Artists of Change

An editorial on top-tier philanthropists from the New Statesman:

And when the rich give, they are unaccountable: the Gates Foundation answers only to its own board. While we may not like our governments' uses of our money - it is hardly a prudent use of public funds for the British government to spend £4.5bn ($8.2bn) on the Iraq war, or for its US equivalent to spend $318bn on the same - at least we have the option of voting the politicians who make these kinds of choices out of office after a few years. There is no such redress if evangelical philanthropists get things wrong.

The author's assumption that government can be more effective philanthropically than organizations such as the Gates Foundation, is misguided. One, private organizations are designed to benefit non-profits in the most transparent way possible. Governments are filled with bureaucracy and prone to vast amounts of waste. Second, to assume that governments are being held accountable for their spending is absolutely ludicrous. In this black & white, polarized world we live in, what charities a government gives to aren't even in the top 50 of voter issues.

Posted by tyler at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From The Times in London:

Mr Buffett, with wealth far greater than Mr Soros’s and an intellect at least his equal, could have created another dynamic, competitive new market in social, scientific or philanthropic ideas. By creating a new foundation or network of foundations with its own philosophy and charitable criteria, Mr Buffett could have made a real difference to the world. Now he will not.

A rather ludicrous article that posits that Warren Buffett's massive donation may be "a symptom of arrogance and intellectual bankruptcy, revealing how the world is ruled by a sickeningly complacent and incestuous plutocratic elite."

Buffett has committed his billions (not giving it one lump sum, as the author states, but in annual amounts tied to the interest raised on the principal) to an organization known for its effectiveness. He didn't want to start up a new organization from scratch and instead committed his money to a proven organization.

I think Buffett has done a tremendous service to philanthropy as a whole. Overnight, he raised the visibility of giving and the potential to make a difference in the world. The PR on his act is incalculable - people are name-dropping Gates and Buffett in casual conversations. The effects of his acts will continue to be felt for perhaps decades to come.

Posted by tyler at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Tony Gibbs, Charity Training, UK (printed in Oh My News):

"...it is also important to note that many philanthropists (or philanthrocapitalists) are the ones who decide on the beneficiaries for their money and are not easily swayed from their own aims and objectives. Incidentally, just as it is equally important for charities to make their aims and objectives clear in their own governing document and not be swayed in order to "chase the money."

Just like politics, the more money that pours into philanthropic organizations, the more there will be outside competition for influence over the goals and objectives of the organizations. By harnessing the giving power of smaller donors, financial assistance becomes explicit support for the goals and objectives of the organizations - smaller donors not having the efficacy to mold the inner workings of a charity will instead be very selective in the organizations they do donate to, and that is a direct acknowledgement of the message that is broadcast.

Posted by tyler at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)