eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions on an emergency basis.
They should spend their tax-exempt dollars on real philanthropy, not helping their favorite politicians get elected.
Why progressive expertise, guilty of alarming excesses, now?
At last, our largest foundations may see benefit in foregoing all their restrictions, processes, and expectations—opting instead for trust in grantees.
There is a Great Divide.
The importance of institutions.
A sermon that bears repeating.
Really thinking afresh.
The war for the minds of every generation must be fought anew lest the gains of the past be lost.
How’s it going?
After all these years, even more patience is needed in education philanthropy.
And foster continued healthy discourse within and among all of them.
In the current context, it certainly raises several important questions, large and small.
Twitter thread provocatively lets loose on problems and shortcomings, challenges and opportunities.
Where philanthropy might want to look in our current period of conflict.
Familiar takes on interests and institutions, among other things.
A brief excerpt.
It’s not so unique. Nor are small, local, hometown ones like it built by national government as easily as the large-scale interstate-highway system.
Healthy cooperation and equally healthy collisions between fully functioning capitalism, government, and civil society.
The arrogance of assuming all people automatically agree with “taking action” on a progressive agenda.
Exploring how to better bolster our shared allegiance to America and its principles.
And her response to those who consider it a device for “social control.”
Once giving, volunteering, and self-help are seen by the public for what they have always been to the philanthropic professionals—mere myths that complicate the work of the credentialed experts—what will happen to the legitimacy of those professionals?
He conducted himself in the proper manner, and for the proper reasons.
And she deserves some help.
It’s less important than the “pilgrimage.”
“Presentism” (over-)confidently relies on mere dots.
The approaches of some grassroots activists and conservative philanthropies are much closer to each other than those flowing from progressivism—which shift power away from the local grassroots to distant intellectual elites, who consider grassroots efforts mere “Band-Aids.”
“With all due respect, you’re not listening to us.”
What may become a common way of “contracting out” the role of ensuring steadfast adherence to the will of the donor.
Troubling implications for foundations and grantmaking if those challenges fail.
Needing to nuance intensities in tension.
And totalitarianism, transcendence, and the triumph of truth.
Progressive critiques of private philanthropy ignore prior public experience with government spending.
Always greeted with a smile, jousted with good nature, and toasted with cheer.
Briefly overviewing some potential grantmaking options.
You may have missed it.
Not skew corporate pronouncements and practices toward philanthropic purposes.
It’s not over. (It never is.)
Sector-bending has always been a symptom of a larger intellectual problem: utopianism.
As the current Brewers owner says, “Teams can go in two directions” when major setbacks happen.
A “come-to-history” moment about the long and winding road ahead, deeper into a dictatorship of virtue.
Those who care about the sector should probably be a little unsettled.
A (merely) diversity-minded progressive donor should indeed venture with utmost caution into the unsettled new world of cultural philanthropy.
We have been here before: a debate about capitalism between clerics and capitalists occurred during preparation of a bishops’ pastoral letter on the economy in America almost four decades ago. The lay letter on the economy warrants serious re-examination, given the new debates into which its concepts should be re-introduced.
Picking up on its potential wider implications, including for philanthropy.
Picking up on aspects of good policy-oriented giving.
Conservatives should rethink their giving and look elsewhere.
And where to look for rebuilding self-governance.
Another option, to which one might think there would be more receptivity.
On Labor Day, remembering Penn Kemble … and Robert Nisbet.
Are management training and statistical measurement really the keys to solving our deepest social problems?
Reflections on my co-editors’ conversation with Howard Fuller.
Too tidy and convenient an explanation for today’s conservative policy activism.
“Let’s you and him fight.”
And for conservative philanthropy, a small measure of comfort.
More are recognizing America’s “identity crisis” as urgent.
Pretense, resentment, arrogance, and thus plausibility.
Remembering, and trying to learn from, a good philanthropic role played more than two decades ago.
Civil society should not be seen by experts, or funders, merely as a tool to solve social problems.
Pillars of establishment philanthropy—including GuideStar and Charity Navigator—should be subject to increased scrutiny because of what went on at SPLC and their reactions to it.
