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