Popular Latest Sign In Subscribe

MORE FROM IDEAS 2018

America Misunderstands the Men Are Socialized to ‘Act The ‘Special Genius’ of Dogs The Philosophy of ‘Circular
Declaration of Independence Inhumanely’ NICOLAS POLLOCK Design’
Because of a Typo NICOLAS POLLOCK KASIA CIEPLAK-MAYR VON
BALDEGG
KASIA CIEPLAK-MAYR VON
BALDEGG

TECHNOLOGY

Against Big Philanthropy

Philanthropy sounds nice, but it’s still a tax-sheltered way that
plutocrats exercise power, says Stanford's Rob Reich.

By Alexis C. Madrigal

Bill Gates (Denis Balibouse / Reuters)

JUNE 27, 2018 SHARE

The world’s tech titans are amassing some of the biggest fortunes ever created.
Some, like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, are giving most of it away. While
there have been some dissenters, the general reaction to this kind of
philanthropy has been positive. Bill Gates has the highest net favorability of
any major political figure not named Colin Powell; he’s seen as warm and
competent.

But Stanford professor Rob Reich, who directs the university’s Center for
Ethics in Society, explores an argument against philanthropy in a
forthcoming book, Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and
How It Can Do Better. It can be summarized in a sentence:

“Big Philanthropy is definitionally a plutocratic voice in our democracy,”

Reich told me, “an exercise of power by the wealthy that is unaccountable,
non-transparent, donor-directed, perpetual, and tax-subsidized.”

This was not previously a minority position. If you look back to the origins of
these massive foundations in the Gilded Age fortunes of Andrew Carnegie
and John D. Rockefeller, their creation was massively controversial, Reich
said, and for good reason.

“A hundred years ago, there was enormous skepticism that creating a

philanthropic entity was either a way to cleanse your hands of the dirty way
you’d made your money or, more interestingly, that it was welcome from the
standpoint of democracy,” Reich told me at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is
co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “Because big philanthropy
is an exercise of power, and in a democracy, any form of concentrated power
deserves scrutiny, not gratitude.”

Both Teddy Roosevelt and union leaders like the AFL-CIO’s Samuel Gompers
decried the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation. Roosevelt’s presidential
opponent, William Howard Taft, criticized legislation that would have
enabled the foundation as “a bill to incorporate Mr. Rockefeller.”

Our era has not seen similar skepticism, despite the wealth inequality that
serves as the precondition for such massive foundations. Though perhaps it is
returning. In addition to Reich’s book, Anand Giridharadas will publish an
adjacent argument in August about the new philanthropy, Winners Take All:
The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Joanne Barkan has published in
Dissent, The Guardian, and other publications about big philanthropy’s
foibles, too.

Reich’s work, however, is compact, and comes direct from the heart of the
new wealth in Silicon Valley. He can tick off the problems with each structural
component of foundations.

First, big foundations are unaccountable. They answer neither to voters or to

marketplace competition.

Second, they do not have to be transparent. They file one tax form. The $8
billion Simons Foundation International doesn’t even have a website.

Third, they are donor-directed. The employees—the people on the ground—

“can’t determine the mission” of the organization.

Fourth, the donor’s intent must be respected even when the donor has died.
Societies grow and change, but the mission defined by the creator of the
foundation remains the mission in perpetuity.

And fifth, on top of all this, foundations are tax-subsidized. “We’re at a

moment in American society in which the winners in the marketplace attempt
to diminish their tax burdens, both corporately and individually, as low as
they can legally go,” Reich told me. “Then having diminished their tax burden
as low as it can go, they turn around and set up a private foundation, taking a
further tax break.”

Then, with money that would have otherwise have gone to the government,
where at least there is nominal democratic control over spending priorities,
the philanthropists use that money on whatever social purpose they’ve decided
to support.

Is this system, as Reich describes it, really one that any democracy would
want?

“Instead of extending our enormous gratitude to the greatest philanthropists

among us as these icons of civic beneficence, we should be scrutinizing and
criticizing them,” Reich said. “Not because philanthropy is necessarily bad,
but because it is an exercise of power.”

Reich does have some hope for the foundations—a suggestion for how they
could do their work in ways that benefit democracies like ours.
“Foundations,” he said, “should be making long-time-horizon, risky
experiments in social innovation that the government won’t do and the
marketplace is unlikely to do.”

1 more free article this month Sign in Subscribe Now