Taxpayers sue the government for its bogus "Faith-Based Initiative," arguing that just maybe the government [and perhaps this one in particular] can't be trusted with the notion that the it shouldn't be establishing religion. The ruling isn't even an affirmation of the idea that religious groups shouldn't be excluded from government funding. Nope. It's about ensuring the President can spend money any damn way he likes:

''Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected,'' said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Lynn called Alito's statement that Congress could step in ''quite incredible because the damage is done when the president acts.'' Lynn said Congress cannot anticipate action by the president that might violate the constitutional separation of church and state. ''We have the courts to do precisely this, rein in the president or the Congress,'' he said.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal money.

The justices' decision revolved around a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that enabled taxpayers to challenge government programs that promote religion.

That earlier decision involved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which financed teaching and instructional materials in religious schools in low-income areas.

''This case falls outside'' the narrow exception allowing such lawsuits to proceed, Alito wrote. Congress must provide a specific appropriation, he said, and in the suit over the administration conferences the White House pulled the money out of general appropriations.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said the court should have allowed the challenge to proceed.

The majority ''closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury,'' wrote Souter. ''I see no basis for this distinction.''

Finding the silliest legal logic to allow their friends on the Christian right to move the "conservative agenda" forward will no doubt become a hallmark of the new Supreme bobsy twins Roberts and Alito.

As has been well documented, the "Faith-Based Initiative" was a pile of crap designed to get Christianists to feel like their newly installed government loved them. Alito and Roberts came through for those who pressed so hard for their nominations to the Supreme Court. Here's Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council today:

Whether it's a case of faith in the public square, opposition to homosexual behavior, or simply the popularity of conservative talk radio, liberals are showing a disturbing tendency to try to stifle free speech for those who disagree with them.

Apparently Mr. Perkins, who can raise boatloads of tax-free dough for his tax-exempt organization by demonizing homosexuals in the cause of "Christ"; can himself go to church every day of the week; can send his kids to a Christian school where they learn, with government approval, that god created the earth 10,000 years ago and that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale before he [not the whale] was puked up on shore; can watch Christian television, read Christian books, and go to the cinema to view Christian films; can stand on any public street corner and shout to the heavens about his belief in god, is having his "free speech" threatened because a group of non-believers believe he shouldn't get a government handout simply because he's a believer.

 

It takes a funny to awaken PB from the Summer slumber:

For the first time, one of the nation’s largest foundations is venturing into virtual worlds to play host to activities and discussions and explore the role that philanthropy might play there.

As if foundations currently exist in the real world.

I think it would be good if someday we had a President that actually needed the money.

Another reason to love Barry Bonds:

Bonds is also increasingly stingy with the Hall of Fame. He has so far refused to donate any valuable artifacts from his chase of Aaron this season. Not a spike, helmet or bat so far.

“I take care of me,” Bonds told reporters. Bonds is his own museum curator, meticulously authenticating his memorabilia and stashing all of his goodies in a warehouse, as The Associated Press reported.

We just couldn't ask for a better role model for the kids.

Perla Ni at SSIR:

“I’ve randomly inserted pictures of my grandkids in my progress reports,” one executive director of a prominent mid-Atlantic nonprofit told me. “I’ve inserted lines like, ‘If you really read this, call me.’” He was bemoaning the fact that he’s forced to spend time writing reports that his foundation officer doesn’t seem to read. “Next time,” he said, “I’m going to put in an ad for my used car.”

I really think this is the exception rather than the rule, although I think Perla's post is largely accurate in that foundations tend to come up with a bureaucratic solution to every compliance challenge.

I do think she's a bit wrong here, though:

The nonprofit sector is developing in all of these directions, but it isn’t quite there yet. We don’t have an accepted understanding of effectiveness. There is no code of ethics, except for fundraisers. And if we did have a code of ethics, there would be no enforcement body to suspend or admonish anyone who broke it.

Sure, there's no collective code of ethics that nonprofits and foundations adhere to, and if someone manages to make that happen they deserve a Nobel Prize. Many nonprofits, and quite a few foundations, have codes of ethics which they make public. Do they adhere to them? Good luck finding out.

Joe links to advice for those nonprofit brand managers to whom pithiness comes as a challenge.

The Capital Research Center Web site has fallen silent. How are we supposed to keep ourselves from our anti-free market big government communist tendencies?

The Rockefeller Foundation has posted a niftly little form in which you can submit a brilliant idea. Here's a sample:

1. Are you submitting this inquiry on your own behalf or on behalf of an organization? Organization.

2. Have you ever received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation? No.

3. What is the problem this project or idea would aim to solve? Deposing Saddam Hussein; bringing democracy to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

4. What is the idea / opportunity to solve it? Invade Iraq.

5. How will this idea positively impact the lives of poor or vulnerable people? (Please be as specific as you can about numbers and geography of people who will be reached.) When the 20 million people of Iraq are free from Saddam Hussein they will immediately unify around American style democracy and lift themselves out of poverty by embracing the entrepreneurial spirit of Sam Walton.

6. Why now? 9/11 mojo, man.

7. What is the measurable impact that could be expected in 3-5 years? Three to Five years? You kiddin' me? We'll be outta there in six months.

Your Name: Bill "let's bomb Iran, too" Kristol

Your Organization: AEI

PND:

Following the recommendation of the inspector general, the IRS is developing a long-term strategy to automate the process of identifying potential terrorists and is testing software to check names on forms filed by charitable groups.

Glad they jumped right on that.

Sean Stannard-Stockton on how the growth of individual philanthropy could [or couldn't] diminish the influence of large philanthropic institutions:

We are in the midst of a tidal shift from institutions towards individuals. But this shift is not about a zero sum game where individuals take power from institutions. Instead, it is about a growing pie, as the role of philanthropy gains importance in our culture and participation rates soar.

I respectfully disagree. We live in a quick response world. The faster we can make something happen the more impact we can have. Individuals can do that. Foundations can't. Sure, there's always room for well-thought-out solutions to seemingly intractable problems, but private foundations think themselves to death. In the current age, private foundations are the dinosaurs, for the most part unable and unwilling to adapt to how the world works, hoping they can still throw their weight around enough to maintain influence. They may continue to have a big piece of the pie, but it'll be so stale it won't be worth eating.

Joe highlights this article in the Wall Street Journal about reality teevee philanthropy. My take: no nudity, profanity, or violence and it's a tough ratings getter.

The Council on Foundations 2007 Annual Conference will take place in a few weeks in Seattle. The theme is a typically bland "Philanthropy and the Challenges of Our Time: Making a Difference at Home and Abroad." The challenges of our time are defined by COF as poverty, public health, the environment and disaster preparedness.

All well and good. But one would think that "making a difference at home and abroad" might involve some discussion about the most pressing issue of our time: the war in Iraq.

Nope. A search of PDFs on COF's site of the various days' agendas turns up just one reference to Iraq. A "meet the filmmaker" event on Sunday, April 29 with documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. Other than that, nothing. COF President and CEO Steve Gunderson couldn't even be bothered to pull together a one-sided panel discussion involving his fellow Republicans Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter, moderated by Brit Hume.

Today's foundations have been woefully silent on the policies of the Bush Administration. Those that purport to support civil society abroad have stood by and watched the disintegration of civil society at home -- from a botched war to domestic spying to a President who feels no compulsion to adhere to the law.

Foundation leaders have been cowed by a political environment that demonizes dissent; their fortitude [if they had any in the first place] sapped by a need to not be seen as partisan or unpatriotic. They've turned their backs on one of the tenants of private foundations: providing an independent voice unfettered by government or profit-making influences.

That COF can't hold even a single open discussion about the war in Iraq simply confirms how foundations have lost their way entirely when it comes to looking honestly at how government policies impact the lives of those individuals foundations claim to help.

In a word: disgraceful.

UPDATE: I'm not suggesting foundation leaders embark on Bush-bashing speaking tours, and I understand the war is a toxic subject for any public figure to talk about. What I see is a lack of discussion/analysis in foundationland about the ongoing impact of the war on our society. This thing's been going on for more than four years; you'd think by now at least some foundations would've found their voice on the subject.

Now I'm back.

Andrew Sullivan has been bashing the Human Rights Campaign Fund for its lack of accomplishments. He cites Charity Navigator's rating. My favorite bit [quoting an e-mail from a reader who had contributed to HRC]:

We may not have a lot of pro-gay legislation on the books, but we do have a nice collection of pretty bumper stickers.

Ouch.

Trent Stamp says:

I'm tired of getting indignant about politicians' not disclosing their roles in their private foundations. Despite most people seeing it as no big deal, I still say it's a blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules, and another case where we demonstrate our belief that non-profit transparency and accountability is less important than we would expect in the for-profit world. The latest culprit is none other than Hillary Clinton.

Nothing wrong with setting high bars, Trent. I'm all for it. I think what we've got in this case, however, is an oversight on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Not much evidence that this was a "blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules." Nothing's been unearthed that would indicate Mrs. Clinton had anything to hide.

I understand Trent's a single-issue advocate, and getting charities to play by the rules is a worthy endeavor. Charity Navigator provides an important service to donors. Every now and then, though, a little context is helpful.

The DC Examiner examines the surge of foundation leaders on Capitol Hill last week. The answer to the nonprofit sector's problems? A caucus:

A caucus generally serves as a focal point for members interested in pursuing a common legislative goal. For example, the philanthropy caucus is a potential platform for members to hold briefings on sector needs for other elected officials and coordinate legislation.

I'd file this under "be careful what you wish for." A platform to discuss "sector needs" can quickly become a platform to discuss "sector abuses."

Capital Research Center bemoans the recent outcome of that nasty little bedrock of American democracy we call an election.

White Courtesy Telephone riffs on the Ford Foundation's search for a new CEO by giving us four fundamental questions of philanthropy. In WCT's spirit of thoughtful consideration of the state of the sector, I offer up these ten potential candidates for any current or future foundation CEO opening. Pros and Cons are provided for each.

Donald Rumsfeld: Pros: Wants a lot of bang for the buck. Speaks incomprehensible language. Cons: Stubborn [a nightmare for the board of directors].

Newt Gingrich: Pros: Resilient. Ruthless [could easily inform grantees that commitments wouldn't be met due to the foundation going in a "different direction"]. Cons: No moral authority.

Lynn Cheney: Pros: Past grantmaking experience. Quite magical with the keyboard. Cons: Bedmate [will require time off to be by husband's side during impeachment proceedings].

Jesse Ventura: Pros: Independent thinker. Board management skills. Cons: Nightmare for PR department. See here, here and here.

Scooter Libby: Pros: Understands the fundraising challenges of grantees. Cons: Could be unavailable until 2017.

Laura Bush: Pros: Can charm the socks off you [great for a community foundation post!]. Cons: Budget management. Would require a driver.

Simon Cowell: Pros: Keen evaluator of talent. Sharp wit. Cons: Perhaps better suited for hooliganism.

Donald Trump: Pros: Fires people, and god knows nobody ever gets fired at foundations [except me, when they find out who I am]. The Donald blogs! Cons: Comb-over. Nightmare for the PR department.

Katherine Harris: Pros: Understands donor intent. Cons: Undergraduate education funders beware. May have staff morale issues.

Terrence Scanlon: Pros: Runs non-partisan, unbiased think tank on philanthropy. Role as Chairman of Consumer Products Safety Commission under Reagan could improve in-kind giving program. Cons: If founding donor is deceased, could spend large sums on mediums to determine donor intent.

And I deeply appreciate Phil.

The Capital Research Center ought to have fun with this.

I'm all for getting out the whipping stick when it comes to excesses in compensation within the nonprofit sector, particularly for nonprofits that have a truly charitable mission. And I understand why Stephanie Strom, as the nonprofits beat writer for the Times, covered this story:

The I.R.S. has also asked 40 individuals to pay a total of $20 million in excise taxes, which is the penalty it imposes when it determines a nonprofit executive has been paid excessively.

“We found some problems,” said Steven T. Miller, the commissioner in charge of the I.R.S. division overseeing tax-exempt and government entities. “Whether they were due to confusion, poor design of the tax forms used by these organizations or something more nefarious, I can’t tell you.”

He said the results of the inquiry, which found flaws in the tax forms of a third of the 1,800 charities and foundations examined, convinced the agency that it needed to do more in the area of compensation at nonprofits.

But I must say I'm a bit weary of this type of coverage when, comparatively, there's very little coverage of this issue in the for-profit sector. Perhaps it's because business reporters tend to fall in love with their subjects or they don't know enough about the issues they're trying to cover. There's enough corporate cheerleading on a daily basis on CNBC to make free-market purists blush.

And don't give me the line about nonprofits being tax-exempt and thus should be "more accountable" for their actions than for-profit corporations. The current administration has done it's best to make the corporate sector tax-exempt; finding creative ways to avoid paying corporate taxes has become brilliant beltway fun. Those organizations obviously deserving of tax-exempt status ought to have a special and inscrutable place in the heart of the current version of the IRS.

Frumkin [from SocialEdge]:

Large private foundations do not seem to embrace this notion of scale as readily as individuals, though there are some notable exceptions to this. Picking any single nonprofit organization as the one that will be taken to scale may appear unfair and capricious. It implies that a single donor should be able to disturb the competitive landscape and decide who wins and loses in the nonprofit arena.  While this may be precisely what an individual would like to achieve, few foundations want to be perceived as inequitable and heavy-handed. As a consequence, they shy away from tipping the scales completely in favor of one organization over another. Moreover, foundations may be less likely to bring an organization to scale because their interests are not in the organizations they fund per se, but in the specific programs and outcomes which these organizations deliver.  The foundations have priorities that overlap somewhat with the agendas of nonprofit organizations. When these priorities change, funders can and do find new organizations.

Interesting points. When foundations really get the ownership bug, they do a Pew. In one way foundations are like venture capitalists [a tired metaphor, I'm aware]; they want to share the investment risk. I think foundations are becoming less reticent to "disturb the competitive landscape," and to let the nonprofit marketplace play itself out. I see fewer missions to rescue nonprofits [excluding those close to home and soul] that aren't performing. Frumkin's right, though, that foundations' priorities, as currently defined, don't involve helping their grantees grow strategically. That's unfortunate.

WaPo:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

As had been widely blogged, Washington Post reporter John Solomon has perfected the art of taking a relatively minor story [or nonstory] and hyping it to earth-shattering levels. Note to the idiots who run the Post and front-paged this "story": It's a fucking foundation that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars away to charities. I'm sure all that cash would've brought so much ill will the Clintons' way that they purposely didn't disclose it. And, as Josh Marshall points out, the Clinton Family Foundation's tax returns have, as required by the IRS, been publicly available since its inception.

Next up for tomorrow's edition of the Post: Hillary's eighth-grade report card not signed by parents and returned to teacher

Tactical Philanthropy on pain-in-the-ass givers:

Somehow I keep picturing a waiter in a restaurant telling a customer who is complaining about the meal, “Sir, if you can’t complain nicely, I’m not going to serve you any more”. And then the diner leaving the restaurant and never coming back.

Can we come up with some sort of metric that measure the ROI on the interactions with such donors?

Three phone calls from a donor in one week complaining about how their name wasn't in large enough type on the donor recognition plaque: -$2,000.

Two outbursts during a donor gathering about feeling "marginalized": -$2,350.

Four threats to "pull my generous, heart-felt support for this damn organization" if junior doesn't get that marketing internship: -$3,700?

Shoving donor into their Jaguar and telling them never to come back: priceless.

Foundations do the government's job:

Seven philanthropies are announcing today that they will contribute more than $4.3 million to help treat uninsured workers and residents who developed serious illnesses after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

This, of course, is the "traditional philanthropy" conservatives love. When you've got charities available to paint over capitalism's flaws, your belief in the stock market as the arbiter of right and wrong can remain firmly intact.

There's no entry for "philanthropy" in the exciting new Conservapedia, a conservative counterpunch to that left-wing online conpiracy known as Wikipedia. Here's all you need to know:

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Let me offer up an entry for "philanthropy" that complies with Conservapedia's philosophy:

Philanthropy is an activity conducted primarily by Christians who believe "God helps those who help themselves." Examples of good philanthropy would be a cash gift to the Hudson Institute's scholars program. Specifying that your gift go directly toward the Institute's research on the War on Terror, under the watchful direction of Lewis Libby, would be a keen example of what is called "targeted philanthropy." Another great example would be even a small gift, say given by someone who just started working at McDonald's, to the American Enterprise Institute's research on why the minimum wage is bad. Talk about helping yourself!

Most philanthropy in America is conducted by individuals giving to their local houses of worship, but be skeptical of any giving by those of non-Christian faiths. A small percentage of philanthropy in America comes from what are called "foundations"; this is something of an oxymoron given most foundations are left-leaning, and thus seek to tear down, rather than build up, America's foundation, which we all know is based on conservative evangelical Christianity.

Click to submit.

UPDATE: Conservapedia has apparently been swallowed by submissions mocking it. Shame.

WaPo:

The Pennsylvania Senate was not Fumo's only source of OPM, according to the indictment. In 1991 he founded a nonprofit organization called Citizens' Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, and over the next decade he allegedly steered over $30 million in state funds and corporate grants to the group. Then, according to the indictment, he used it as his personal piggy bank.

The Citizens' Alliance allegedly paid $250,000 for Fumo's political polls. It allegedly bought a $36,000 Chrysler minivan for Fumo. It also allegedly bought a Jeep Wrangler, a Dodge Caravan, a Lincoln Navigator and a Cadillac Escalade for the use of Fumo and his cronies. Plus a bulldozer for Fumo's farm and $75,000 for various items for Fumo's various homes, including $3,929 worth of "mosquito magnets," $171 worth of tiki torches and, for $6,500, 19 Oreck vacuum cleaners.

OPM=other people's money=corporate grants. Nice.

the "dude" would have been a prolific program officer. Thanks, Phil.

Jeff Brooks makes some interesting observations about how nonprofits should -- and should not -- advertise to potential donors. I disagree on one point: We need much, much more nudity in nonprofit advertising.

but the Supremes will be hearing a case on the constitutionality of the spectacular failure otherwise known as the Faith-Based Initiative:

Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government.

Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout.

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

I wish Gaylor the best of luck, especially when Scalia starts spewing his bullshit about how George Washington was a born again Christian.

From the Washington Examiner:

“The real issue is, how do you raise the bar a little bit above what is now required by law and set out principles that will encourage voluntary action?” asked Duke University Professor Joel L. Fleishman, author and expert on foundations. “By agreeing to these principles, not just foundations but all nonprofits will benefit, as will their donors and volunteers,” he said.

It's usually pressure from outside -- some bad press, a congressional hearing, a grantee uprising -- that gets foundations to act. I wish the best of success to those trying to get foundations and nonprofits to voluntarily adopt a set of best practices. I won't be holding my breath.

Tom Watson at Onphilanthropy gets a little philanthropic motivation from Daytona:

As in Daytona, the real test will come when the "stock cars of change" are no longer manufactured in Detroit at all, but are instead manufactured from scratch by philanthropists in India, and China, and Russia, and Indonesia.

Hopefully, there'll be a little less carnage than there was yesterday.

I disagree, respectfully, with Lucy. The mere fact that a grantseeker can express criticism of a grantmaker in a public forum sponsored by criticized grantmaker is a noticeable sign of progress. Lucy pooh-poohs that it's as "far as it goes." Perhaps, but from inside the private foundation prism this seems to be a pretty big leap.

Hat tip: Phil.

Peter Manzo at SSIR:

So, while articles like the Times series can in some cases lead to changes, much broader improvement in investment practices is more likely to happen when foundation leaders see their peers make good use of investment assets, and most importantly, when those peers receive praise and recognition for doing so. Given its sheer size and the energy it has shown in its philanthropic work to date, we shouldn’t be surprised to eventually see the Gates Foundation help lead the way.

My take is that foundation CEOs get to play the role of corporate CEO when it comes to managing their investment portfolios, and in that role they think no differently than your average shareholder-value-obsessed executive. There's a fair amount of penis envy [with all due apologies to Susan Berresford] among the larger foundations when it comes to asset size and growth, in part driven by a news media that cares more about dollar amounts than anything else [and that includes the philanthropic trade media, perhaps the worst offenders].

On one count Manzo is exactly right. When a number of foundations stick their necks out and adopt uncomprising socially responsible investment policies, other foundations will follow. Especially when "those peers recieve praise and recognition for doing so." Never underestimate the power of the ego stroke. It may be the best motivator for change in the world of institutional philanthropy.

From the Feb. 19 & 26 issue of the New Yorker:

The Poetry Foundation functions as an operating foundation, spending most of its money on its own activities rather than on grants. As Ethel Kaplan, a lawyer at a wealth-management firm and the chair of the board, put it, “Nobody wanted to sit back and read grant proposals—especially from poets.” By January, the foundation had received eighty-eight million dollars. After all the money has been distributed, the foundation’s budget will be about ten million dollars a year.

What? No poetry in grantwriting?

Those keenly interested in the issue of "donor intent" may want to check out Capital Research Center grand poobah Terrence Scanlon's Webcast on the matter, part of a series of seminars sponsored by the right-wing Washington Legal Foundation.

It will help if your idea of fun is watching a medium shade of beige paint dry on the inside wall of an unheated garage during a polar cold watch.

Where'd those three months go?

Full disclosure: I've been participating in a secret Bradley Foundation program [still in beta - yet to be announced] designed to properly educate individuals who don't have a complete understanding of the economic theory that dictates big companies require large sums of federal tax dollars to stay competitive while at the same time the poor sucker making minimum wage will actually be screwed by a federally mandated pay increase. I now feel like I can be a high-functioning contributor to this great capitalistic society of ours. *

* A joke.

The Wall Street Journal reports [sub req.] on the lengths to which Bill Daniels went to preserve his intent for his foundation:

On July 29, 1998, two years before he died, cable-TV pioneer Bill Daniels wrote a letter to the board of his charitable foundation. "Remember that I am a conservative and want no money going to liberal causes," read the one-paragraph letter. "The only thing I have in common with liberals is my concern for the homeless, the poor and the downtrodden." Mr. Daniels also left a seven-page articles of incorporation, laying out 11 program areas the charity was to support.

Then there's this little tidbit:

The goal is to, in effect, keep Mr. Daniels alive for later generations of foundation staff who will take over responsibility after the current board members, all of whom knew Mr. Daniels personally, have retired. Mr. Daniels was married four times but had no children of his own.

I presume conservative religious charities -- groups that promote the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sex is for making babies -- can consider themselves ineligible.

Phil points to this piece in the LA Times about a church that offers its congregants the option to donate via an ATM. Just what type of church might do such a thing?

Jeans are welcome at Stevens Creek Community Church, the 1,100-member evangelical congregation Baker founded 19 years ago. Sermons are available as podcasts, and the electric house band has been known to cover Aerosmith's "Dream On." A recent men's fellowship breakfast was devoted to discussing the spiritual wages of lunching at Hooters.

A theological debate for our times.

Robert Reich in the American Prospect:

In 1960, the moguls of America paid a marginal tax of 90 percent on their incomes, which translated into an effective rate -- after all deductions and credits -- of some 50 percent. They also paid hefty taxes on their capital gains. And when they died, their heirs paid estate taxes.

But in 1960, it was also the case that over two-thirds of Americans trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time, according to survey research.

Now, the moguls pay an effective rate of about 15 percent of their incomes. They don’t pay anything at all if they have clever enough accountants and lawyers to park their loot in tax havens. Their capital gains taxes have been lowered, and their estate taxes are being phased out.

What’s more, they're richer today than ever before in history. The latest release of Forbes Magazine's annual listing of the richest 400 Americans is made up solely of billionaires -- for the first time.

And what of government? Now, according to surveys, two-thirds of Americans don’t trust government to do anything right.

Two more years and we may be batting 1.000.

Dick DeVos is running for Governor of Michigan against Democratic incumbant Jennifer Granholm. Michigan's economy -- dependent as it is on the auto industry -- is in the toilet. It's a tight race. The mainstream Michigan media, however, don't seem all that interested in reporting on Devos's philanthropy, which is surely an indication of where his heart lies. Leave it to the alternative weekly Metro News:

Although DeVos has released a list of 449 charities he's contributed to — including both personal and foundation contributions — when pressed to reveal how they reflect his beliefs, and how those beliefs would affect his agenda as governor, the candidate has remained mum.

For example, regarding the issue of abortion, DeVos has said only that he's "pro-life." When pressed by an AP reporter for the details of that position, DeVos campaign spokesman John Truscott said, "We're not going to get into parsing this a thousand different ways."

Yet DeVos has contributed to the anti-abortion group Right to Life of Michigan Educational Foundation, which opposes abortion even in cases of incest and rape. The Detroit News columnist Laura Berman contacted the group and reportedly was told that to get its endorsement a candidate must be "pro-life with no exception other than the life of the mother."

DeVos received the endorsement. And his foundation gave the group $125,000 from 1996 through 2004.

When the Lansing State Journal editorial board asked the candidate about embryonic stem cell research, he reportedly "wouldn't even venture a viewpoint." And columnist Tim Skubick reported DeVos saying the issue was "very complicated" and declined to take a position.

One of DeVos' beneficiaries, James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, based in Colorado with affiliates across the country, wasn't nearly so reticent on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.

"You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this issue is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes," Dobson said on an August radio broadcast. "There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind."

Dobson's Focus on the Family received $570,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation from 1996 through 2004.

A little philanthropy to help ensure a 12-year-old victim of incest can't get an abortion.

The Ad Council launches a new ad campaign. Philanthropy about "nothing," at least for right now.

Typically, the council asks an advertising agency to create a campaign after receiving a request from a charity like the United Negro College Fund (“A mind is a terrible thing to waste”) or a government agency like the Department of Transportation (“Friends don’t let friends drive drunk”).

In this instance, however, the council, through a vote of the executive committee of its board of directors, commissioned the “Generous Nation” campaign. It is the first time in the history of the council, which was founded in 1942 as the War Advertising Council, that the organization itself is serving as the sponsor of a campaign, Ms. Conlon said.

The culprit: media fragmentation:

That is especially true because of “the fragmentation of the media marketplace,” Dr. Winsten said, which makes it increasingly difficult to reach consumers with what are known as pro-social messages.

The Ad Agencies kick it off:

The campaign is to be introduced at one of the first events scheduled for Advertising Week, the annual agency industry gathering in New York. As a way of bringing to life the concept of “Generous Nation,” the council plans to conduct a weeklong blood drive among agency employees and the general public.

Maybe not such a good idea.

Phil at Gifthub ponders the right wing's philanthropic association. Since Bushmania took over Washington in 2001, the Philanthropy Roundtable has become the hip little W Hotel for mainstream foundations. "We're so cool. We're super-liberal and we joined the Roundtable!"

It's not the sponsors, Lucy; it's the audience.

Forbes list of the 400 richest people in the world includes none of those pathetic little millionaires:

"It is a really big deal that it's all billionaires," said Forbes associate editor Matthew Miller, who edited the list and led the team that spent a year compiling it. "It shows economic growth and, as this magazine is a fan of capitalism, it shows progress."

Clearly, Mr. Miller relies on some economic indicators to represent "progress" more than others. And here's your new trickle down economy:

On the one hand, the fortunes have spawned a new age of philanthropy, by which private individuals can try to effect change with the power and reach of a government but without the bureaucratic shackles that often thwart aid efforts.

Let's promote economic policies that benefit the super rich so they, in turn, can get a tax deduction to help those who are unhelped by our economic policies.

Back from my bender. My esteemed colleague at White Courtesy Telephone has provided some literary criticism of the Google press release announcing its new giving arm:

According to the company’s own press release, Google.org is simply an “umbrella term” that “includes the work of the Google Foundation, some of Google’s own projects using Google talent, technology and other resources, as well as partnerships and contributions to for-profit and non-profit entities.”

It’s not a new philanthropy, it’s not a new way of doing philanthropy.  It’s a corporate giving program not much different from any other.

WCT also accuses the New York Times reporter I mentioned in my post last week [and who I stated wrote what I thought was an "insightful" piece on Google's new philanthropic venture] of hyping the story.

There are innovations in marketing and there are innovations in philanthropy. Sticking all of the "good" a company does, whether it be tax-deductable or not, under some corporate philanthropic umbrella is nothing new. I've never thought the tax code was much of a motivator for a company to cut checks to the local soup kitchen.

Perhaps the Times, by sending a business reporter off to cover the Google.org story [is there a segment of the news media that kowtows to the institutions it theoretically covers in an objective fashion as much as the business media?] made too much of it. And maybe Google's PR honchos are looking for some wet kisses for the company's newly conceived mechanism for generosity. I'd say Google's corporate track record of innovation bodes well for its philanthropy.

Maybe the New York Times should let reporter Katie Hafner cover philanthropy instead of the reporters who shot blanks at Wal-Mart. In one of the more insightful pieces about the "new" philanthropy, Hafner gives us an analysis of Google's approach:

By choosing for-profit status, Google will have to pay taxes if company shares are sold at a profit — or if corporate earnings are used — to finance Google.org. Any resulting venture that shows a profit will also have to pay taxes. Shareholders may not like the fact that the Google.org tax forms will not be made public, but kept private as part of the tax filings of the parent, Google Inc.

Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, believe for-profit status will greatly increase their philanthropy’s range and flexibility. It could, for example, form a company to sell the converted cars, finance that company in partnership with venture capitalists, and even hire a lobbyist to pressure Congress to pass legislation granting a tax credit to consumers who buy the cars.

Google's latest innovation: Rendering the charitable tax-exemption uncool.

I generally fall in the category of people who think, when the history is written, Wal-Mart will have done more harm than good to the overall well-being of the country. But if you're going to actually go after the big-box demon at least bring some logic and a few relevant facts.

I read the New York Times story last Friday insinuating Wal-Mart was paying off conservative think tanks with grants from the Walton Family Foundation, the private giving arm of the family that owns the company. The story alleged that, in exchange for grants, the think tanks placed Op-Eds in newspapers stating support for Wal-Mart's business practices.

The evidence was pretty thin. Two-and-a-half-million over six years went to conservative groups; this from a foundation that gave away more than $100 million in 2004 alone. All the grants cited in the story were, as the article states, tiny percentages of the recipient organizations' overall fundraising for any given year [$100k to the American Enteprise Institute over three years; AEI raised $24 million in 2004]. Every other graph contained a fact that eroded the underlying premise of the story.

The only element of the story that seemed to have relevance was the "fact" that the Op-Ed contributors didn't disclose they had received some dough from the company. That is, until this classic correction appeared today:

An article in Business Day on Friday reported that the Walton Family Foundation had made contributions to four conservative research groups whose analysts wrote articles favorable to Wal-Mart Stores for newspapers and journals around the country. The Times article said that the groups and their employees had consistently failed to disclose the donations, and it said in the first paragraph that the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research was one of them. But a Manhattan Institute author had told The Times that he had indeed disclosed contributions from the Walton Foundation in an article he wrote, a fact that should have been included in the Times article.

The article also reported that Tim Kane of the Heritage Foundation and Karl Zinsmeister, formerly of the American Enterprise Institute, were among those who wrote articles favorable to Wal-Mart after their foundations received a donation.

Both those groups were called for comment for the Times article. Mr. Kane, who was not called, subsequently said that he did not know about the Walton Family Foundation contribution and that he had criticized Wal-Mart’s call for a higher federal minimum wage in an article he wrote. The Times also did not ask Mr. Zinsmeister to comment, but he declined to do so when reached after the Times article was published. Both Mr. Kane and Mr. Zinsmeister should have been asked to comment before publication.

Way to stick a fork in any credibility in your future reporting of Wal-Mart and its corporate giving. A little ecstasy for the wingers.

The Getty Trust is the gift that keeps on giving to the editors of the LA Times:

On a Saturday morning in early December, a group of outsiders dressed in jeans arrived at the J. Paul Getty Trust to carry out a secret plan: copying the computer hard drives in the offices of Chief Executive Barry Munitz without his knowledge.

...

The records also show that the attorneys spent a substantial amount of time investigating Munitz's previously unreported use of Getty funds to advance the career of a German art student whom he hired as a "senior advisor" and sponsored as an intern at another museum. They also reviewed his expenditures linked to a Russian researcher whose museum received a Getty grant.

The Getty has declined to disclose whether those expenditures were deemed appropriate. Munitz, through his lawyer, said he was a mentor to both women, as he has been to "students, colleagues and future leaders" over the last 40 years.

I'll bet.

Selfish Giving goes through the rebranding tunnel and emerges with savvy.

I've spun-off the Selfish Giver as its own website, SavvyGiver.org.  I dropped the "Selfish", much as I hated to.  The juxtaposition of the two words was edgy and jarring, which I liked.  But I did some informal polling and people thought it was too harsh.  One woman said, "I don't want to be called 'selfish' when I'm doing something good, even if I do stand to benefit from it."

I'd agree that "savvy" is much easier on the philanthropic palate. Best of luck, SG, with the new venture.

Kiplinger's reports:

If you're waiting for an inheritance from Mom and Dad in the years ahead, chances are you'll still be waiting. Despite all the headlines heralding the Greatest Wealth Transfer Ever, nothing of the sort has happened and the experts who analyze family finances say that it's not likely to. "It's not an upbeat picture," says John Gist, who has analyzed extensive Federal Reserve survey data for AARP's Public Policy Institute.

As WCT highlighted a few months ago, what philanthropy researchers predicted may turn out to be something of a hoax.

A bit off topic, but I had to link to this post about recent efforts of "conservative fake nonprofit foundations" to kill some legislation in California. Hilarious.

It appears we'll now be getting all the bloody details. Stay tuned.

I have a shiny new set of crayons and will use all the brightest colors to respond to David Hogberg's post at the American Spectator about my criticisms of the latest eye-opener from the Capital Research Center.

Despite evidence to the contrary, I can muster up enough intelligence to understand the point that "all the giving is a matter of public record." I wasn't questioning the data itself, but rather how it was interpreted. Foundation grants are generally made for specific projects. As I wrote, if a corporate foundation gave a grant specifically to the Brookings Institution for the publishing of a book extolling the virtues of welfare reform, categorizing those dollars as "left" is misleading.

Having some indication of why specific organizations received their categorizations would have made the study much more transparent. What data was used for categorizing the organizations? Web sites? Annual reports? A survey? Word of mouth? Given the entirety of one organization's work, what tipped them to one side or the other?

I dared offer my opinion [while calling out CRC for its subjectivity] on the accuracy of its categorization of Focus on the Family. Whatever one believes constitutes a "traditional value," Focus on the Family was quite vocal about its support for the Bush tax cuts and even more so for privatizing social security. Excluding [if indeed it was considered - more on that below] Focus on the Family's support for more government regulation of the television industry, my point, delivered however inelegantly, was that Focus on the Family is an example of a pretty straightforward call.

After some reconsideration [god forbid!], with the exception of "traditional values," and its leftie counterpart, "liberal values," I don't have a problem with CRC's criteria. The rest are fairly obvious. But did the Parents Television Council get an appropriate allocation of "left" points for its pressuring companies to pull their ads from a television show [how anti-free market can you be, really?] like Rainbow Push received for, as CRC's article calls it, Jesse Jackson's corporate "shakedowns?" And did the many organizations listed on the "right" that feel the FCC needs to play the role of television and radio censor get any "left" points for that particular little love affair with government regulation? And of the many, many environmental organizations on the "left" list, none was doing anything that might have landed them on the "right" [these guys and these guys seem to be straight down the political middle]?

As to my "distortion" of the Bank of America matching gifts, CRC states on its Web site that "Bank of America's charitable arm unapologetically funds ecoterrorism." Even if, for a mere $300, that statement is true, nothing about it indicates the authors feel the matching gift to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an example of "indifference" on the part of the Bank of America Foundation.

Yes. I'm a lousy speller.

White Courtesy Telephone highlights the fact that the story that was the great liberal campaign finance reform conspiracy [otherwise known as "Pewgate"] has had all the legs of this little guy:

It has now been more than a year since discussions of Pewgate made the rounds of the Blogosphere, and Mr. Treglia has not been brought to justice.  This, dear readers, is because there simply was no crime committed.  In fact, Mr. Treglia’s actions didn’t even qualify as naughty.

As WCT points out, Pewgate turns out to be very little to do with nothing. Conspiracies in the right-wing blogosphere tend to die quickly and quietly.

The New York Times weighed in last week on Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who ruled against the Bush Administration's NSA spying program. Judicial watch is accusing Judge Taylor of having a conflict of interest because she sits on the board of the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan. Seems the foundation has made grants to the A.C.L.U., which opposes the NSA program. The grants were not related to the NSA.

Just one question for Judicial Watch. Say, hypothetically, Judge Taylor had ruled in favor of the Bush Administration's NSA policy. Would we be hearing from you?

Say it ain't so. Businessweek examines competition among donor advised funds, community foundations, and [post-Buffetmania] private foundations:

With so much at stake—literally, tens of billions of dollars flowing annually into private foundations, community foundations, and donor-advised funds—it should come as no surprise that competition for control of those dollars should exist. The competition among commercial donor-advised funds is quite pervasive and very public. Yet a more subtle form of competition exists among community foundations in their struggle for charitable assets.

Faced with the rapid growth of commercial donor-advised funds and the powerful appeal of family foundations, community foundations have been struggling to preserve their donor base and increase their assets. For answers, community foundations have turned to a cadre of consultants and advisers, retuned their marketing messages, and gone on the offensive. Often, the target of their antipathy is the private foundation, for reasons that are not altogether clear—except, perhaps, that private foundations continue to dwarf community foundations in both number and amount of total charitable assets, and thus represent the largest potential source of new donors and new assets.

The community foundation vs. donor advised fund discussion has been happening for quite awhile. The idea that private foundations may offer a third option for would-be philanthropists is no doubt a nightmarish scenario for your average community foundation CEO. I await the announcement of the opening of the Ford Foundation's development office.

The kind folks over at CRC have updated their post and pointed out an egregious error in my latest post about CRC's earth-shattering new study that uncovered liberal bias in the grantmaking of the foundations of Fortune 100 companies. I wrote:

I was not aware that CRC published on its Web site the entire list of the recipient organizations of the corporate foundations it examined. As standard practice, it's helpful to mention in a print article the fact that additional data is available online.

Page two of the print article detailing CRC's research says:

For a complete list of the foundations and their grantees, see the August 4, 2006 highlight at http://capitalresearch.org.

It's always helpful, especially when employing the somewhat delicate art form of sarcasm, to get the facts right. Maybe I was distracted by the high-school-yearbook-quality of the adjacent photo of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond. Whatever the case, I've been sufficiently, and deservedly, chastised by CRC for my error.

CRC is free to use this oversight on my part as reason to dismiss me as a "self-marginalizing" critic. I'll continue to keep a look out for the release of a "study" from CRC that does anything other than confirm the organization's liberal conspiracy theories. Until then, CRC will continue to influence only its ideological soul mates.

I am forever grateful to Matthew Vadum at the CRC-Greenwatch blog [those greens need watching, you know; we might all end up with some clean air to breathe] for his thoughtful consideration of my post about the Capital Research Center's recent article detailing how many Fortune 100 companies are, through their corporate grantmaking foundations, inadvertantly [or secretly] aiding the regimes of Castro and Kim Jong Il.

I'll concede on a couple of points, and my responses to Vadum are detailed below:

1] I did, in fact, offer in my criticism a simplified explanation of the academic research process. I found it difficult to outline the many flavors of academic research models in a less-than-500-word blog post. However, if there's a single research project during which CRC suddenly realized theory A was totally off the mark ["the federal government can't find its ass in the bathroom"] and published the evidence in the form of an argument for theory B ["gee, maybe the federal highway system thingy is ok"], I can't find any evidence of it. I'm open to suggestions.

2] I was not aware that CRC published on its Web site the entire list of the recipient organizations of the corporate foundations it examined. As standard practice, it's helpful to mention in a print article the fact that additional data is available online. Then I'll know to go and look for it. Vadum did not respond to my point about two of the organizations listed in the article. The Cato Institute, defined as "right" for purposes of CRC's study, recently published a book castigating the Republicans for their less-than-sound fiscal policies. The Brookings Institution, defined as "left" for purposes of the study, recently published a book praising welfare reform. If, say, the Bank of America Foundation funded Cato and Brookings specifically for these book projects, right is left and left is right.

3] Given CRC's mission statement, it's very difficult to believe that as researchers were going about categorizing organizations as "left" or "right," the "left" bucket wasn't a lot bigger than the "right" bucket. It would've been some extra work, but having some indication of just why the organizations received their designations would've been helpful. It's not that I don't like the definitions themselves. Large organizations, in particular, are involved in a variety of issues; sometimes they side with conservatives and sometimes with liberals. Given CRC's political philosophy, it's not too far-fetched to believe that the tiniest of liberal indicators landed an organization on the "left" side of the fence regardless of the organization's overall focus.

4] Maybe the reason corporations won't give CRC data on their contributions that aren't made through their foundations is that if they do CRC will find a $50 employee match as reason to call them eco-terrorists. Kind of saps the veep of public relations' desire to truthfully fill out the CRC survey.

Finally, it's always helpful to have a free spell check service. We bloggers are well aware that our credibility is rooted in our grammatical correctness.

Link:

Hoffman, a noted Dallas philanthropist, died Sunday at an area hospital. He had been suffering from leukemia since December, according to his family.

He was a co-founder and managing editor of the humorous National Lampoon, spawned from the Harvard Lampoon, created while he was a student at the university.

...

Hoffman was named one of Business Week magazine's top 50 philanthropists for 2005.

A longtime art collector, he and his wife, Marguerite, in March gave 224 art objects valued at $150 million to the Dallas Museum of Art.

Philanthropic humorist [or humorous philanthropist] is not an oxymoron.

The Capital Research Center, which is to objective research what most congressional election campaigns are to truth in advertising, has released some new "research" on corporate philanthropy. We should not be "shocked, shocked" that CRC has determined corporate foundations to be the secret tools of Castro and Kim Jong Il.

In the world of real academic research, most study is conducted by bringing together all the evidence and allowing such evidence to determine the thesis that is put forward. In CRC's case, the process seems to be just the opposite.

The authors of the subtly titled article detailing the research, "Funding Liberalism with Blue-Chip Profits: Fortune 100 Foundations Back Leftist Causes," are thoroughly perplexed that corporate foundations would rather give dollars to environmental organizations that may have some appeal to soccer moms concerned about their kids' breathing soot from a nearby smokestack than to think tanks trying to rescue America from a descent into socialism.

CRC neatly arranged the recipient organizations of the corporate foundations it examined into "left" and "right." In CRC's world, there is no "center." Not surprisingly, CRC offers a very very partial list of the organizations and their categorizations. On the left are the Brookings Institution [which just published a book, written by a Republican, extolling the virtues of welfare reform legislation passed in the '90s], and those evil, aged communists at the AARP Foundation. On the right are the Cato Institute [which just published a book titled, Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government], and [correctly] James Dobson's Focus on the Family. It offers a convoluted explanation of what constitutes "right" and what constitutes "left," saying "we also put on the right groups that defend traditional values..." Now, that's objective.

Perhaps the most glaring inadequecy of CRC's research is that it only examined the foundations of Fortune 100 corporations. Corporations give boatloads of money away directly, sometimes much more than they do through their established foundations. Using this limited sample to determine political intent is like trying to determine the annual beer consumption of Americans while excluding Budweiser and Miller.

Also playing a role in the liberal corporate philanthropy conspiracy, according to the article, are matching gifts programs, which allow employees to give to their favorite charities while having their employers provide a match. As evidence the article offers up a single $300 and a single $50 matching gift processed through the Bank of America Foundation. The $300 gift went to the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society, which CRC accuses of sinking fishing vessels, and the $50 went to International A.N.S.W.E.R., the leaders for which CRC accuses of "supporting the communist dictatorships of Cuba and North Korea" [note: this may be true].

The point is, $350 does not a conspiracy make. But when you're trying to prove a point ...

Lucy Bernholz on regulatory improvements for foundations:

Second, the regulatory system for organized philanthropy (foundations) relies heavily on penalties (see the post hoc note above). The problem with this is that no one really suffers from penalties on foundations. No CEO loses his/her job, staff aren’t docked salary, and the donor has already given over the funds to the organization so the money isn’t coming out of her pocket. The only ones who might suffer are potential grantees. Once the penalty fee is assessed the likely response is to decrease the grants budget (not cut salaries or jobs at the Foundation). So the community suffers, but these organizations have no power vis-à-vis the foundation to begin with so their pain is not a very effective deterrent.

While I'm not sure I agree that the suits in Washington can implement regulations that make foundations behave, I think Lucy is exactly right. Foundation executives are like NCAA coaches who commit recruiting violations. They don't lose their jobs, but the kids involved get booted off their teams. The only way a coach loses his or her job is if the university's students, faculty and/or community put pressure on the administration.

Perhaps an imprecise analogy, but I think communities can do a better job keeping foundations in line than any regulations on the books. The problem, of course, is that people or organizations that criticize foundations greatly decrease their chances of getting funding from the foundations they criticize. Unfortunately, it's the way the game is played.

Just a hunch that the Contra Costa Times won't be doing investigative reporting on the Gates Foundation anytime soon:

Several organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, lent a total of $350-million to MediaNews Group for its purchase of four newspapers: the Contra Costa Times; The Herald, in Monterey County; the San Jose Mercury News; and the Pioneer Press, in St. Paul, reports the Associated Press.

Program-related investment, anyone?

It goes without saying that over the past few years the Getty Trust was managed like a cookie jar in a household run by five-year-olds. Just when you think nothing else embarrasing could possibly be unearthed, the LA Times gave us this over the weekend:

David Gardner, the former chairman of the board of J. Paul Getty Trust, has returned nearly $100,000 of the money he was paid to write a coffee-table book on the history of the arts institution after he left the board in 2004 but never produced.

The Getty asked Gardner to pay back the money after an internal investigation concluded that the book deal violated tax laws prohibiting excess compensation and self-dealing, Getty spokesman Ron Hartwig said Friday.

Gardner is keeping 78 grand he was paid for the project. To date, he's produced an "outline" but hasn't conducted any interviews.

Which makes this announcement last week even more perplexing:

LOS ANGELES—The Board of Trustees of the J. Paul Getty Trust today announced it has elected Louise H. Bryson as board chair, replacing John Biggs, who announced earlier that he planned to step down and retire from the board by the end of October.  Ms. Bryson will assume the role of chair immediately.

Ms. Bryson, who is currently one of the board’s three vice chairs, has been a Getty Trustee since April 1998.  She currently heads the ad hoc Search Committee, charged with identifying a new president and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust; she served as chair of the Investment and Finance Committee from 2000 to 2003, and since then as chair of the External Affairs Committee.

You'd think The Getty, having become a complete clusterfuck over the past three years, would look to someone outside the organization to chair its board. It's tough letting go of that cookie jar.